An hour before the July 20 board meeting, the Finance Committee spent most of its time on three things: whether to pay the forensic auditors their final $13,600 without the $1,750 the Village had subtracted for attorney Joe Cainkar's review of the audit, whether a $17,500 engineering contract for downtown trees was needed, and who, if anyone, is out selling Manteno to developers. No money was approved at the committee. The auditor's bill was pushed to a later board meeting.
The Public Safety half of the meeting was cancelled on the posted agenda. The only votes were to approve three-month-old finance minutes and to let Trustee Boudreau take part by Zoom. The next morning, July 21, a judge dismissed the Village's suit against four of its trustees (No. 26CH21) because no complaint had been filed; at this meeting, one speaker said the Village would know who its lawyer was ⚠ "tomorrow, hopefully."
The board meeting that followed at 6 p.m. has its own page: The July 20 Board Meeting, in Plain English. The lawsuit is on its own page. New here? Start with the two-minute version.
The Village's recording, about 54 minutes. The meeting opens at about 4:30; the timestamps below are recording time.
Graded November 2, 2026 against the recording, the posted agendas and minutes, the Village's meetings index, Census Bureau figures and the Illinois Compiled Statutes. A grade is a statement about the evidence, not about anyone's honesty. Nobody named on this page is accused of any wrongdoing. Some people who spoke are or may be candidates in the April 2027 election; we report what they said without evaluating them.
Recording, roughly 4:30 to 15:30.
The posted agenda lists Public Safety (Trustee Vaughn) as "Cancelled" and Finance under Trustee Barry. The chair opened ⚠ "the finance meeting for Monday, July 20th, 2026, 5:00 p.m., Village Boardroom." People addressed or named on the recording include Trustees Vaughn ("Peggy"), Crockett ("Todd"), Gesky (captioned "Trustee Guskey"), Boudreau (by Zoom), Mayor LaMore, Public Works Superintendent Jim Hanley ("Jim") and Village Manager Chris LaRocque ("Chris"). We could not tell from the recording whether Trustee Zimbelman attended. There is no posted attendance list for this meeting.
Sources: recording, 4:30; posted committee agenda.
Midway through the minutes vote, someone pointed out ⚠ "We need a motion to have [Boudreau] participate via Zoom." It was seconded and carried by voice ("Aye"). The mover is not clear on the recording. The board did the same at 6 p.m., where its minutes record the remote-attendance motion by Trustee Barry, seconded by Trustee Vaughn, passing 5–0.
What the law requires. The Open Meetings Act lets a majority allow a member to attend by video or audio only "if a quorum of the members of the public body is physically present" and the member "is prevented from physically attending because of" one of five reasons: personal illness or disability, employment or the body's business, a family or other emergency, unexpected childcare obligations, or active military duty (5 ILCS 120/7(a)). It also has to be done under rules the body has adopted (7(c)). Neither the committee recording nor the board minutes states which reason applied. We have not seen the Village's remote-attendance rules.
Sources: recording, 14:30–15:30; board minutes, July 20, p. 1; 5 ILCS 120/7(a), (c).
The chair nearly skipped the item (⚠ "Do we do meeting minutes?" "Oh yeah, sorry."). The April 20 minutes were moved by Trustee Vaughn and seconded by a trustee the captions render as "Joe" (⚠ "Peggy was the first, Joe was the second"; there is no Trustee Joe, so this is probably Trustee Joel Gesky), and carried by voice. Those minutes had also been listed on the May 26 committee agenda; the June 15 Finance half was cancelled.
The deadline. The Act says a public body "shall approve the minutes of its open meeting within 30 days after that meeting or at the public body's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later" (5 ILCS 120/2.06(b)). Ninety-one days passed here. Thirty days ran out May 20. The first regular Finance meeting after April 20 was May 26; the second was set for June 15, but the Finance half was cancelled. If June 15 counts, the deadline was June 15 and this approval was late. If a cancelled meeting does not count, July 20 was the second subsequent regular meeting and the approval was on time. The Act does not say which, so we grade this as true with that context. The April 20 minutes are now posted on the Village's meetings index.
Sources: recording, 14:30–15:30; posted agendas for May 26, June 15 and July 20; April 20 minutes; 5 ILCS 120/2.06(b).
The July 20 finance minutes were listed for approval at the August 17 Finance Committee. Those minutes say: "Due to a lack of quorum, no action was taken." They do not appear on the posted September 21 or October 19 finance agendas, which list other finance minutes (August 17 on September 21; May 26, June 15 and September 21 on October 19). As of November 2, no minutes of the July 20 committee meeting are on the Village's meetings index.
Why it matters. Under 5 ILCS 120/2.06(b), for a committee that meets on the third Monday, the later of the two limits (30 days, or the second regular meeting after) fell on September 21. Approved open-meeting minutes must then be "available for public inspection within 10 days." The Act's separate website-posting rule covers "a regular meeting of its governing body," the full board, so it may not reach committee minutes. A committee that cannot muster a quorum, as on August 17, cannot approve anything; the fix is to put the minutes on the next agenda with a quorum present.
Sources: August 17 agenda and minutes; September 21 and October 19 agendas; meetings index, checked November 2; 5 ILCS 120/2.06(b).
Under "General Discussion," recording roughly 45:00 to 50:30. This is the forensic audit of the prior administration by Greene Forensic Accounting Solutions; see The Audit.
A speaker said the auditors had contacted them about not receiving their final payment, ⚠ "and that final payment is $13,600. Is there a reason? I mean, can we get that paid?" The figure matches the Village's own record: the July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes say Mr. LaRocque reported "the final invoice of $13,600 was received from the Auditor for a total cost of $168,000." Asked whether the audit was now on the Village website, Mr. LaRocque answered ⚠ "Yes, it is."
Sources: recording, 45:00; July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes, p. 1.
A speaker at the table said the auditor's bill in the packet had money deducted, including ⚠ "$1,750 from Joe [Cainkar]." Mr. LaRocque explained that board members had asked staff to total the Village's costs from closing and reopening bank accounts after the audit showed account numbers on screen at a public meeting, and that ⚠ "we had to have Joe do a review of the audit to see what needed to be redacted." He said Treasurer Sheila Martin put the total together.
Context. The deduction did not come from nowhere. On July 8 the Planning & Zoning committee recorded Trustee Gesky asking whether the Village had totaled "the costs of the needed changes to bank accounts that resulted from the Auditor's release of information, which should be reduced from the final payment," and the treasurer saying check costs were "still outstanding." Who approved the deduction itself is what the table argued about next (c7). Mr. Cainkar is the attorney at the center of the fight over who represents the Village; the mayor says she removed him, and four trustees voted on July 6 to keep him.
Sources: recording, 45:30–46:00; July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes; July 20 board page.
One speaker said: ⚠ "I don't think that's fair to the auditors because they gave us a price and we agreed to it. I think we need to pay them what we owe them." Mr. LaRocque: ⚠ "That's up to the board." Asked who okayed it, voices answered ⚠ "I did not authorize us to do that" and ⚠ "Nobody has. That's something that the board needs to discuss." Later a speaker added: ⚠ "I did not authorize Joe [Cainkar] to spend that time doing that." The captions do not identify these speakers.
The argument then turned to the account numbers. One side: ⚠ "That's part of the audit, CJ. That's how they identify the accounts by the numbers." Trustee Boudreau's side: ⚠ "they could have went through and just blacked it out like everyone else does." One speaker, addressing someone as "Mayor Pro Tem," challenged that person to read out their own account number if they were fine with account numbers being public.
Open. No document we have shows who directed staff to deduct the $1,750, or who asked Mr. Cainkar to review the audit. Those are records the Village holds (see "What we're requesting").
Sources: recording, 45:30–48:30.
A speaker at the table questioned what Mr. Cainkar had reviewed for $1,750: ⚠ "cuz if he's charging $250 an hour, that's 10 hours, 8 hours to review?" He went on to say the Village had paid other vendors in full despite their errors, ⚠ "a lot more money than $3,000, 10 times, 15 times that," and asked why the Village was ⚠ "picking and choosing."
The arithmetic. $1,750 at $250 an hour is 7 hours, not 8 or 10. The $250 rate was the speaker's supposition (⚠ "if he's charging"); we have not seen Mr. Cainkar's bill for this work. The underlying question, what the review covered, is fair and unanswered.
Sources: recording, 47:00–48:30.
Someone said the payment could not be made that night because it was not on the agenda for the payment of bills; another noted the $204,896 in bills did not include the $13,600; a third said ⚠ "that one is not listed on Sheila's email" as a payment being approved. One trustee said ⚠ "I agree with Trustee [Gesky] that we put it on the next agenda. Give us 2 weeks to ensure that we did get all of our deliverables, and if so, then yes ... let's pay him." The board approved bills of $204,896.36 (including $0 from TIF #3) 6–0 at 6 p.m. on a consent agenda.
What happened next. On August 3 and August 12 the board took the auditors' final bill back up, and paid part and refused part; our Audit page and August 3 page have that story. The amount on the August 12 agenda, as reported on our Audit page, was $12,270.92, which is $1,329.08 less than $13,600, not $1,750 less. We have not yet reconciled that difference.
Sources: recording, 48:30–50:30; board agenda, items 8C1 and 10D; board minutes, pp. 2 and 4.
A speaker, not identified by the captions, said the printed copies of the audit had been turned in, that the speaker had picked them up and handed them out to the treasurer and all the trustees, and was holding three copies until the lawyer question was decided. The July 8 committee minutes record that "Mayor LaMore had obtained the printed copies of the audit." The same speaker said: ⚠ "we need to pay our bills, otherwise we're opening ourselves up again for more lawsuits."
What "tomorrow" brought. On July 21 the court dismissed the Village's case against four trustees, No. 26CH21, because the Village had asked for a restraining order with no complaint on file. The case later came back before the same judge, and arguments are set for November 12. Details on the lawsuit page.
Sources: recording, 49:00–50:00; July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes; lawsuit page.
Agenda item "Discussion on tree replacement project rfp for different engineering concepts." Recording roughly 20:30 to 28:00.
The chair, Trustee Barry, said he had missed the prior meeting and saw on that night's board agenda a contract with HR Green for $17,500. He said the staff arborist had already tagged the trees, and asked: ⚠ "isn't that something that our arborist would be able to do?" He suggested smaller ornamental trees, such as fruitless crabapples, whose root balls are smaller, rather than cutting back concrete for larger trees. He described himself: ⚠ "I'm a landscaper. I dig ditches for a living."
Others at the table said the scope had grown over several meetings to include possibly widening the tree openings, because the trees may not be getting enough water, and dealing with line- and low-voltage wiring that runs along the back of the curb with an outlet at each tree. Mr. Hanley estimated those lines at ⚠ "a foot to 18 in." deep. Someone noted that pears will not be replanted. Trustee Barry asked to meet the engineer, Bruce, before a vote.
Context. The board agenda listed "A Motion to Approve a PSA with HR Green for Main Street Tree Removal & Replacement Design & Construction Engineering" with no dollar figure; the $17,500 is from the discussion. At 6 p.m. the board tabled it 6–0 (moved by Trustee Gesky, seconded by Trustee Crockett), per the minutes. The original contractor, Scenic, had already dropped out: the July 8 Properties & Recreation minutes say Scenic "sold the trees and will not honor the contract" after the Village's delay. A "Tree Project RFP" item was on the July 28 Public Works agenda.
Sources: recording, 20:30–28:00; board agenda, item 10C; board minutes, p. 4; July 8 Properties & Recreation minutes; July 28 agenda.
Staff explained that the job was first planned as a request for proposals, but ⚠ "because of the scope of this project, we can't do an RFP. It has to be a full bid," and that HR Green would prepare the design, advertise the bid, run the bid opening and follow through on the contracts, so every contractor bids the same trees. Asked whether the arborist could do it in house, staff said he is ⚠ "not capable of putting the bid documents together and doing that process."
What the law says. In municipalities under 500,000, public work costing more than $25,000 "shall be constructed either (1) by a contract let to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising for bids," or by the village's own workers. The law adds that a contract "may be entered into by the proper officers without advertising for bids, if authorized by a vote of two-thirds of all the alderpersons or trustees then holding office" (65 ILCS 5/8-9-1). So the $25,000 line is real, and a bid is the default, but the statute also allows a two-thirds waiver. Nobody mentioned it.
Sources: recording, 22:00–25:30; 65 ILCS 5/8-9-1.
Recording roughly 15:30 to 16:30, 41:30 to 42:30 and 50:30 to 52:30.
Asked for an update on ongoing projects, Mr. Hanley gave figures ⚠ "through July 6th": $231,466.23 paid out on the pavilion on the square, $29,230.10 on the soccer shed and $21,354.25 on the baseball dugouts.
Context. These are staff figures given aloud; there was no handout on the recording. On what they include, the answers were mixed: the pavilion total includes materials and the labor of paid subcontractors (plumbing, heating), and for the shed and dugouts staff said ⚠ "Anything the public works have done are not included in those numbers." So none of the three is a full cost.
Sources: recording, 15:30–16:30.
Mr. LaRocque reported that for 2026 the Village had waived $7,776 in permit fees on three single-family homes, with a fourth application that day, and $43,435 for commercial and industrial projects. He did not have the 2025 figure with him.
Context. Staff figures given aloud, for part of a year, with no project list. We have not seen the underlying permit log.
Sources: recording, 41:30–42:30.
Asked about a "World Fuel" item, Mr. LaRocque said the Village has a sales tax sharing agreement with World Fuels, which operates an office in Manteno because of its low rate, 6 and 1/4 percent, and sells fuel contracts to railroads and airlines. ⚠ "I think we're the only ones left in the county that are still at that rate," he said. The Village rebates 50 percent of what the company generates. A trustee read that the reimbursement ran ⚠ "through 3-year anniversary, April 30th, 2026," with $11,745 going back to the company ⚠ "off of $23,000." A speaker urged renewal: ⚠ "if we don't, they will be gone."
Open. We have not seen the agreement, the payment line in the bills, or the Department of Revenue's rate tables for every Kankakee County town, so the "only ones left" claim and the end date are unverified.
Sources: recording, 50:30–52:30.
Agenda item "Discussion on village growth and next steps." Recording roughly 28:00 to 45:00. This picked up from the July 14 Plan Commission, which had "Continued Discussion of Village Growth" on its agenda.
The chair said that at the Plan Commission there had been ⚠ "a lot of good discussion," but asked who is actually marketing the Village: ⚠ "we all work full-time jobs, who is helping us with this." He recalled that the Village once had a packet of available land for prospects. Trustee Boudreau said the Village may need ⚠ "a new comprehensive plan or an opportunity analysis," and that he was meeting Angela Morris of the Economic Alliance that Thursday. A speaker suggested commercial realtors should market available property ⚠ "at no cost to us," and another that if the Economic Alliance cannot help, ⚠ "maybe we need to look at a marketing agency." Smaller residential lot sizes were raised as a way to attract builders.
One speaker recalled that the Village had paid a consultant for the Route 50 rezoning, modeled on Tinley Park's Oak Park Avenue, and said the area ⚠ "looks the same as it did 10 years ago." Another said the comprehensive plan was about 20 years old. The copy of the Village's comprehensive plan in our files is dated 2006.
Context. No action was taken. Nobody stated a cost for a plan or agency. The board minutes for the same night list the next Plan Commission meeting, August 11, as "continuing discussion on Village growth ideas."
Sources: recording, 28:00–45:00; board minutes, p. 3.
Answering a point that big-box stores ⚠ "aren't coming to a town of 9,000 people," a speaker said ⚠ "No, but Kankakee County does have 118,000 people," and proposed pitching Manteno as a hub for the county.
The numbers. The 2020 census counted 107,502 people in Kankakee County, and the Census Bureau's estimate for 2025 is 105,525. The county has never reached 118,000; its highest census count was 113,449 in 2010. Manteno's 2020 count was 9,204, so "a town of 9,000" is about right. The point being made, that the county is more than ten times the village, holds; the figure used was about 10 percent high. See our Census Explorer.
Sources: recording, 33:30–34:30; U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 counts and 2025 estimates, as compiled in census.html.
The chair said that when Gotion (captioned "Goshen") does its hiring, ⚠ "they said they had 60-mi radius of 350,000 people."
Open. We have not found the Gotion statement this refers to. A 60-mile circle around Manteno reaches into the Chicago area, so the population inside it is likely well above 350,000; the figure may refer to a labor force or a narrower area. We have not checked either. We report it as said.
Sources: recording, 34:30–35:00.
Agenda item "Inter-governmental agreement between fire department and village." Recording roughly 16:30 to 20:30.
The chair said he had emailed everyone a copy of a proposed intergovernmental agreement between the fire department and the Village, given to him by the fire department, and that Chief Peterson wanted the Village to review it and suggest changes. He said the second page dealt with a fire marshal or fire prevention officer, and that the department wanted it ⚠ "because of the ongoing stuff that we got going on with the fire brigade," a reference to Gotion's on-site fire brigade (captioned "Goshen"). He added that going forward everything should be ⚠ "written on a piece of paper and it's signed before we move forward."
A trustee who had not yet read it asked whether the fire department would have jurisdiction over building codes. A staff member answered that the department handles fire prevention and life safety, but being ⚠ "the authority having jurisdiction over the fire codes, that's not accurate," and said he would double-check. Another trustee said no one besides two board members had helped the Village fix its problems with Gotion.
What happened next. It was not on that night's board agenda. It came back to the Finance Committee on August 17, where the minutes say that under the agreement "the Fire Department has authority to independently conduct inspections and issue violations/fines, with communication to the Village," and the committee asked for it to go on the board's agenda. Whether that differs from the staff answer on July 20 depends on the final text, which we have not seen.
Sources: recording, 16:30–20:30; August 17 Finance minutes, p. 1.
Two speakers, recording roughly 5:00 to 14:30, and items raised at the end, roughly 52:30 to 54:00.
Called on by name, Ms. Lee thanked the Manteno American Legion Auxiliary for sponsoring her at the 2026 Girls State program at Eastern Illinois, described a week of mock city, county and state government, elections and legislative sessions, and said the experience would support her application to West Point. A speaker said her speech and photos are posted on the Manteno Legion's Facebook page and encouraged families to look into the program.
Sources: recording, 5:00–12:00.
Called on by name, Mr. Forsythe said that at the July 8 committee meeting Trustee Boudreau's Planning & Zoning portion carried the final audit invoice and "trucks for the next decade," which he said belonged with Finance and Public Works, as did "public works tasks." A board member answered: ⚠ "we are allowed to put different topics on any agenda." He also said Scenic ⚠ "was out of that deal" on the trees.
What the July 8 agenda shows. "Final Auditor Invoice" and "Trucks for the Next Decade" were on the Planning & Zoning list. "Public Works Tasks" was on the Properties & Recreation list (Trustee Gesky's), not Planning & Zoning. Scenic did drop out (see c11).
Sources: recording, 12:00–13:30; July 8 committee agenda; July 8 Properties & Recreation minutes.
Mr. Forsythe objected to "gender neutral verbage," saying there are two genders. A board member answered that ⚠ "right now only the mayor says he and we want to make sure that our madam mayor can be seen in our ordinances," and another that ⚠ "every time it refers to the mayor it refers to the mayor as a he ... So it will not be just a he." The July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes record that "Trustee Boudreau indicated that he has reviewed several Ordinances and recommended that pronouns be changed to gender neutral terms." No ordinance was before this committee.
Sources: recording, 13:30–14:30; July 8 Planning & Zoning minutes, p. 2.
Trustee Boudreau noted that a business applying for a gaming license had come to his July 8 committee and had ⚠ "proved he's a sustainable business without it." The July 8 Properties & Recreation minutes identify the applicant as Bob Earley, whose business had operated for almost 10 months. Mr. LaRocque said the Chamber agreement had ⚠ "slipped through the cracks" since 2021, that it is an annual, calendar-year contract that would run to December, and that only the names and dates changed.
The votes. At 6 p.m. the board put Ordinance 26-09 (adding a Class A liquor license for a business that wants video gaming), the employee-sharing agreement with the Manteno Community Chamber of Commerce, and the $204,896.36 in bills on a consent agenda (Vaughn, seconded by Barry, 6–0) and approved them (Boudreau, seconded by Gesky, 6–0), per the minutes.
Sources: recording, 52:30–54:00; July 8 Properties & Recreation minutes; board minutes, p. 4.
From later Village records and our other pages.
6 p.m., July 20: the board meeting. The mayor announced a veto of the July 6 vote to keep attorney Cainkar and said she had gone to court. See July 20.
July 21: the court dismissed the Village's suit against four trustees, No. 26CH21, because no complaint was on file. The case returned; arguments are set for 10 a.m. Thursday, November 12. See the lawsuit.
August 3 and 12: the board took up the auditors' final bill again and paid part of it. See The Audit and August 3.
August 17: the Finance Committee heard Chief Peterson on the fire agreement, but could not approve the July 20 minutes for lack of a quorum.
Drafted with this page.
On the auditor's bill: the auditors' final invoice, the Village's calculation of the deductions (including the $1,750 for legal review and the check and account costs), who directed them, and attorney Cainkar's billing entry for the audit review.
On the trees: HR Green's proposal for Main Street tree removal and replacement, and the scope documents behind it.
On the fire department: the draft intergovernmental agreement circulated July 20 and any later versions.
On World Fuel: the sales tax sharing agreement and any renewal.
On procedure: the Village's rules for remote attendance under 5 ILCS 120/7(c), and the minutes of this July 20 committee meeting, if any have been drafted.
If you were in the room, or hold any of these documents, the form below reaches us directly.
If a verdict here is wrong, if we have put a quote in the wrong mouth, or if you hold any document referenced at this meeting, we want to see it. Name and email are optional.