A county official and other residents used the public-comment period of the Sept. 11 Shelby County Board meeting to criticize a recently ratified union contract that they say gave county employees double-digit raises and shifted 100% of health-insurance premiums onto taxpayers.

They said the contract undermined the treasurer’s statutory personnel authority and cited an attorney-general opinion and state statute to argue the board lacked authority to fix treasurer office compensation. The complaints came during public comment rather than as part of an agenda item; no formal board action on the contract was taken at the meeting.

The public comment began with a speaker who said a union contract approved by the board gave “my employee a 17.19% raise over 15 months” and, when combined with the county paying full health-insurance premiums, amounted to a 19.43% increase. The speaker said they had emailed the board and the state’s attorney on Dec. 16, 2024, attaching “an attorney general opinion” and cited the statute referenced in the transcript as 55 ILCS 5/3-1003, which the speaker said reserves appointment and salary-setting for the treasurer subject to budget limits. “Not one of you responded to my email,” the speaker said. “This AG opinion … makes it clear a county board does not have the power to enter into a collective bargaining agreement wherein the rate of compensation of employees of the county treasurer is fixed.”

The speaker also read a series of local property-tax increases for specific towns and said the raises were being put “on the back of taxpayers.” The remarks ended with: “It’s time for the people of Shelby County to know the truth.”

A different public commenter then addressed criticism of the current treasurer’s investment strategy, saying the previous treasurer kept county funds in a basic savings account and earned $40,910.53 in interest over the final three years of that term, while the current treasurer’s diversified approach earned $278,762.97 in interest over her first three years and, to date, $1,302,835.40 in total interest. That speaker said those figures were reflected in county audits and described the investment returns as a benefit to the county.

That same speaker also alleged two current county board members approached a former county-clerk office employee during work hours to encourage her to run against the treasurer and described a reported “plan B” to have a different person run for treasurer with an agreement to retire after two years so the employee could be appointed. The speaker did not name the board members but said the employee left county employment after experiencing “workplace pressure” and “political maneuvering.”

During later public-body comment, the county clerk—speaking from the dais—said she had been told about personnel-related recruitment in the elections office and that she “shut that down,” saying campaign discussions were inappropriate in the elections office. Other board members and commenters raised questions about recovery of funds linked to a former assistant state’s attorney and requested follow-up from the board.

Why it matters: The complaints allege the board approved compensation provisions that, according to the speakers, run counter to a cited attorney-general opinion and to 55 ILCS 5/3-1003. The matter implicates the distribution of authority among elected offices and the fiscal impact of multi‑year pay increases and benefit changes on county taxpayers.

Discussion vs. decision: These matters were raised in public comment; the transcript records no motion, study directive, or vote at the Sept. 11 meeting to rescind or review the union contract or to initiate legal action. Speakers repeatedly asked the board and the county’s elected officials to respond and to explain who represented taxpayers at the bargaining table.

Ending: The board did not take action on the contract at the Sept. 11 meeting. Complainants requested responses from the board and the state’s attorney; future meetings or official correspondence would be the expected venues for any formal review or legal action.