The Mayor-Tollway Deals

[Lorie Taylor]

While Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar was in San Diego at the Republican National Convention, his home was raided by state police as part of a two-year investigation into tollway land deals. The Chicago Tribune reported police also raided the office of Claar's accountant, Phillip Engstrom, and the Chicago office of lobbyist and former lawmaker Al Ronan.

The Illinois State Police inquiry turned to Claar in connection with the tollway authority's purchase of 27 acres near suburban Lemont from land developer Donald Hedg, who has contributed to Claar's campaign, according to the newspaper. Police are investigating thousands of dollars that have passed between Hedg, Ronan and Claar's consulting firm.

Earlier this summer, The Associated Press reported that Claar received a payout from a controversial Illinois Toll Highway Authority supplemental pension program. Claar is a board member of the tollway authority. Overall, 485 employees of the authority received nearly $12 million through the pension plan, which began in 1990 and was abolished four years later. The AP reported that eight workers were eligible for payouts greater than $100,000 each. Others who received payments included Senate President James "Pate" Philip's brother Arthur ($16,254), Gov. Jim Edgar's nephew Todd ($1,280), and the ex-wife of former tollway authority chief and Edgar fund-raiser Robert Hickman, according to the AP. Hickman's former wife, Jacqueline, got $73,719. Hickman is under indictment in an Oak Brook land sale.

[Lorie Taylor]

No. 3--97--0197

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 1997

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS, ) for the 12th Judicial Circuit
) Will County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. )
) No. 96--CH--15799
ROGER CLAAR, )
)
Defendant-Appellee, )
)
(Village of Bolingbrook, ) Honorable
) Edwin B. Grabiec,
Intervenor-Appellee). ) Judge Presiding


JUSTICE HOMER delivered the opinion of the court:

The Will County State's Attorney filed a complaint in quo
warranto (735 ILCS 5/18--101, 18--103 (West 1996)), against
Robert Claar seeking his ouster as mayor of the Village of
Bolingbrook based upon allegations that Claar's positions as
mayor and director of the Illinois Toll Highway Authority are
incompatible. The trial court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West
1996)), and the State's Attorney appeals. Following our careful
review, we affirm.

FACTS
Defendant was first elected mayor of the Village of
Bolingbrook in April 1989. In June 1991, defendant received a
gubernatorial appointment to the Board of Directors of the
Illinois Toll Highway Authority (the Authority). He was
subsequently re-elected as mayor in April 1993 and 1997, and he
was re-appointed to the Authority in November 1995. He continues to serve in both offices.

The record reveals that as early as 1989, Bolingbrook
officials were becoming increasingly concerned about the
expansion of the neighboring Village of Woodridge through
annexation. In an effort to secure the village's eastern border,
Bolingbrook officials sought the Authority's consent to annex a
certain parcel of property along Interstate 355 which was owned
by the Authority. Woodridge objected to this proposition.

At its meeting in October 1992, the Authority approved a
resolution which authorized its attorneys to negotiate a pre-
annexation agreement with the Village of Bolingbrook. Defendant
recused himself from the vote on this resolution. The following
month, defendant, in his capacity as mayor of Bolingbrook,
negotiated and signed the pre-annexation agreement with the
Authority. Thereafter, he executed a village ordinance approving
the terms of the agreement and the annexation was completed. In his capacity as Authority director, defendant continued to recuse himself from consideration of this annexation.

In November 1996, the State's Attorney filed the instant
complaint in quo warranto against defendant. The complaint asked the trial court to compel defendant to show by what lawful
authority he holds the office of mayor of Bolingbrook. The
State's Attorney alleged that defendant's acceptance of the
purportedly incompatible public office of director of the
Authority served as an ipso facto resignation of his mayoral
office.

The complaint sought a judgment of ouster and the
imposition of a statutory fine. The Village of Bolingbrook (the
intervenor) was granted permission to intervene in the action.

Defendant filed a 2--615 motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West
1996)), contending that: (1) the common law doctrine of
incompatibility of public offices had been superseded by article
V, section 9(a) and article VII, section 10 of the Illinois
Constitution of 1970 and by enactment of section 10/28.1 of the
Toll Highway Act (605 ILCS 10/28.1 (West 1996)) and (2) the
doctrine of laches barred the complaint. The intervenor filed a
motion on similar grounds pursuant to sections 2--615 and 2--619
(735 ILCS 5/2--615, 2--619 (West 1996)).

Without specifically addressing these contentions, the trial
court granted the motions to dismiss finding that the complaint
failed to state a cause of action under the doctrine of
incompatibility of offices as enunciated in People ex rel. Myers
v. Haas, 145 Ill. App. 283 (1908), Illinois statute, or the
Illinois Constitution. The State's Attorney appeals.

ANALYSIS
A complaint in quo warranto is appropriate when:
"(1) Any person usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or executes any office, or
franchise, or any office in any corporation
created by authority of this State; [or]
***
(3) Any public officer has done, or allowed
any act which by the provisions of law, works
a forfeiture of his or her office[.]"
735 ILCS 5/18--101(1), (3) (West 1996).

Such complaint need not set forth the specific basis of the
challenge, but may, in general terms, allege that an individual
is exercising a claimed right without lawful authority and call
upon that individual to show by what lawful authority he
exercises it. However, if plaintiff elects to set forth specific
grounds for an attack on defendant's claimed right, defendant may answer the complaint or present a motion as in other civil
actions. 735 ILCS 5/18--103 (West 1996).

Because the instant
complaint contained specific allegations attacking defendant's
right to hold the office of mayor, it was proper for the court to
entertain the motions to dismiss in this case.

A 2--615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of
a complaint, not its factual sufficiency. In reviewing a trial
court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of
action, this court's standard of review is de novo. Barham v.
Knickrehm, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 1037, 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1168
(1996).

We must determine whether the allegations set forth in
the complaint establish a legally recognizable cause of action.
In doing so, all well-pleaded facts within the four corners of
the complaint are regarded as admitted and true, together with
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Bank of Northern
Illinois v. Nugent, 223 Ill. App. 3d 1, 9, 584 N.E.2d 948, 953
(1991). The trial court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss
will be sustained on appeal if no set of facts as pleaded by
plaintiff could conceivably state a cause of action.

The State's Attorney argues that he set forth a legally
recognizable cause of action in quo warranto under the common law doctrine of incompatibility of public offices as established in
Haas. The complaint alleges that because a conflict of interest
exists between defendant's duties as mayor of the Village of
Bolingbrook and his duties as a director of the Authority, he was
prevented from properly and faithfully performing the duties of
both offices during consideration of the subject annexation.

The complaint further alleges that the possibility of future
conflicts of interest is substantial as long as defendant is
permitted to simultaneously hold both offices, noting possible
issues regarding the allocation of construction costs for toll
highway ramps and agreements for the provision of municipal
services. The State's Attorney argues that by dismissing the
complaint, the trial court erroneously overruled the common law
doctrine of incompatibility of public offices and frustrated the
liberal pleading requirements which govern complaints in quo
warranto.

In creating the doctrine of incompatibility of public
offices, the Haas court held that one person is prohibited from
holding two public offices which are "incompatible." The court
found that the duties and demands of the offices of United States
Senator and municipal court clerk conflicted to the extent that
one person was incapable of simultaneously holding both offices.
In rendering its decision, the court determined that
incompatibility exists:

"when the written law of a state specifically prohibits
the occupant of either one of the offices in question
from holding the other and, also, where the duties of
either office are such that the holder of the office
cannot in every instance, properly and fully,
faithfully perform all the duties of the other office."
Haas, 145 Ill. App. at 286.

This doctrine has most often been invoked when an apparent
conflict of duties exists between two local governmental offices
where one of the offices is subordinate to the other. For
example, in People ex rel. Fitzsimmons v. Swailes, 101 Ill. 2d
458, 463 N.E.2d 431 (1984), our supreme court examined the
compatibility of the offices of county board member and township
assessor and found them to be incompatible because the township assessor was subordinate to the supervisor of assessments who was subordinate to members of the county board. See also Rogers v.
Village of Tinley Park, 116 Ill. App. 3d 437, 451 N.E.2d 1324
(1983) (positions as village trustee and police officer for same
village incompatible because latter is subordinate to former);
People ex rel. Teros v. Verbeck, 155 Ill. App. 3d 81, 506 N.E.2d
464 (1987) (positions of county board member and deputy coroner
incompatible because board members had the authority to act upon
the salary and budget of the coroner). Because neither office in
the instant case is subordinate to the other, the intervenor
argues that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint.

The intervenor also urges this court to affirm the trial
court's decision based upon our supreme court's decisions in
People v. Capuzi, 20 Ill. 2d 486, 170 N.E.2d 625 (1960) and
Livingston v. Ogilvie, 43 Ill. 2d 9, 250 N.E.2d 138 (1969). The
intervenor asserts that those cases are determinative of the
issue because they address the compatibility of a state office
with other local offices.

However, Livingston and Capuzi
addressed the propriety of members of the General Assembly
simultaneously holding other governmental positions interpreting
article IV, section 3 of the Illinois Constitution of 1870
relating to qualifications of members of the General Assembly.

Neither case raised allegations of conflict of duties.
Therefore, we do not find these cases instructive to the issues
presented in the instant appeal.

Likewise, the parties have not cited, and we have not found,
any express constitutional or statutory authority, decisional
law, or attorney general opinions determining whether the offices
of mayor and director of the Authority are compatible offices.
Therefore, we consider the question one of first impression. In
applying the analysis outlined in Haas, we must determine whether
the complaint contains sufficient allegations demonstrating a
conflict of duties between the two offices to establish
incompatibility.
"Incompatibility [of offices] is said to be found in
the character of the offices and their relation to each
other, in the subordination of the one to the other,
and in the nature of the duties and functions which
attach to them. In this regard, it has been said that,
in determining whether incompatibility exists, the test
is incompatibility in the functions or duties of office
rather than a mere possibility of a conflict of
interest. Offices are generally considered
incompatible where such duties and functions are
inherently inconsistent and repugnant, so that because
of the contrariety and antagonism which would result
from the attempt of one person to discharge faithfully,
impartially, and efficiently the duties of both
offices, considerations of public policy render it
improper for an incumbent to retain both." 63C Am.
Jur. 2d Public Officers & Employees 58 (1997).
Clearly, it is undisputed that defendant was faced with a
"conflict of interest" when the Village of Bolingbrook sought to
annex land owned by the Authority. However, this fact alone does
not establish a "conflict of duties" as alleged by the State's
Attorney. Although the State's Attorney recognizes that a
"conflict of duties" is distinguishable from a "conflict of
interest," he misinterprets the distinction between these two
concepts.

A conflict of duties can involve a conflict of interest;
however, it does not follow that every conflict of interest
results in a conflict of duties. The key distinction is found in
the language of Haas, which requires a showing that the "duties
of either office are such that the holder of the office cannot in
every instance, properly and fully, faithfully perform all the
duties of the other office." (Emphasis added.) Haas, 145 Ill.
App. at 286. It does not follow from Haas, that a potential
conflict of interest is sufficient to establish incompatibility
of offices.

Such conflicts are routinely cured through
abstention or recusal on a specific matter, such as when a judge
recuses himself from hearing a case in which he has a potential
conflict of interest. See also 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal
Corporations 172 (1971).

The instant complaint simply contains a recitation of the
duties of both offices and conclusory statements that those
duties are incompatible. The complaint notes that defendant's
duties as mayor include: presiding over the village board
meetings; voting on ordinances, resolutions, and motions in the
event of a tie or in other circumstances; approving ordinances,
resolutions, and motions passed by the village board; and the
power, along with the village board, to contract with other units
of government, to annex property, and to provide municipal
services.

The Board of Directors of the Authority, the complaint
notes, has the power to acquire real property by purchase, gift,
condemnation, or otherwise, and enter into contracts and
agreements necessary or incidental to performance of its powers
under the Toll Highway Act. See 605 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West
1996).

The mayor oversees the functions of the village; the Board
of Directors of the Authority manages the toll highway system in
Illinois. Neither office is subordinate to the other. Although
it is conceivable, as was the case here, that there may be
instances of interaction between the two entities, such matters
would be rare, and ordinarily, one would be expected to have very
little interaction with the other. Consequently, the duties
imposed upon the holder of each office do not inherently
conflict, and defendant's simultaneous service does not, in and
of itself, prevent him from fully and faithfully performing the
duties of both offices.

We disagree with the State's Attorney's argument that the
doctrine of incompatibility as established in Haas would be
abrogated if we uphold the trial court's dismissal of his
complaint. Rather, we hold that the instant complaint is legally
insufficient because no set of facts as pleaded by the State's
Attorney could conceivably state a cause of action in quo
warranto based upon incompatibility of the offices of mayor and
Authority director.

In so holding, we also reject defendant's argument that the
common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices has been
superseded by legislative enactment or constitutional amendment.

We disagree with defendant's assertion that the governor's
exercise of his constitutional appointment powers (Ill. Const.
1970, art. V, 9(a)), supersedes the common law doctrine of
incompatibility of offices. The fact that the governor may be
vested by the constitution and by statute with the authority to
make certain appointments has no bearing on whether the appointee
holds another office which may be incompatible. Although the
appointment may suggest that the governor believes the offices to
be compatible, it does not follow that this belief must
necessarily be correct in the absence of an independent legal
basis.

Defendant also argues, unconvincingly, that when any
intergovernmental activities are involved, the common law
incompatibility doctrine is no longer applicable because of a
constitutional provision expressly encouraging intergovernmental
cooperation (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, 10)). Subsection (b)
of article VII, section 10, expressly authorizes officers of
local government agencies to participate in cooperative
activities with other units of local government without
relinquishing their offices. The purpose of this provision was
to provide the maximum flexibility to units of local government
in working out solutions to common problems in concert with other
units of government.

It does not contravene the time-tested
common law doctrine established in Haas which prohibits the
holding of two offices with conflicting duties.

Likewise, we reject defendant's argument that section
10/28.1 of the Toll Highway Act, which he interprets as
prohibiting directors from having a "personal financial interest"
in contracts with the Authority, controls. 605 ILCS 10/28.1
(West 1996). Because the State's Attorney has not alleged that
defendant had any such interest here, we find that statutory
provision immaterial.

Finally, we reject defendant's argument that the complaint
is barred by the affirmative defense of laches. If laches is
apparent from the four corners of the complaint then it may be
the proper subject of a section 2--615 motion to dismiss.
Summers v. Durand, 267 Ill. App. 3d 767, 771, 643 N.E.2d 272, 275
(1994).

However, laches is not apparent from the face of the
instant complaint. Although over five years passed between the
time defendant first began serving in both offices and the filing
of this complaint, defendant has failed to show how he was
prejudiced by the delay.

Because the complaint fails to demonstrate that there exists
a conflict of duties which prohibits defendant from fully and
faithfully performing simultaneously the duties of mayor of the
Village of Bollingbrook and director of the Illinois Toll Highway
Authority, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the
complaint for its failure to state a cause of action.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court
of Will County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
LYTTON, P.J., and MCCUSKEY, J., concur.

[Lorie Taylor]

Appointed Mayor in 1986 to fill a vacancy and now in his 18th year as Mayor. He is Bolingbrook's longest-serving Mayor. He is the only Bolingbrook Mayor to be elected to consecutive terms. He was elected Mayor in 1987, 1989, 1993, and 1997. In 2001, he ran unopposed and was re-elected to his current term as Mayor.

Education
B.S. (1966) - Eastern Illinois University
M.S. (1968) - Eastern Illinois University
Ph.D (1973) - Kansas State University
Attended Illinois State University, Northern Illinois University, and Indiana State University. Also completed graduate work at the University of Illinois.

Credentials
Former Village Trustee, October 1979 - April 1985
Former Bolingbrook Fire and Police Commissioner, April 1986 - Nov. 1987
Board Member of the National League of Cities
Republican Mayors and Elected Officials Vice-President and Executive Board Member
U.S. Conference of Mayors Jobs/Education Committee Member
President Illinois Municipal League 2001-2002
Veteran Educator and Administrator

Founding Board Member of the Will County Center for Community Concerns, 1987 - Present
Former COO of an International Imaging Electronics Corporation
Past President Will County Governmental League and Board Member
Former Member of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, June 1991 - September 2001
Life Member of The Republican National Committee
Former Member of the Board of Will County Block Grant Program

Affiliations/Organizations
Chair, DuPage Township Republican Organization
Bolingbrook Lion's Club Member
Bolingbrook Business and Professional Women Member
Bolingbrook Chamber of Commerce Honorary Member

Board Member Rainbow Council of Boy Scouts of America
Bolingbrook Grey Core Member
Bolingbrook Rotary Club Member
VietNow Associate Member

Personal
27 Year Resident
One Daughter, Lindsey, Graduate of North Park University - Youth Ministry
Golfer
Married for 29 Years to Pat, Assistant Principal at Bolingbrook High School
Attend Westbrook Christian Church

Mayor: Roger C. Claar
Contact: James Boan
375 W. Briarcliff Road
Bolingbrook, IL 60440-0951
Terri Wintermute, Assistant to the Mayor, Village of Bolingbrook

[Lorie Taylor]

Dept of Justice-BB Fraud
From the 12-7-2007 FBI press release:

Gary Lindesmith, 48, of Lowell, Ind., at the time owner of Lindco Equipment Sales, Inc., which sold equipment for trucks, was charged with one count of wire fraud. He allegedly gave Schwab merchandise for his personal use and paid for meals and entertainment for Schwab. He allegedly obtained fraudulent payments from Bolingbrook based on false and inflated invoices he created to cover the cost of the merchandise and entertainment, and also to cover the cost of financial contributions to political campaigns and charities that were solicited by village officials.

This directly implicates many people received benefits of this fraud scheme, most likely top-heavy in distribution.

[Lorie Taylor]

Dept of Justice-BB Fraud
www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/ii960936.htm

UNINVITED GUESTS

While Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar was in San Diego at the Republican National Convention, his home was raided by state police as part of a two-year investigation into tollway land deals. The Chicago Tribune reported police also raided the office of Claar's accountant, Phillip Engstrom, and the Chicago office of lobbyist and former lawmaker Al Ronan.

The Illinois State Police inquiry turned to Claar in connection with the tollway authority's purchase of 27 acres near suburban Lemont from land developer Donald Hedg, who has contributed to Claar's campaign, according to the newspaper. Police are investigating thousands of dollars that have passed between Hedg, Ronan and Claar's consulting firm.

Earlier this summer, The Associated Press reported that Claar received a payout from a controversial Illinois Toll Highway Authority supplemental pension program. Claar is a board member of the tollway authority. Overall, 485 employees of the authority received nearly $12 million through the pension plan, which began in 1990 and was abolished four years later. The AP reported that eight workers were eligible for payouts greater than $100,000 each.

Others who received payments included Senate President James "Pate" Philip's brother Arthur ($16,254), Gov. Jim Edgar's nephew Todd ($1,280), and the ex-wife of former tollway authority chief and Edgar fund-raiser Robert Hickman, according to the AP. Hickman's former wife, Jacqueline, got $73,719. Hickman is under indictment in an Oak Brook land sale.

[Lorie Taylor]

http://www.bolingbrook.co...o=official&disp_id=19

Joseph Morelli-Info

Joseph Morelli listed as Trustee above... This is believed to be relative of Alex Morelli-BBPD and friend of DP-listed on KS will...Fred Morelli was his previous attorney.

[Lorie Taylor]

Court case against Claar regarding an appointment to a post by the Governor.
www.state.il.us/co...november/html/3970197.txt

Funds allegedly went to the mayor...
http://ghns.ghnewsroom.co...illinois/news/x2031291282

Funds allegedly went to the mayor...
http://ghns.ghnewsroom.co...illinois/news/x2031291282

[Lorie Taylor]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

AUDITOR RECOVERS MISSING FEES

What happens when over $81,000 in cable television franchise fees paid to DuPage County doesn’t turn up in County bank accounts? County Auditor Jim Rasins gets the call to track down the money.

County personnel notified Rasins when eight checks issued to the County by one of the unincorporated area cable television providers were never deposited with the County Treasurer. The cable company produced copies of the cancelled checks ranging in amount from $963 to $23,409.

The checks had cleared the company’s bank, indicating that the related funds were received by someone, or deposited into a bank account somewhere. But exactly who received the money was not known.

“Usually banks require the party receiving the funds from a check to provide some type of endorsement on the check. But, no endorsements appeared on the backs of any of these checks,” Rasins said.

- more -

AUDITOR RECOVERS MISSING FEES

The lack of endorsements made the identification of the recipient of the funds a bit more challenging, according to the Auditor. Bank coding information that was printed on the checks during the clearing process was examined, and used to identify the

bank into which the checks were deposited. The depositor bank was then confirmed by the bank used by the cable television company.

Representatives from the depositor bank were contacted by Rasins’ staff, and provided the identity of the recipient of the check proceeds.

“It turned out that the checks were received by Will County and erroneously deposited into one of its bank accounts,” the Auditor said.

Rasins contacted personnel in the Offices of the Will County Auditor and Treasurer, and advised them of the situation. The information provided was confirmed by Will County staff, who promptly issued checks to DuPage County for the amount of the eight checks.

“We’re not certain how the checks found their way to the Will County bank. We think that they were included with checks payable to Will County that were sent by the same cable company,” he said.

The Auditor cited the effective operation of DuPage County internal controls in identifying the checks that were not received, enabling the recovery of the funds.

[Lorie Taylor]

Rift opens between mayor, police chief over release of information

Associated Press
2:48 AM CDT, March 26, 2008

BOLINGBROOK, Ill. - A string of robberies in this Chicago suburb has exposed a rift between the police chief and the mayor over how and when to release public information.

Chief Ray McGury suggests the disagreement can be traced to the attention brought to the town by the Drew Peterson case.

For months after Peterson's wife, Stacy, disappeared Oct. 28, the national media spotlight was focused on Bolingbrook, where Peterson worked as a police officer for 30 years. In December, Mayor Roger Claar ordered that all news releases be approved by him before being sent out.

"I can only surmise that it has something to do with the Peterson media blitz. We were getting inundated," McGury said. "The Bolingbrook Police Department handled the media calls. . . . I don't know if that's necessarily unusual (because) it was a police department matter."

In the matter of the robberies, during which women were accosted in a shopping mall parking lot, McGury said he asked Claar for direction after the first incident on Feb. 22. He never heard back. When another robbery occurred Feb. 29, McGury said police sent Claar a news release and again did not hear from him. McGury decided to issue the news release on March 1.

Claar "obviously questioned why the final approval wasn't with him. We politely said there must have been a problem with your phone and e-mail because we made several attempts," McGury said.

Two days later, the tips began to pour in. On March 13, based on those tips and the victims' information, police picked up five suspects. They were later charged with aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery.

Village attorney James Boan, speaking for Claar, said there is no obligation on behalf of the village to issue press releases. Adding that there's nobody trained at the police department as a public information officer.

Boan could not say why Claar never responded to McGury's request for direction on the robberies. When pressed, he said he answered McGury's calls and helped issue the March 1 notice.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-informationgap,0,5005045.story

[Lorie Taylor]

"So in 2001, when Mayor Claar got wind that Peterson, the police sergeant he had known for two decades, was involved with a young staffer named Stacy Cales in the village clerk's office, Claar saw it as something to deal with directly. In a recent interview, Drew Peterson told Chicago that Claar called him over to his house and angrily demanded, "Where the fuck is your head?" Claar warned him he'd never make lieutenant if he kept it up with Stacy. Nonetheless, Drew said, Claar seemed amused by the sergeant's romantic escapade and told him, "Hey, all right, Drew!"

Through his spokesman, Bolingbrook village attorney Jim Boan, Claar acknowledged having had a conversation with Drew and asking him, what was he thinking when he chose to pursue a relationship with a woman that much younger than himself? But Claar said he didn't remember the meeting taking place at his house and insisted he never condoned Drew's relationship with Stacy Cales. Claar also said that he knew Kathy, but that she never contacted him "to express any concerns or complaints about the police department."

www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2008/Unanswered-Cries/index.php?cp=2&si=1#artanc