LaSalle County committee members on Oct. 20 heard Veterans Assistance Commission representatives defend their proposed 2026 budget and were warned by the VAC attorney that a recent Sangamon County trial-court opinion should not be treated as binding precedent for LaSalle.

The VAC's representative, identified in the meeting only as Krista, told the committee the VAC had brought counsel to answer legal questions after the Sangamon ruling and to explain how the Veterans Assistance Commission and the county should proceed. Joshua Herman, who introduced himself as "the attorney for the BAC," told the committee: "It's our opinion that the court opinion in Sangamon County is no bearing on what happens in LaSalle. The only thing a trial court opinion governs is the parties are the parties before it, which are Sangamon County and the Sangamon County BAC."

The matter centers on how the Military Veterans Assistance Act (state statute) and recent case law intersect with local budgeting. Herman said the statute requires the VAC to recommend a budget and, if the county fails to provide a "just and necessary" amount, the VAC is statutorily required to pursue a mandamus action. He cautioned that if LaSalle County were to follow Sangamon's trial-court reasoning now, "you would have no choice. The statute requires that the VAC pursue a mandamus action." Herman also told the committee that litigation costs could rise sharply if the county and VAC pursue litigation rather than await appeal, estimating potential legal fees as materially larger than the VAC's present legal line item.

County members pressed on how the statute's minimum — described in the meeting as 0.02% of equalized assessed value (EAV) — interacts with the VAC's request. Herman said the law sets a floor at 0.02% of EAV unless the VAC delegates decide less will do, and that only the VAC delegates (not the county board) have statutory authority to decide the VAC's discretion to fund below that floor. Multiple committee members emphasized the county's role in protecting taxpayers and asked the VAC to "prove" that requested amounts are just and necessary in a public process.

Krista said the VAC had presented an itemized line-by-line budget and described recent staff retention concerns as a reason for proposed pay increases. She told the committee that the VAC's available reserves must last until the next levy and that the operating balance was substantially less than some had reported.

The committee approved payment of the VAC bills during the same meeting. Kathy Owens moved to approve the VAC bills and Nancy Urich seconded; the chair called for those in favor and the motion passed.

Why it matters: The exchange lays out a recurring tension between an appointed veterans commission that manages VAC staffing and services and an elected county body that must appropriate funds. Counsel warned that a patchwork response to the Sangamon trial-court order could trigger litigation and higher legal costs, while county members said they must balance veterans' services against taxpayer protections.

Herman offered written materials about applicable law to committee members and asked the county to await appellate review rather than immediately following the Sangamon trial-court opinion. "We'd ask that you at least delay until the appeal to avoid unnecessary waste of taxpayer funds on further litigation," he said.

The committee did not adopt any change to the VAC levy at the meeting; committee members and VAC representatives said they would continue to exchange information before the county's budget and levy decisions are finalized.