Takes ALA money from poor kids?

LAWRENCE CO.—One of the candidates for sheriff in Lawrence County is under scrutiny for actions that could result in charges against him.

Mike Mefford, former Lawrenceville police chief who managed to get on the Republican ballot earlier this year after being a lifelong Democrat, has been the subject of an investigation ongoing since the beginning of April.

And while no charges have as yet resulted from the investigation, the range of criminal possibilities appear to be anything from a misdemeanor misappropriation of funds or theft, all the way up to felony official misconduct.

That’s because the matter involves use of funds that were part of the “Area Law Enforcement Association” (ALA)’s “Shop With a Cop” program, funds that were directly under Mefford’s sole control and which, according to documents obtained by Disclosure, were used for personal purposes until the funds came to be out of Mefford’s control, this long about the time he resigned as police chief.

What’s the ALA?

The ALA is reportedly a brainchild of Mefford, and is little but a back-patting gig for the many and various law enforcement officers in Lawrence to get together and tout their virtues…which have only really emerged in recent years. In years past, such officers as the violent Dennis York and Tyler Parrott (now both departed from the law enforcement scene) as well as those with penchants toward very young females (such as Bob Nestleroad or Billy “PeeWee” Darnell) were among those pushing the ALA into the public’s eye.

One of the things that the ALA did and still does annually is the “Shop With a Cop” program whereby underprivileged children were afforded the opportunity to purchase items at Christmas time, all under the guise of the friendly neighborhood police officer guiding them around the local Walmart and “making the purchases” for them from funds placed into an account specifically for that purpose, brought in by fundraisers throughout the year.

The charitable activity, however, was plagued a few years ago by the less-than-honorable actions of many of the officers (among whom the aforementioned were included, as well as a few more), who were using the outing to scope out dates with the mothers of children who were there only to take advantage of the kindness of the hearts of those donating to the cause.

The black eye that the organization developed over the course of these incidents followed them when, during the 2003-04 year, they selected Darnell as their “officer of the year,” this following a barrage of violent antics and which culminated in his de-deputizing and relegation back to patrol in St. Francisville, where he is still “police chief.”

Overall, it’s taken several years of calming the brazen tendencies of many of the cops in Lawrence, as well as the do-nothing attitude of several others (and this across not only the county, but the three burgs other than Lawrenceville where there are, in these cases inexplicably, still police forces—Bridgeport, Sumner and St. F) to get the ALA out of the mire Mefford and his compatriots managed to sink it into.

Problems develop

At about the time that people were once again taking police in Lawrence County seriously, problems with the ALA’s account, out of which the Shop With a Cop funds were both deposited and derived, developed.

The ALA’s leadership had been restructured in November of 2013; at that time, Mefford, formerly Secretary/Treasurer of the organization and the one solely responsible for the group’s funds, had turned those responsibilities over to Lawrence Deputy Byron Middlecoat and Lawrenceville police officer Annette Akers. Middlecoat had been appointed president; Akers was vice president; Lawrenceville officer Brandon Sapp had been selected as chaplain and Deputy Danny Ash had been selected sergeant of arms, some of this structure (the latter two) having been set up in December of 2011, when at the time, Lawrenceville police officer was president of the group, and chief deputy Trent Masterson was VP.

Documents show that back at the beginning of April of 2014, Akers noticed discrepancies in the funds of the ALA’s account at Casey State Bank in Lawrenceville.

She brought these to the attention of Middlecoat, and together they began looking into the situation, which was, simply put, multiple withdrawals from the fund being used toward payment of a cell phone bills.

The two requested statements from the bank to track down these activities.

Wireless pay

In May of 2014, copies of the requested bank statements were made available to the officers.

There, they learned that these withdrawals, made in the form of debits from the account, had been made on three occasions:

An Allied Wireless Bill Pay on April 30, 2013, for $45.18;

A BP-Allied Wireless Bill Pay on October 2, 2013 for $39.82;

And a second BP-Allied Wireless Bill Pay on December 30, 2013 for the same $32.82 amount.

The two officers, realizing what they’d stumbled upon, called the Illinois State Police to come examine the facts, but ISP, in this situation represented by Master Sergeant Ryan Shumaker, declined to take on the case. There was no apparent reason given.

So on June 1, Middlecoat took the material to Lawrence County State’s Attorney Chris Quick.

Quick told Middlecoat to go ahead and conduct the investigation, and Quick would subsequently turn over any findings to a special prosecutor.

Middlecoat was able to serve a subpoena to Alltel/Allied Wireless Communications regarding information about subscriber billing and account details.

He learned, in mid-October, that the account associated with the bill payment belonged to Jo Ellen Mefford of rural Lawrenceville…reportedly, Mrs. Mike Mefford.

Contacted Mefford

Middlecoat was then tasked with conducting an interview with his former ALA associate, Mefford.

On August 23, Middlecoat asked Mefford about the transactions dating back to April 2013, and was told by Mefford that he was indeed aware of that transaction; and that it was a mistake by the bank.

Mefford reported to Middlecoat that he’d “corrected the mistake the next day by depositing the amount back into the ALA account.”

Middlecoat learned from Mefford that “since he had a personal account in the bank as well, the bank, after going to a new system, automatically placed the ALA account as his primary account.”

Mefford stated that he didn’t know of the transactions in October and December and stated that, had he known, he “would’ve corrected the mistake a while ago.”

Mefford also pointed out that he’d “mentioned the April transaction” to Middlecoat when it had happened.

However, Middlecoat advised Mefford that he didn’t recollect that mention.

Mefford then stated that he “may have told Annette as well,” but wasn’t sure.

Interestingly, four days after this interview (Aug. 27, 2014), Mefford called Middlecoat to advise that he’d deposited money back into the ALA account for the transactions that had taken place without his knowledge.

Mefford about bank: ‘THEY made the mistake, not me’

A subsequent examination of the account, however, shows that Mefford might have been making light of something that certainly wasn’t.

Statements from the ALA account, with Mefford as the only accountholder, from April/May, October and December 2013, show that the automatic activity appeared to have not been random, but deliberate, as they weren’t “recurring” (as most auto-pays are) and under regular auto-pay, would appear at the same time each month on a pre-set date, and in most cases, even a pre-set time.

With these three transactions being as random as they are, they have the appearance of being directed, by the phone accountholder, to be paid by an auto-withdrawal at these random dates/times.

In other words, instead of being a recurring payment set up in advance, it appears that someone knew their phone bill was coming due, and went into the ALA account for a “limited” withdrawal to cover that bill.

Further, beyond the noted three withdrawals, subsequent BP-Allied Wireless Bill Pay also showed up on June 6 of this year, long after Mefford ceased to be part of the ALA, this according to a June 30 statement; the amount, again, was for $39.83.

There was no explanation given for this particular transaction.

The BANK made a mistake?

In follow-up interviews, it was reported that Mefford attempted to explain that “the bank had made a mistake,” and that each of these random payments had been made without his knowledge or consent.

Mefford’s reasoning behind this is that somehow, the bank, seeing that a cell phone bill was due on a phone account associated with his personal bank account, somehow was paid out of the custodial bank account (ALA’s, of which he was the sole custodian) by mistake.

However, it’s being reported to Disclosure that the bank very much disagrees with this statement, and would state only that there was no mistake on their part, without going into detail of how such an activity would occur: Whether it was an auto-withdrawal generated by a phone call or electronic transmission (via a computer request), or something Mefford had prearranged to occur at random intervals, was unknown.

The only thing known for certain is that these transactions continued to recur, and a phone bill associated with Mike Mefford was paid at least three and probably four times out of an account that kind-hearted Lawrence County people contributed to, believing that their money was going to help little kids have a happier holiday than they ordinarily would, not to someone’s wife’s phone bill.

Petty amounts, big charge prospects

Where the investigation is currently was unknown as of press time.

The known amount involved in the transactions ($124.82 if three transactions are considered; $164.65 if the June 2014 is taken into account) is, in the scheme of things, negligible, and if charged, would only amount to a misdemeanor Theft count.

However, the fact that the funds from which this amount would have been taken actually belong to a public (albeit not necessarily official/taxpayer-funded) entity is what’s troubling.

Such a thing, if Mefford conducted it in his official capacity, could result in felony Official Misconduct charges—one for each instance, as was charged in Wabash County against then-E911 director Colby Rigg in 2012, when he misappropriated funds for the agency to be used for personal gain, some of those amounts negligible. The amount, as seen in Rigg’s case, wasn’t so important as was the action, which was a violation of the public trust.

This wouldn’t be the first time Mefford has come under public scrutiny regarding handling of money.

Years ago, as either owner or operator of a local motorsports business, Mefford’s financial doings there came under question.

The facility went out of business, and no charges ever emerged from the situation.

Republican Party not happy

For whatever reason, Mefford and his activities have been glossed over by locals, who seem to have misguided support of him to an exclusionary degree and to the extent that they would blindly believe anything he was telling them.

This extended to his time as Lawrenceville police chief, during which tenure many people in that town became victims of burglary, theft and other crimes simply because when waves of such activity were happening, Mefford refused to alert the public to it, and refused to acknowledge publicly that it was happening when direct questions were asked of him.

The prospect of Mefford taking the office of sheriff and allowing the same to happen, county-wide, is frightening to many. The further prospect that a newly-elected sheriff could be indicted on Official Misconduct, as well as a possible Obstruction charge (as it’s illegal for a police officer to take funds from any kind of officially-sanctioned account) isn’t a black eye many in Lawrence are willing or eager to embrace.

The Republican Party in Lawrence, issuing information in advance of the election, has confidentially expressed their dismay that Mefford is their candidate, and this latest revelation has only firmly secured that level of dismay.

It remains to be seen whether Mefford, as he has counted on, will now receive the support of the local law enforcement, given the spurious circumstances under which the scrutiny upon him has developed.