DuPage County finance committee rejects supplemental clerk appropriation after hours of questioning

The DuPage County Finance Committee voted 15–2 on Nov. 12 to reject an additional appropriation resolution tied to the County Clerk’s office, following more than two hours of questioning about payroll increases, outstanding invoices and the timing of budget transfers.

Deputy Clerk Adam Johnson told the committee, "We certainly do not have available funds to cover the $260,000," and described the request as a recent, more‑precise calculation. Finance staff reported a combined projection that the clerk’s office and its elections division face a net shortfall of approximately $58,759.21 through Nov. 30 — a figure the committee’s finance director, Jeff Martinovich, described as the result of line‑item balances and pending obligations rather than a single undisputed deficiency.

Why it mattered: Several board members pressed the deputy clerk on why the office issued large retroactive pay increases that were not reflected in the county budget. Multiple members cited past and recent raises — including a $265,750 set of payroll changes mentioned in the meeting — and called the clerk’s office’s transparency and budgeting practices into question. Member Evans said the conduct “sounds like a ransom to me” and added, “You are holding our elections hostage,” language repeated in the meeting as an expression of serious concern about the risk to election operations if funds were not managed correctly.

Deputy Clerk Johnson and CFO Jeff Martinovich differed slightly on timing: Johnson said the precise shortfall calculation was made within the last month as invoices arrived and contingencies clarified; Martinovich and other finance staff explained that some pay changes were processed after the fiscal year began and that, from an accounting perspective, certain expenses must be reported in the fiscal year in which they were incurred.

What members asked for: Board members repeatedly urged the clerk’s office to perform internal budget transfers first — moving an available payroll surplus into the election division’s commodity and software lines — and to work with finance staff to show exactly which invoices remain unpaid and why. Several members said they were unwilling to appropriate reserve funds without evidence that transfers and internal controls had been exhausted.

The vote and next steps: On the roll call, 15 members voted no and two members — Member Childress and Member Desart — voted yes; the motion failed. Chair Sherry Garcia asked the deputy clerk to consult with the clerk and finance staff, correct the figures and return with a revised resolution. The committee also signaled interest in receiving the clerk in person at a future meeting for a fuller explanation.

The committee’s deliberations repeatedly distinguished discussion (questions about options and process), direction (requests to perform budget transfers and provide documentation), and the formal action (the failed appropriation vote). The clerk was not present at the meeting; the deputy clerk attended to answer questions.

What remains unclear: The agenda text for the appropriation listed a higher number ($2,268,159) while the deputy clerk and multiple members repeatedly referenced $268,159 or similar sums during the debate. Finance staff said known invoices as of Nov. 10 included $237,952.50 in outstanding election‑division invoices and $1,846.62 in county clerk invoices, and cautioned that additional invoices could be entered into the system after the meeting. The committee directed staff to reconcile those differences and refile the request with corrected, itemized figures.

The meeting adjourned to other agenda items after the vote; the clerk’s office is expected to return with a revised request and more detailed line‑item transfers for committee review.