DuPage County board gets legal update on clerk’s appeal as members warn of mounting costs

DuPage County board members received a legal update Wednesday after the county clerk filed a notice of appeal following a December ruling that favored the county.

Civil Division Chief Lisa Smith of the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office told the board the notice of appeal begins the appellate process but does not yet set the specific issues; the clerk will later file a brief that identifies the legal questions the Court of Appeals must consider. "They'll have 63 days to file the record on appeal," Smith said, and outlined the typical briefing schedule: 35 days for the appellant's brief, 35 for the county's response and 14 for any reply. She said the court may later decide whether to set oral argument.

Smith summarized the underlying circuit court ruling: Judge Brian Chapman found the county’s mandamus complaint in the county's favor; he concluded the County Board is not limited to appropriating funds only within three narrow categories and that elected officials who exercise internal control may be required to complete line‑item transfers. The judge also directed that the county clerk must provide contracts or service agreements when requested and affirmed that the county auditor must have access to records needed to perform auditing duties.

Board members responded sharply to the appeal. Member Ozog called the continuing legal fight "ridiculous and inexplicable," saying the process is consuming taxpayer dollars and staff time. Member Tonatore and others asked whether the $25,000 flat fee for the appellate counsel appointed by Chief Judge Bonnie Wheaton covered total costs; Smith said the chief judge had appointed counsel at a $25,000 flat fee, but board members noted additional transcript, filing and staff costs will increase the tab. One member estimated total internal and external costs, including staff time, could push the expense well beyond six figures.

Several members also tied the dispute to concerns about election administration. Member Zay and others emphasized confidence in elections run by clerk’s office staff and local election judges, while asking for clearer information about vendor contracts, procurement and any outstanding bidding questions the court or Attorney General may be reviewing.

Smith told the board the clerk had also filed a third‑party complaint and partial motion for summary judgment that the county opposed; the circuit court denied parts of the clerk’s motion and granted the county’s motion to strike portions of the clerk’s claims as outside the scope of the original pleadings. "The clerk's partial motion for summary judgment was denied; ours was granted," Smith said, adding that some procurement questions had been treated as moot because the county had already paid the invoices in question.

The board asked the State’s Attorney’s Office to continue coordinating with the appeals division and to keep members informed of briefing schedules and any expedited filings. Several members urged the county to press the Attorney General’s Office for updates on its separate review of procurement practices mentioned during discussion.

The legal update concluded with members reiterating support for county staff who administer elections while criticizing the clerk’s continuing appeal and the resulting costs; the board did not take further substantive action during the meeting but said it expects to receive additional notices and scheduling information as the appeal proceeds.