Charged with official misconduct and misapplication of funds — all felonies — in March, Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly seeks dismissal of the 15-count Lake County Court indictment against her contending that she was improperly accused.
Judge Patricia Fix scheduled an evidentiary hearing Monday in Lake County Court in Waukegan to listen to witnesses so she can determine if the case should be dismissed or continue toward trial later this year.
After scheduling the hearing at 10 a.m. Sept.5 in Waukegan to determine if she will dismiss the charges against Kilkelly, Fix moved the Sept. 30 trial date to Nov. 4 in Waukegan.
All of the claims against Kilkelly stem from credits she approved for five local businesses designed to give them financial relief from losses incurred due to the coronavirus pandemic. The companies were unable to operate at the time.
Under a city ordinance approved in late 2020, businesses with a liquor license, gaming license or both were entitled to a 25% credit against the renewal fee, according to the ordinance. The total money allegedly involved is $6,306.91, according to city records.
“The mayor (at the time) and City Council found it to be necessary and proper to provide these credits to businesses struggling with the pandemic and tried to comply with the efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19,” Ald. Keith Turner, 6th Ward, said at a March 18 City Council meeting.
Of the credits Kilkelly allegedly issued, the licenses of five of the businesses were not in good standing at the time, according to the language of the indictment and city records. Nowhere in the indictment is it alleged Kilkelly received any personal gain.
“It is important to note that the state does not allege that Kilkelly sought or attempted to gain any personal advantage, financial benefit or political compensation from her actions,” her attorneys write in the motion to dismiss.
In her motion to dismiss, Kilkelly’s attorneys argue she was charged with the alleged offenses while acting as the deputy liquor control commissioner. She never held such a position. She served as the administrative assistant to the commissioner.
“There is no credible evidence that Kilkelly was ever appointed deputy local liquor control commissioner,” she claims in the motion. “Instead, the evidence clearly indicates she was appointed as an administrative assistant.
Since the indictment alleges Kilkelly acted in her capacity as a public official, her attorneys argue in the motion she is improperly accused under the law. When such a situation occurs, the case should be dismissed.
“The integrity of our legal system mandates that charges not grounded in the clear and precise articulation of an offense must be dismissed without hesitation,” her attorneys said in the motion.
While Kilkelly argues she was improperly accused of the crimes, the prosecution claims her position as a public official creates an obligation. Therefore liability under the law exists and the judge must deny the motion.
“Defendant, having been a public officer of a unit of local government, knowingly misapplied credits of that unit of local government,” the prosecution said in its response to the motion. “The analysis ends there.”