A $168,000 forensic review of the prior administration's finances, approved on the mayor's tie-breaking vote in August 2025 and delivered in May 2026. Both camps now invoke it. This page sets out what the auditors actually found, and what they pointedly did not say.
Approved on August 4, 2025, when the trustees split 3–3 and Mayor LaMore voted yes to break the tie for the $168,000 engagement, and presented on May 20, 2026, the Greene Forensic Accounting Solutions review of the prior (Nugent) administration is the backdrop to the whole fight. Here is what it found, with the context the numbers require. Corrected September 22, 2026: an earlier version called the approval a 4–3 vote (the minutes show a 3–3 trustee vote broken by the mayor) and dated the presentation May 23, which was the newspaper's date.
Start here: The written report neither finds fraud nor clears anyone, and it says it does not claim to be complete. The sentence that the auditors found "no serious improprieties or fraud" is the reporter's, in Shaw Local's May 23 story about the May 20 presentation; it is not a quote from either auditor. Asked from the floor whether anybody was getting arrested, the auditor answered, "That's not my call." What the auditors raised were financial-management and transparency concerns: questions about process, not proven wrongdoing. The dollar figures below are real, but each carries important context, and none has been adjudicated. (The dollar figures below appear in the audit itself, including its "Nugent Family Payments" and sewer-proceeds sections, and were reported publicly by The Daily Journal/Shaw Local on May 23, 2026. The full audit is in Documents, FOIA 26-106.) Corrected September 22, 2026: an earlier version attributed the "no serious improprieties or fraud" line to the auditors themselves.
The concern: Contracts went to Tenco Excavating (which the auditors state is owned by former Mayor Nugent's nephews), often won through closed bidding by roughly 1% margins, with additional payments to Kevin Nugent Construction, which the auditors state is owned by the former mayor's brother. The auditors cite no source for either relationship. They questioned the bidding transparency.
The context: Trustee Joel Gesky publicly countered that Tenco was the low bidder and saved the village about $1 million versus higher bids (his figure: $1,000,067). At the May 20 presentation, Administrator Chris LaRocque answered the banking and bidding findings directly, per Shaw Local: the village had "reached out to five or six other banks" and "none came back with better deals," and bids were "always opened in front of the contractors." No fraud was alleged.
The concern: The ~$25.3M in proceeds from the village's sewer-system sale to Aqua was placed almost entirely into CDs at a single bank (HomeStar) with little documented comparison-shopping, a practice the audit flags at length.
The context: The village treasurer is married to a former executive of that bank; village attorney Cainkar concluded in a February 2026 memo that he "cannot see how" the deposits violated the cited laws, and LaRocque told the May 20 meeting that other banks were asked and "none came back with better deals."
The concern: The village reportedly paid about $352,000 (roughly $400,000 all-in) to the State to remove a reverter clause on former Manteno State Hospital land, then sold the golf course for $600,000 to a single bidder. Auditors flagged the economics.
The context: The sale and reverter removal were public transactions; the audit questioned the value obtained, not the legality of the sale.
The review: Greene Forensic Accounting Solutions of Chicago (lead auditor Jim Edmonstone) examined roughly six years of records from the prior administration. The board approved it on August 4, 2025; findings were presented at a special meeting on May 20, 2026. On August 12, 2026 the board took up the auditors' $12,270.92 "Final Audit Invoice" (per the special-meeting agenda); the board paid part of the auditors' final bill and refused the rest, and the mayor warned that could bring its own lawsuit.
The board: paying or not paying a bill is a four-of-seven spending vote, and the board holds it. The engagement was a $168,000 fixed contract plus a $20,000 retainer. If the board disputes the invoice, the tool is a written dispute to the firm citing the contract term it relies on, adopted by motion, so the refusal is a position rather than a silence. If it does not dispute it, the tool is to pay.
The mayor: put the invoice on the bills list with the contract and the firm's statement of work attached, so the vote is on the paper rather than the argument.
Why it matters here: Both camps cite the audit: the mayor as a reason for a housecleaning, defenders as proof "no fraud" was found. Neither reading is what the report says.
Because the audit is a financial review that names individuals and businesses, this site states its findings as the written report frames them, notes where a newspaper's wording has been mistaken for the auditors', and pairs each with available context. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying audit directly (Documents, below) and draw their own conclusions.
Got a document, a tip, or a correction? We want to hear it. Name and email are optional; you can send anonymously.