A Will County judge agreed Wednesday to appoint a special prosecutor in a legal dispute between 10 Will County Board Republicans and Will County Executive Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant.
The Republican members filed a lawsuit against Bertino-Tarrant in April in an attempt to stop a planned widening project of 143rd Street from State Street/Lemont Road to Bell Road from two to five lanes in Homer Glen.
The County Board in February passed a resolution stopping the widening project, which Bertino-Tarrant mistakenly signed. She later vetoed the resolution, which prompted the lawsuit.
The 10 Republicans asked for the court to appoint their attorneys Steven M. Laduzinsky, John E. Partelow and Jeff Tomczak to represent them, saying there is a conflict of interest having the Will County state’s attorney’s office advise the executive’s office and the County Board.
Will County Judge Brian Barrett said he agreed a special prosecutor should be granted and ruled a conflict exists where the state’s attorney’s office has to represent one side or another.
Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Scott Pyles said the court needs to attempt to engage a public agency before allowing a private counsel to save taxpayer money. Under the counties code, the court should attempt to engage services of a public prosecutor, which is already taxpayer-funded, he said.
The courts, for example, can look to other counties’ state’s attorney’s offices, the office of the attorney general or the office of the state’s attorney’s appellate prosecutor, Pyles said.
Laduzinksy said the County Board members passed a resolution with a bipartisan majority vote. When the executive signed the resolution, it became effective, he said.
“When does a law become a law,” he said.
He cited two Illinois cases where an unlawful veto was challenged in court.
“To hold that these legislators lack standing would be tantamount to stripping them of their legislative powers,” he wrote.
Pyles, who represents Bertino-Tarrant, argued the Republicans were not entitled to a special prosecutor because they don’t have standing to bring this litigation.
Pyles said the dispute is an ongoing legislative matter. The County Board has seemingly changed its mind on the road issue because several of the plaintiffs voted in favor of the county’s transportation plan this summer, which included 143rd Street to be widened to five lanes, he said. The board members also acknowledged the veto was valid by their attempt to override it, he said.
The 10 board members who filed the lawsuit do not represent the actions of the 22-member board, or would even represent a quorum of its members, Pyles said.
“They have no official capacity … and thus, are acting as 10 private citizens who happen to be County Board members,” Pyles wrote in his motion to deny a special prosecutor.
Barrett said the court will not be swayed by any accusations of political motivations and lawyers should steer clear of any buzzwords suggesting politics in their briefs. He said he is simply concerned with the legal process and not the political motivations of the county officeholders. The case will be back in court Jan. 29.
The 143rd Street project has been hotly debated during the last year with Homer Glen and Homer Township officials and several residents opposed to the widening. Residents said they believe a widened road would change the rural landscape, encroach on their property and encourage speeding and truck traffic.
County transportation officials said the expansion will improve safety and traffic flow. About $6.2 million has already been invested in the plans to widen 143rd Street.
Two Democrats who supported the resolution to stop the road project did not sign onto the lawsuit. Republican Mark Revis of Plainfield was the only Republican to support the widening project and is also not part of the lawsuit.
Michelle Mullins is a freelance reporter.