If you leave your doors unlocked, is it legal . . .

By:  Diane Benjamin

It’s David Hales fault!

That is John Butler’s claim to justify the missing bucks.  I blame David Hales too, and the Council, and the Mayor who all shut their eyes and pretended nothing nefarious was happening with taxpayer money.  The joint was audited!  Except concessions never were.  Johnny Butler made sure of that.

So Johnny, if somebody leaves their doors unlocked, is it okay to steal everything inside?

If a jailer forgets to lock the cell, is it okay for you to escape?

Yes, David Hales didn’t do his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Bloomington.  Failure to protect the taxpayer investment in the Judy dome isn’t a crime (it should be), but the Council gifted Hales with big raises and praise for his management ability while ignoring facts.

Who looks stupid now?

Hales if off to Joliet making even more money from a Council that didn’t know there was an investigation when they hired him!

Karen Schmidt and David Hales will never vote to release the minutes of the Executive Sessions where they praised Hales and tossed your money to the guy who failed you.

At least three other Council members had to go along, until the Council is replaced their identities are a secret.  I wonder if Sage and Schmidt will keep running for office forever to protect their legacy?  I wonder if all those years of secret minutes keep them up at night?


I bet they wish the whole case would go away with no resolution, no prosecution, and no justice for taxpayers.

Johnny might have a hard time explaining why he shredded documents if he had nothing to hide.  Most of the Council needs to explain why caring was just too difficult.

The clowns who voted to build it violated the public’s trust, the Council, Mayor, and Hales flushed it.






8 thoughts on “If you leave your doors unlocked, is it legal . . .

  1. It is a crime –
    Below is the Illinois statute that addresses official misconduct of a public officer – in this case David Hales.
    It is cited as a class 3 felony.
    Section (a) clearly states that intentionally or recklessly failing to perform lawful duty or performing act forbidden by law.
    City Manager Hales had a lawful duty and obligation to perform the necessary duties and responsibilities stipulated in the CIAM contract.
    For whatever reason, Hales did breached that lawful duty.
    David Hales’ failure to perform those duties and responsibilities falls squarely into the statute’s parameters.
    In this case it is not what he did wrong, but what he didn’t do that he was lawfully required to do that makes him potentially guilty.

    (720 ILCS 5/33‑3)(from Ch. 38, par. 33‑3)
    Sec. 33‑3. Official Misconduct.) A public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he commits any of the following acts:
    (a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or
    (b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or
    (c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority; or
    (d) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.
    A public officer or employee or special government agent convicted of violating any provision of this Section forfeits his office or employment or position as a special government agent. In addition, he commits a Class 3 felony.
    For purposes of this Section, “special government agent” has the meaning ascribed to it in subsection (l) of Section 4A‑101 of the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
    (Source: P.A. 94‑338, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

      1. Its not about whether anyone got paid or not, it’s about what he failed to do; what his lawful obligations were according to the contract that he failed to perform and that this failure was official misconduct. And no one will ever be guilty if no one pursues it. In this case, it is up to the citizen to pursue it.

  2. And, that begs the obvious question:
    Would everyone else who failed to object and who allowed it to go on, be guilty too?

  3. And, consider this perspective: John Butler may be just trying to shift blame, but Butler just provided the citizens a gift by implicating David Hales; it’s an open door to pursue an allegation one of the charged defendant’s provided. Butler is essentially broadcasting Hales is guilty of not doing his job – official misconduct. You want Hales held accountable? Here’s the opportunity.

  4. In Butlers position he’s GOING to throw ALL the DEAD weight off the boat that he can to keep it afloat! With 44 counts it isn’t easy to say ” Well I wasn’t aware of” it’s more like DAMN, I got CAUGHT in the cookie jar… AND with that he’s going to include anyone he can. Is Hales guilty of NOT doing his job? YES? Will Jason prosecute him, NO! It would take a 60 minutes special story to get the attention this WHOLE ball of wax DESERVES!

Leave a Reply