Public commenters accuse Kane County treasurer of inserting campaign-style flyer in tax bills; treasurer defends report

A group of public commenters told the Kane County Public Service Committee that a colored flyer included with recent county tax bills amounted to campaign-style electioneering paid for with county resources. The complaints came during the committee's public comment period in Geneva, where several residents demanded transparency about who produced and paid for the insert.

Why it matters: Commenters said the insert gave a unique, county-produced platform to the incumbent treasurer and was not available to other candidates. They argued that this use of tax-billing materials creates an unfair advantage in a local election and raises legal and ethical questions about the use of taxpayer-funded communications during a campaign period.

What was said: Todd Olsen told the panel that the graphic in the tax bill appears verbatim on the treasurer’s campaign website and estimated that mailing a comparable campaign piece to 200,000 households at commercial postage rates would cost about $122,000. "This really does represent abuse of his powers of office," Olsen said, adding "who created this piece? Who paid for it? What is the source of the data?" Vicky Davidson Bell said the insert was "the equivalent of getting a toaster when you buy a couch" and called the material "an advertisement for himself" mailed to county taxpayers. Denise Deble said the treasurer had doubled down by printing a larger version that was being distributed in the courthouse lobby and described the insert as "clear electioneering."

Treasurer's response: During his report the Treasurer defended the insert as part of an informational "report card" his office has used for the last three years. He emphasized operational figures he called "cash in the bank": a collection rate of roughly 99.97–99.98% and nearly $20 million in annual income credited to the county. "These reports are given to the board monthly," he said, adding the card was not new and was part of his office's regular outreach. He rejected the suggestion that the report was merely a campaign speech.

Context and next steps: Committee members listened and asked follow-up questions about portfolio composition (the Treasurer estimated roughly 20–30% of funds in short-term instruments and 70–80% in longer-term bonds, with 3–5 year yields around 4–4.2%). Commenters pressed whether the insert had been reviewed by the state's attorney; one public commenter said the state's attorney reported that the specific campaign-style insert had not been submitted to her office for review. The committee did not take enforcement action or vote on the matter during the meeting; the Treasurer's report remained "on file."

What remains unresolved: Public speakers asked who paid for the insert and where the underlying data were sourced — those questions were raised at the meeting but not answered with documentation. The committee did not make a formal referral or request for an independent review during this session.