McLean County-Michelle Anderson investigation

by:  Diane Benjamin

According to the Pantagraph, County Auditor Michelle Anderson has been questioned by the County Finance Committee concerning the purchase of new furniture for her office.  Evidently the furniture wasn’t budgeted, the money came from a personnel account.  The question now is whether she will be held accountable for shifting money.  The Pantagraph article and comments made by committee members sounded like Anderson violated County policies.

What’s the penalty?

I don’t know!  (I hear she should be forced to pay the bill herself!)

The County must hold her accountable.

County actions will clearly show how important stewardship of taxpayer is.

This information was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act:

Here is the furniture Anderson replaced-click to enlarge it:


Here is the Invoice for the purchased furniture:


bought2See the follow up story:






6 thoughts on “McLean County-Michelle Anderson investigation

  1. Finance Committee and County Board members will typically respond that they do not have the ability to control this because of “internal control.” Nonsense. I KNOW the county purchasing and budgeting rules. She violated them. She did not have the budgeted money and is not allowed to spend outside of the specific line items without Board approval. They should refuse this expenditure. They can. They won’t because they are a bunch of cowards and have no idea what they are doing.

      1. BLN Editor,
        It seems you’re at it again!
        It’s ironic you trumpet truth as the creed of your crusade for justice when very often that very element is absent in your own stock of principles.
        In the case of County Auditor Anderson, your parade for truth is undermined by your self-appointed position of judge and jury with your indictment, your version of evidence and your personal judgment of guilt reached all in one fell-swoop.
        While there may be questions surrounding Anderson’s spending, your accusations, standing alone, have no merit. And, rather than pursuing any actual investigative techniques or sources to discover the truth of the matter, you simply rely on your own assumption. Such tactics are not performed in the spirit of truth and the conclusions not reached in the sincere search for it.
        If I recall, Anderson was your opponent in a recent bid for that Auditor position – and you were not successful. The question of whether your judgement in this matter may be clouded due to some animosity is certainly a credible consideration.
        The documents you present to validate your accusations fail to rise to the level of your indictment and therefore, fail to pass muster. Again, as is usually typical of your rants, your charges are merely conclusory in nature and presented without any real basis in fact.
        Anderson may have expended County funds on furniture and miscellaneous items, but investigators have not yet determined if such spending was the result of any misconduct.
        The fact that line-items have been redacted fail to support your accusations.
        Your charge that Anderson has something to hide, as well, fails. Obviously, this spending was done openly with County funds appropriated accordingly and done so in a manner that does anything but suggest some tactic of secrecy.
        What I do find odd, is that why some of the line-items have been redacted? Panera Bread? Office Max? Not real condemning evidence but questionable. What I also find concerning is that Anderson appears to be the FOIA Officer. If this is the case, she is responding to and redacting information in her own affairs. For all intents and purposes, someone else should have reviewed this. As far as other items, I find nothing that would indicate a conspiracy or intent to hide anything or that would infer any cover-up. You, on the other hand, see criminal intent. I see nothing in the evidence you have presented that rises to that suspicion, even from a circumstantial perspective.
        May I suggest that your effort, and cause, might be better served and more productive if you would pursue your search for truth by simply asking for it instead of condemning it before it has an opportunity to be told.
        Instead of condemning Anderson, might a simple request for her side of the story been far more conducive to discovering and reporting the truth of the matter?
        I ask, is your effort truly to discover the truth, or is your cause one that merely sets a target, hits the kill-switch and then carves one more notch in the grip of your ill-aimed weapon?
        If there is truth yet to be told in this matter, you have failed to live up to your own creed.
        In the end, what have you accomplished for your cause?

        1. How can the truth be found when it is redacted by the subject of the FOIA. Anderson tried the same thing with my last FOIA. I assume the County will be forcing her to comply again. The bills are approved for payment by Anderson’s office. The Board will also be interested in what she spent money on since they haven’t seen the bills either.

          How does Anderson’s redactions NOT support my accusations? All I claimed was lack of transparency!

  2. The slant a graph actually reported this? Don’t they usually sweep this stuff under the rug. Kudos to you for following up on this!

  3. I thought once the appropriation level for an elected official was approved by the board, state law prohibits the board from changing that appropriation. It doesn’t matter what line it’s in once they establish the funding level. I understand what the county policy states, but I would think state law trumps here.

Leave a Reply