East Central Reporter

The Shelby County Farm Sale case recently experienced another hearing, highlighting the absence of legal representation for both the county chairman and the county board. This ongoing situation has raised concerns among observers.

During the proceedings, the judge instructed attorneys, State’s Attorney Woolery and Stocks, to engage in a conference call with Leigh Ann Grossman, the sole bidder for the farm. This development reflects an unusual delegation of legislative matters to the judicial branch while the legislative body remains without legal counsel. Woolery stated she was representing the County Chairman and/or board under an agreement with Sonny Ross, Chairman of the Board.

Typically, when a case is filed in court, opposing parties submit answers or motions to dismiss, followed by a scheduled briefing. However, this process has not been followed in Shelby County. Motions to intervene by resident Kevin McKitrick have also gone unaddressed despite multiple hearings.

The usual legal procedure involves both sides presenting their arguments before a judge who then issues a ruling. In this case, instead of following standard protocol, attorneys were directed to discuss matters with Grossman. This move excluded those wishing to provide opposing arguments from participating in discussions.

Grossman reportedly sought to withdraw her bid upon learning of the lawsuit. The court acknowledged her withdrawal through an email dated November 20, 2024: “THE COURT HAVING RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MS. LEIGH ANN GROSSMAN...MAKES THIS CORRESPONDENCE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD...” The court set a hearing for November 26, 2024, to address whether the lawsuit is now moot and how potential appeals might proceed.

The bid's withdrawal raises questions about its impact on the lawsuit's validity and highlights issues regarding representation for county officials. There has been no county board meeting or decision on accepting the bid withdrawal.

This scenario underscores systemic challenges as judicial actions have bypassed legislative processes. Observers note that if such situations do not raise concerns about governance and representation within society, there may be broader implications at stake.

The motion to intervene was granted during these proceedings; however, it remains unclear whether this was due to legal standing or other factors. Meanwhile, public disclosure of Grossman's identity has dispelled accusations of insider dealings involving various local figures.

Had the sale proceeded as planned, it could have generated approximately $108,867.50 annually from interest on a basic 4.5% CD—significantly more than previous farm revenues for Shelby County.