Did Barsanti just suggest that Spahr's Integrity Saved Erwin & Gaffney from a Fraud Charge?

Barbara Erwin's been gone from the west Chicago suburban school district 303 for a couple of months now and it appears St Charles folks are about ready to get over it.

This from the Kane County Chronicle:

D-303 needs some help

Doing what the public wants would seem to be a tenet of any government body.

But so should making sure personnel files stay in a school district’s hands, following the Illinois Open Meetings Act, and not giving a superintendent 340 days of sick time.

Sadly, these are all tenets that School District 303 fell on the wrong side of with former Superintendent Barbara Erwin at its helm.

In the aftermath of the Erwin saga, the public’s trust in the district might have been at an all-time low. And so begins the rebuilding process.

Sounds like Scottsdale.

Recently in WestChiTown

Citing the fact that Barbara Erwin and Jim Gaffney's attempt to add 85 sick days (worth thousands of dollars) to Erwin's account was unsuccessful, State's Attorney John Barsanti told the Kane County Chronicle, “It’s not fraud. It’s not theft. Barbara Erwin didn’t get those days, so it doesn’t matter.”

Not the kind of line Sam Spade would have delivered.

I'm no lawyer, so maybe somebody can straighten me out here, but wasn't Barsanti only looking for attempted fraud to begin with? It sure doesn't seem Bobbie Raehl was under any false impressions. It was pretty clear that District 303 Human Resources Director Tony Spahr foiled whatever plot was afoot. There's Spahr's statement and the Gaffney memo; which confirms.

One asssumes that if Tony Spahr had bent to Barbara Erwin's pressure (and/or followed the memo Jim Gaffney says he signed but did not write) and credited her account with 85 sick days in opposition to Illinois state law - then that would have been something Barsanti could do something about!?

If that had happened, I'd bet a nickle it would have gotten pinned on Tony Spahr.

Sweet deal for the folks at the top of the food chain.

But as things are, Barsanti can't find a problem; and he's really looked. Barsanti said that he examined statutes ranging from fraud to official misconduct but found that no charge applied to the situation. Hard to believe; but, maybe so.

School board member cleared

in memo investigation

GENEVA - No charges will be filed against a member of the St. Charles school board following an investigation into a memo, signed by him, that indicated the board had approved additional sick-day credit to a former superintendent.

The Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office investigated a complaint brought against school board member Jim Gaffney, who signed the undated memo about sick days for then-Superintendent Barbara Erwin.

“Nothing fit,” State’s Attorney John Barsanti said...

There's really no statute governing attempted fraud in Illinois? ...seems surprising.

If the law dictionary is correct and property is 'anything that is owned by.. [an] entity,' then - isn't money property?

Have I mentioned that I'm not an attorney? I'm not. And I didn't spend much time trying to find an applicable statute, but I am curious...and skeptical. It wouldn't take much to convince me that government money was government property. Or, did the Illinois legislature really mean real estate?

(720 ILCS 5/46‑1.1)

Sec. 46‑1.1. Fraud on a governmental entity.

(a) A person commits the offense of fraud on a governmental entity when he or she knowingly obtains, attempts to obtain, or causes to be obtained, by deception, control over the property of any governmental entity by the making of a false claim of bodily injury or of damage to or loss or theft of property or by causing a false claim of bodily injury or of damage to or loss or theft of property to be made against the governmental entity, intending to deprive the governmental entity permanently of the use and benefit of that property.

(b) Sentence.
(1) A violation of this Section in which the value of the property obtained or
attempted to be obtained is $300 or less is a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of this Section in which the value of the property obtained or attempted to be obtained is more than $300 but not more than $10,000 is a Class 3
felony.
(3) A violation of this Section in which the value of the property obtained or attempted to be obtained is more than $10,000 but not more than $100,000 is a Class 2 felony.
(4) A violation of this Section in which the value of the property obtained or attempted to be obtained is more than $100,000 is a Class 1 felony.

(Source: P.A. 90‑333, eff. 1‑1‑98; 91‑232, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

Barsanti told the Chronicle that "he does not normally comment publicly on complaints filed with his office or their investigations." It's not completely clear why he made a special exception in this case. After receiving a written complaint, Barsanti’s office investigated that matter and examined criminal codes for an applicable charge, Barsanti said.

As it is, Spahr refused to misuse taxpayer dollars and Barsanti can't find a crime.