East Central Reporter

The Shelby County Board recently approved a claim by the new State’s Attorney for the purchase of a refrigerator for her office, drawing attention to past controversies over similar purchases. The previous State's Attorney, Rob Hanlon, had purchased a refrigerator with his own money after facing public scrutiny over its use in the office. This situation raised questions about selective outrage and the consistency of public discourse on such matters.

A local propagandist questioned whether Hanlon initially believed that having a refrigerator served a public purpose before deciding otherwise. Hanlon clarified that he paid for it himself to avoid further controversy, noting that most offices in the courthouse have refrigerators.

In contrast, the current State’s Attorney opted to use taxpayer funds for an office refrigerator, claiming it was for employee use. The previous claim submitted by Hanlon had also stated it was an employee benefit. Despite these similarities, there has been limited commentary on the recent expenditure compared to Hanlon's case.

The propagandist's remarks focused heavily on Hanlon’s actions: “Since Mr. Hanlon has represented the ECWD in the past, we are surprised he would believe the fridge was for public purpose then change his mind,” and “Mr. Hanlon’s mini-fridge sure packs in a lot of questions.” These comments highlight perceived inconsistencies but do not address the current State’s Attorney's purchase with taxpayer money.

It is important to note that using taxpayer funds for an office refrigerator is neither illegal nor improper according to regulations. The differing reactions suggest selective outrage may be influencing public perception and media coverage of similar situations.