Good people appreciate that we stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us. We should be grateful for the hard work and competence of those who have served us in the past and generated resources that we have used.

I want to make clear that I and the Kane County Board are committed to working with Sheriff Don Kramer to resolve the budget issues referred to in this essay. But as the chairman of the Kane County Board, I also want to make clear what the issues are, what my position will be moving forward and what my commitment will be to the citizens and taxpayers of Kane County.

The following are 10 things well-informed taxpayers of Kane County need to know about the Sheriff’s Office budget.

(1) The sheriff is responsible for his own revenue.

The Sheriff’s Office annual budget is $21 million. That budget consists of $5.4 million in revenue and $26.4 million in expenditures. Almost half of that $5.4 million revenue ($2.5 million) came from housing U.S. Marshals’ prisoners. State law is clear that, if revenues decrease, then the board can require that expenses must also decrease.

(2) The sheriff terminated an agreement with U.S. Marshals Service.

On Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, two weeks after being sworn into office, without any authorization of the County Board as a whole, and without notifying any board member individually, the sheriff cancelled the U.S. Marshals contract via the following email from Lt. James (Chris) Lewis:

“This email is a follow up from our conversation that it (has) been determined that the Kane County Sheriff will be terminating the agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service … ”

(3) The Marshals Service confirmed the transfer of prisoners.

On Jan. 5, 2015, three weeks after Sheriff Kramer’s email, during a goodwill telephone call to the U.S. Marshals Service, the County Board discovered the unauthorized, unilateral termination of the agreement. On Jan. 7, 2015, Lt. James (Chris) Lewis at the Sheriff’s Office received the following email:

“Greetings, I am the United States Marshal for N/IL (Northern Illinois). I am writing to inform you that we will be moving forward with our plan to move prisoners from your jail. In an effort to avoid dragging you into what appears to be an internal dispute, I ask that you have the sheriff contact me as soon as possible. If I do not hear from him today I will assume this matter is closed and we will move forward with our plan.

“Joel Kirch, United State Marshal N/IL.”

(4) The sheriff tried to rescind termination.

In an undated (approximately Jan. 7, 2015) email from the sheriff to the U.S. Marshals Service, the sheriff attempted to reverse his decision that had been communicated three weeks earlier. However, that decision came too late. Forty-three (43) of approximately 95 prisoners were transferred out of the jail the next morning. This is the sheriff’s email to the U.S. Marshals Service:

“Please accept my apology for not speaking with you personally about altering our Intergovernmental Agreement. This is notice that I would like to rescind the request to terminate our agreement. The County Board Chairman and I have discussed the terms of the agreement and would like it to remain in full force until further notice.”

The only conversation that Sheriff Kramer and I had about the U.S. Marshals Agreement was not about “terms,” but only about the importance of this relationship to the county’s finances.

(5) The sheriff cut his revenue by $2.5 million.

By unilaterally terminating the intergovernmental agreement between Kane County and the U.S. Marshals Service without authority and without notification to the board, and by failing to reinstate it, the sheriff cut his budgeted revenue by $2.5 million.

When news accounts report that the County Board is “cutting the sheriff’s budget,” they are mistaken. Sheriff Kramer decided to cut his own budget revenue, and the board is now taking necessary action to balance his forfeiture of revenue.

As a countywide elected official, the sheriff has the authority to run his department as he sees fit, but he does not have the authority to destabilize the entire county’s balanced budget.

The County Board and the chairmen (and members) of the Judiciary Committee and Finance Committee are committed to helping the sheriff solve the budget deficit that has been created by his termination of this program that provided $2.5 million to pay for expenses in his department.  If the Sheriff’s cut of his budget revenue is not replaced, the sheriff’s expenses will need to be cut by an equal amount to maintain the county’s balanced budget.

(6) The negative impact on the Sheriff’s Office budget is due to one person’s decision after two weeks in office.

The $2.5 million total budget for U.S. Marshals program is equivalent to:

• Salary and benefits of 24.4 correctional officers
• Funding to Operate 2 Jail Pods (128 Prisoner Capacity)
• 16.9% of FY15 Sheriff’s Corrections Budget
• 9.5% of FY15 Sheriff’s Office Total Budget
• 7.6% Property Tax Increase Avoided

Source: Finance Department Executive Director Joseph Onzick Judiciary Committee and Finance Committee Presentations

(7) The program under previous management met all measurable safety standards.

The sheriff now claims he took action because the Kane County Jail is not safe. This is clearly not the case:

• Annual inspections by the Illinois Department of Corrections were passed successfully.
• Periodic inspections by the U.S. Marshals Office were passed successfully.
• Satisfaction with the day-to-day implementation of the U.S. Marshals Prisoner Program led to increases (not decreases) in the number of inmates to approximately 95 per day.
• If there were truly a safety concern, the sheriff would not have attempted to rescind his termination request by asking that the program be restored, in his words, “… in full force.” Unfortunately, when he took action more than three weeks after he sent the termination notice, it was too late.
• Eight (8) years of Judiciary Committee meeting minutes (nearly 100 months of notes) revealed no mention of safety concerns. No previous chairman of the Judiciary Committee, no board member, no member of the sheriff’s management staff is on record being concerned with Kane County meeting safety standards.
• Individual Corrections Officers would have considered it their professional duty to speak out about any safety deficiencies. Also, the Corrections Officer’s Union would have filed a written complaint if there had been any safety concerns.
• Jail management practice has been consistent with two consulting reports commissioned by the Board and supported by the previous sheriff.
• Review of past employee workman’s compensation cases and non-frivolous prisoner treatment complaints are within standard safety levels.

To now claim that Kane County has a prison safety issue that justifies the unilateral, unauthorized forfeiture of $2.5 million in budget revenue without any board notification is not supported by evidence and is now dangerous by inviting unsubstantiated lawsuits.

Even if the new sheriff had safety concerns beyond anyone else’s experience, his first step should not have been termination without authority and without notification. Proper action would have been to bring his thoughts and evidence forward to the County Board’s Judiciary Committee so that it could have been addressed by the whole county team.

(8) Other counties have coveted greater participation in the U.S. Marshals Prisoner Programs.

Kendall County’s new Sheriff Dwight Baird recognizes the value of what we have lost when he was quoted in a recent local newspaper: “This (U.S. Marshals Service Prisoner Program) will generate revenue for the county,” he said. “Our intent is to work with the federal government and maximize our resources here in Kendall County.”

(9) Corrective action was unanimously supported by the Feb. 4, 2015, Executive Committee Board vote.

(10) The only course of action to protect the county budget (and all county functions) is for the board and the sheriff to work cooperatively to replace revenue (a long-term, difficult process) or for the sheriff to cut his expenses now that he has decided to cut his revenue by effectively terminating the agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service.

Tuesday’s full County Board meeting vote to support the Executive Committee’s unanimous recommendation to require the sheriff to cut an initial $225,000 from his budget is only a first step to addressing the serious financial problem caused by the sheriff’s decision to terminate the U.S. Marshals Program.

If each department and agency of Kane County government does not live within its means, the property tax freeze cannot be maintained.  Elected officials and appointed managers have the authority to spend money within budget boundaries … but they also have the responsibility to meet our mutual constituents’ expectations of holding the line on property taxes.

Chris Lauzen
Kane County Board Chairman