Resident alleges procurement, FOIA and payroll irregularities tied to Tinley Park Park District project during public comment

A member of the public used the Jan. 7 Tinley Park Board of Trustees meeting to lay out a series of allegations about administration of a nearby park-district project, alleging procurement irregularities, repeated contract amendments, questionable site visits and resistance to public-record requests.

The speaker — identified in the meeting record as a resident commenter — said project-management invoices and weekly reports do not show substantive on-site work and questioned payments made to a project manager, identified in the remarks as Mike Maloney. The commenter said one week’s reported activity was billed at $3,000 and later described an example showing $11,250 of monthly payments. The commenter also said the park district gave Tetra Tech multiple contract amendments beyond the original award and characterized that practice as “bid stringing,” saying the additional amendments appear to exceed the 50% limit the speaker attributed to procurement rules.

Trustee comments followed. One trustee who identified professional credentials as a certified internal auditor and certified fraud examiner described the records shown by the resident as “red flags” and said the documentation would not withstand professional audit scrutiny. Another trustee called the concerns notable for oversight and transparency, explaining that recent changes at the state level removed some village zoning authority for the property and expressing worry about limited local input and accountability for the project.

The resident also described difficulty obtaining documents via Freedom of Information Act requests, saying the park district repeatedly labeled responses “unduly burdensome” and declined to produce narrower subsets of requested emails and invoices. The resident said a FOIA disclosure estimated many emails and used an internal pages calculation that the resident disputed.

Board members who spoke did not propose formal action during the meeting. The allegations were presented during the public-comment portion of the agenda; the meeting minutes and roll calls show no vote or directive tied to these public remarks.

Because these statements were made as public comment and not as sworn testimony or board findings, the claims remain allegations by the resident. The board did not announce any staff investigation or directive on the record during the meeting.