Ultimate magazine theme for WordPress.

Illinois Leaks | Gary Patterson, Shelby County Board Member -Need glasses?

Shelby Co. (ECWd)

Shelby County Board Member Gary Patterson has noticed a clear pattern of providing false or misleading information when it comes to his comments during county board and county committee meetings. We’ve covered some of them This post.

During last night’s district board meeting there was some discussion of the auditor’s proposals. Patterson points to the number of county audits listed at one company and then claims he didn’t see any counties on the others’ lists.

Was he even looking?

Anyone who can read can see that Cook County is not only on the list he claims he hasn’t seen, but also has a long list of public entities, covering pretty much every governmental entity found in Illinois . Comparing the two proposals related to government audits, it is clear that the one they chose was nowhere near as high as the other’s list of clients.

That Patterson didn’t see Cook County on the list is ridiculous at best because Cook County is not only on the partial list of clients, but they are also first on the list of references. So it’s clear that Patterson didn’t pay attention to what he was reading, or intentionally misrepresented the truth of the matter.

Please don’t take our word for it. Below are the customer lists provided by both companies. Then click and compare the customer lists. After reading them, ask yourself which company seems to have more experience?

Benford Brown & Associates partial list of clients

WIPFLI list of government customers

While Patterson focused on comparing the number of counties listed in one proposal and “seeing” no counties in the other, he seems to ignore the fact that Cook County was not only listed, but has a population of over 5 million while the 13 counties to which he referred had a whopping total population of only 397,079. An audit in Cook County would logically add much more county auditing experience to the equation than the 13 counties listed in the other proposal, considering it’s more than 13 times the population.

While it was good to see the county progress with at least 1 audit required, we find it disheartening that neither company was on hand to answer questions before a selection was made. Additionally, the board failed to follow the law and complete the sheriff’s review as required. We will cover that in a separate article.

The full exam proposals can be downloaded from the links below.

Benford Brown & Associates


Video of the board meeting is below and includes Patterson’s comments on what he didn’t see in one of the proposals. We note this event because it is another example of Patterson making comments that influence how board members act. When these comments are wrapped in misinformation, it misleads the board and the public.

Comments are closed.