Public Funds, Private Secrets: LaSalle’s Missing Paper Trail for $2 Million in Library Assets
Financial Opacity and the Contradictions of Municipal Governance in LaSalle IL.
The integrity of municipal governance rests upon the foundational principle that the public has an inherent right to scrutinize the financial machinery of its institutions. In the state of Illinois, this principle is codified through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, which asserts that access to public records is not merely a statutory courtesy but a fundamental obligation of government. The recent administrative interaction between the City of LaSalle and a request for the financial records of the LaSalle Public Library presents a significant case study in the friction between institutional secrecy and the mandate for public oversight. When a public body claims a lack of access to records for funds that it simultaneously acknowledges using for core operational purposes, it creates a transparency vacuum that undermines the statutory intent of the law and the fiduciary trust of the community.
The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 ILCS 140, is built upon the public policy that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them. The law explicitly defines a public body to include all legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the state, cities, and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees, or commissions. The LaSalle Public Library, as an entity established under the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 75, Article 5, and governed by a board appointed by the Mayor of the City of LaSalle, is undeniably a public body subject to these requirements.
The definition of a public record under Section 2(c) of the Act is intentionally expansive, encompassing all documentary materials, regardless of physical form, that pertain to the transaction of public business. This includes financial statements, ledgers, bank records, and internal communications regarding the movement of funds. Furthermore, the Act establishes a legal presumption that all records in the custody or possession of a public body are open to inspection or copying. When a public body seeks to deny access to such records, the burden of proof rests entirely on the government to provide clear and convincing evidence that a specific statutory exemption applies.
Dissecting the LaSalle Public Library Financial Records Request
On December 4, 2025, a comprehensive FOIA request was submitted to the City of LaSalle, targeting five specific categories of financial documentation related to the LaSalle Public Library for the period beginning January 1, 2023. The request sought granular data, including general ledger records for every transaction, journal entries for the movement of donation or trust funds—specifically identifying Account 21-3446 and the Carus, Aldwin, and Schwamberger funds—and all bank statements used for the benefit of the library.
Imagine a family where the parents tell the kids they only have 100$ in their checking account for groceries. However, every weekend, the family goes to a theme park and eats at fancy restaurants. When the kids ask where that money is coming from, the parents say, "That’s from a secret piggy bank, but we don’t have the key to it, so we can’t show you the balance or where the money goes."
This is essentially what the City is claiming. The Library reports have shown a total balance of over 3.4 million$, but the City claims they only have "access" to about 1.3 million$ of it (the "operating funds").1 They claim they have "no access" to the trust funds (like the Carus Trust), even though they are actively spending that money to pay for library programs and "non-core" staff members.2
If you are spending the money to pay employees and host events, you clearly have access to the records. Claiming you "don't have the keys" while you are currently reaching into the piggy bank is a major contradiction.
The "Grocery Receipt" vs. "Monthly Total"
When you ask the City for "General Ledger" records, you are asking for an itemized receipt. You want to see exactly what was bought, when, and for how much.
In response, the City pointed to their Annual Audit.3 This is like asking for a receipt to see if your spouse bought healthy food or spent $\$50$ on candy, and them handing you a bank statement that just says: "Total spent at Grocery Store: $200."
The Transparency Issue: An audit is just a summary prepared by an outside firm.4 It doesn't show the "dirty details." By only offering the audit, the City is hiding the specific transactions—like who exactly is getting paid from those trust funds and whether that money is being used according to the rules of the trust.2
The biggest issue for transparency is the creation of what experts call a "shadow budget." By keeping the trust funds (which total over 2 million $) in a separate category that they claim is "private," the City is running a large part of the library "off the books" as far as the public is concerned.2
Public Side: The money from your property taxes. Everything is tracked and open for you to see.
Shadow Side: The trust funds. The City uses this money for public library business, but they claim the public has no right to see the details of how it’s managed.3
When a public body like a library uses money to provide a public service—like paying a librarian or buying books—that money becomes "public business." Under Illinois law, you have a right to see how every single penny of public business is handled.5
By claiming they "don't have access" to records for money they are clearly using, the City is creating a loophole. If this were allowed to stand, any government office could start putting money into "private trusts" to hide their spending from the voters. Transparency means there should be no "secret keys" to the public's business.
