People v. Grever (353 Ill. App. 3d 736, 2004)

JUSTICE KAPALA

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Robert Grever, a former township supervisor of Ela Township, Lake County, appeals from his eight convictions of official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a), (c) (West 1998)) in connection with a delinquent debt owed to the township for his mother-in-law’s care at the county nursing home. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by indictment with 12 counts of official misconduct. The first six counts, each pertaining to a different year from 1993 through 1998, charged that defendant:

“committed the offense of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, in that the said defendant, a public officer, the Ela Township Supervisor, while acting in his official capacity, intentionally failed to perform a mandatory act, in that he failed to inform the Ela Township Board of [the] [indebtedness of Mae Chvojka and Ruth Grever to Ela Township for healthcare services provided by the Winchester House [and] paid for by Ela Township, within 30 days of the annual township meeting as required by 60 Illinois Compiled Statutes 1/70— 15(c)(v), in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a) ***.”

The next three counts of the indictment, each pertaining to a different person who benefitted from defendant’s actions, charged that defendant:

“On or about 1992 through 1996, *** committed the offense of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, in that the said defendant, a public officer, the Ela Township Supervisor, while acting in his official capacity, with the intent to obtain a personal benefit for [Mae Chvojka (count VII), Ruth Grever (count VIII), and Robert Grever (count IX)], performed acts in excess of his lawful authority, in a series of acts designed to promote a single intent, he submitted bills to the Ela Township Board for payment by the township for the stay of Mae Chvojka at the Winchester House despite the fact that neither Mae Chvojka nor any representative on her behalf [was] reimbursing the township as required by Ela Township, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(c) ***.”

The last three counts of the indictment, each pertaining to a different person who benefitted from defendant’s actions, charged that defendant:

“On or about 1992 through 1998, *** committed the offense of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, in that the said defendant, a public officer, the Ela Township Supervisor, while acting in his official capacity, with the intent to obtain a person [sic] benefit to [Mae Chvojka (count X), Ruth Grever (count XI), and Robert Grever (count XII)], performed acts in excess of his official authority in a series of acts designated to promote a single intent, in that he concealed the existence of a debt owed by his wife, Ruth Grever, and her mother, Mae Chvojka, to Ela Township and withheld collection action regarding said debt, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33 — (c) ***.” Prior to trial, the court heard and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the charges were barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant waived his right to a trial by jury and the matter proceeded to bench trial.

At trial, the State called the administrator of Winchester House, Steven Nussbaum. He explained that the Winchester House is a nursing home owned by Lake County that has been in operation for more than 150 years. Nussbaum became the administrator in 1997. Nuss-baum identified the Lake County ordinance enacted in 1978 that authorized agreements between the County of Lake and the various townships of Lake County regarding Winchester House. That ordinance provided that the township supervisor of each township shall be responsible to pay the bills that township residents incurred at Winchester House. Nussbaum related that, pursuant to the ordinance, the various townships and Lake County had entered into agreements under which each township was assigned a number of beds at Winchester House proportionate to its population. Each township was thereby permitted to use Winchester House for its citizens. According to Nussbaum, when a bed of a particular township became available, Winchester House would notify that township’s supervisor’s secretary and ask that the next application be forwarded.

Nussbaum identified the amended agreement between the County of Lake and a former supervisor of Ela Township dated April 19, 1978. According to this agreement, the township supervisor of Ela Township agreed to be responsible for payment of all charges for patients admitted to Winchester House from Ela Township. Nussbaum testified that this agreement was terminated in December 1999 and a different procedure went into effect. However, the agreement was in force in 1991, and was still in effect in 1997 when he became administrator. Nussbaum explained that, under the agreement, Winchester House would send to each township supervisor a monthly bill indicating a total for that township’s residents and an itemized bill for each private-pay resident. Each township, in turn, would send one monthly check to Winchester House.

According to Nussbaum, Mae Chvojka was an Ela Township citizen who became a resident at Winchester House on September 19, 1991. She remained at Winchester House until she died on December 12, 1996. Nussbaum identified a document authorizing Mae Chvojka’s admission to Winchester House that was signed by defendant as Ela Township supervisor. That same document indicated that Ela Township would assume financial responsibility for Mae Chvojka’s charges in accordance with the existing agreement between Ela Township and the County of Lake. The document also indicated that Winchester House could submit the monthly bill for her care to the township supervisor. Other Winchester House records identified by Nussbaum indicate that Mae Chvojka was a private-pay patient, that Ruth Grever was responsible for her bills, that private-pay patients were billed for their care by the township supervisor’s office, and that Ruth Grever’s address was the billing address for Mae Chvojka’s charges.

Nussbaum went on to identify a group exhibit consisting of the bills that were submitted to Ela Township regarding Mae Chvojka’s care at Winchester House. The bills were admitted into evidence. Nussbaum testified further that if a township wanted someone removed from Winchester House because of nonpayment, the township supervisor would contact Winchester House. The only way Winchester House would know if a private-pay resident’s bill was not being paid was through the township supervisor.

The State also called Margaret L. Staples, who testified that she served as defendant’s secretary at Ela Township from 1985 to 2001. Staples said that she was familiar with the arrangement between Ela Township and Winchester House concerning Ela Township residents. Staples said that the policy of Ela Township was that the township would pay the bills for each township resident staying at Winchester House and that the township would then seek reimbursement. Staples opened the mail that came into the township supervisor’s office. Winchester House would send Ela Township a monthly bill for private-pay Ela Township residents who were in Winchester House. Staples explained that the bill had a top sheet with the total charges for that month. In addition, there were three copies of each private-pay resident’s bill that included the name and address of the party responsible for paying the bill. Staples would forward a copy of the bill to the responsible party and would place a copy of the total bill, as well as a copy of each individual bill, on defendant’s desk. A copy of the total bill went to the township board meeting to be approved for payment. Staples testified that the board received only the total bill for all the Ela Township residents staying in Winchester House, not the individual residents’ bills.

Staples testified further that after the Board approved the Winchester House bill, a check was drawn on the general assistance fund of the Ela Township treasury and sent to Winchester House. When payment came in from the responsible party, Staples would record the amount of the check and the check number, and make out a deposit slip for depositing the funds into the bank. Staples said that she had created a file for each private-pay Ela Township resident in Winchester House, and that the files were kept in a locked file cabinet. Staples recorded how much was paid on a form that was kept in each resident’s file. The form was available to Staples and defendant. Staples believed that these files were not available to the general public without a Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2000)) request.

Staples related that in August 1991, defendant’s wife, Ruth Grever, took out an application to admit her mother, Mae Chvojka, to Winchester House. Staples processed the application and made a file for Chvojka. Chvojka went into Winchester House as a private-pay resident and was subject to the same terms and agreements as everyone else in Ela Township. Staples said that the record sheet she kept showed that Ruth Grever paid for Chvojka’s first four months of care at Winchester House but that no payments were made after January 1992. Staples said that she processed the bills for Chvojka’s care just like the rest of the bills and that the township board approved and paid her bill, along with the rest, each month. Staples continued to send the bills to Ruth. The township was not reimbursed for approximately $195,000 that it paid to Winchester House for Chvojka’s care. According to Staples, in reference to his wife’s failure to pay her mother’s past-due bills, defendant said on several occasions, “I don’t know what she’s doing in regard to those bills.” Defendant did not direct Staples to call Ruth and ask for the money or to take any action to collect the money. Staples said that she thought that Ruth would eventually pay the bill because Ruth would say to Staples from time to time, “I have to pay that.” After Chvojka died and the bills for her care stopped coming from Winchester House, Staples did nothing to collect the debt from Ruth. The information regarding the outstanding bills, known only to Staples and defendant, just sat in Chvojka’s file.

Ruth M. Grever testified that she married defendant in 1956. On September 19, 1991, Ruth’s mother, Mae Chvojka, moved into Winchester House as a private-pay patient. Ruth agreed that she was handling her mother’s financial affairs at that time and that, therefore, she was responsible for paying for her mother’s care. Ruth said that she understood that the bills for her mother’s care at Winchester House were to be paid by Ela Township and that she was responsible for reimbursing the township. At the time Chvojka moved into Winchester House, she had various assets including several bank accounts and complete ownership of her home. Ruth testified that she reimbursed the township for the first four Winchester House bills that the township paid on her mother’s behalf. Thereafter, and through the time that her mother died, Ruth did not reimburse the township for the Winchester House bills the township paid on her mother’s behalf. After her mother’s death in December 1996, until the township filed a lawsuit against her in September 1999, Ruth paid nothing toward the amount owed to Ela Township.

Ruth testified further that her mother had various bank accounts including a checking account into which approximately $7,500 in social security benefits were deposited annually. Ruth also said that her mother’s house was sold in November 1993, netting proceeds of $97,000, of which $89,000 was deposited into her mother’s checking account. Ruth took the remaining $8,000 in cash. Ruth said that she kept $500 of the $8,000 and may have given the remaining $7,500 to defendant. Ruth admitted that she spent in excess of $133,000 of her mother’s money during the time that her mother was in Winchester House and after she died. Among those expenditures were various purchases of clothing for herself between October 1995 and October 1997 totaling $30,000. Ruth also testified to various expenditures for and on behalf of defendant including dining expenses, suits, clothing, golf items, paint for their home, a laptop computer for their home office, and their joint state and federal income tax liability.

According to Ruth, she contacted Staples in 1995 about the possibility of obtaining public aid. Defendant filed a petition for divorce in January 1999. In May 1999, Ruth revealed to her divorce lawyer the issue of the money owed to the township as a result of her mother’s stay at Winchester House. Subsequently, Ruth was sued by Ela Township. Defendant’s and Ruth’s divorce became final in August 2000. After a trial in November 2001, a judgment was entered against Ruth and in favor of Ela Township in the amount of $133,000.

Ruth said that her mother went into Winchester House in mid-September 1991. Ruth received a bill in October and for the next three months she received a bill for the previous month’s charges. Ruth paid all of those bills on behalf of her mother. According to Ruth, after the first four months she never received another bill from the township. Ruth explained that she did not get any of the mail that came to the house after January 1992. In the first part of 1992, when Ruth told Staples that she wanted to pay the bill, Staples told her that “[defendant] is the supervisor.” Ruth brought the matter up several times per year and Staples would either say nothing or say “[defendant] is the supervisor.” Ruth said that she never intended to leave the township unreimbursed for her mother’s Winchester House bill. Ruth said she did not pay the bill when she went into defendant’s office and saw Staples because she did not have her mother’s checkbook. Ruth explained that after she wrote the four checks to Ela Township for her mother’s care at Winchester House she no longer had custody of the checkbook for her mother’s checking account. According to Ruth, defendant had the checkbook and would give Ruth blank checks out of it periodically. This is how Ruth wrote all the checks on her mother’s account totaling more than $133,000. Ruth testified that she often argued with defendant and asked him to let her pay her mother’s bill to the township. Ruth denied ever telling defendant that she could spend her parents’ money any way she wanted. Ruth also denied telling her daughter, Victoria, in 1999, that she had a plan to ruin defendant politically, professionally, and financially.

The State also called Lucy Prouti, who, at the time of her trial testimony, was the current Ela Township clerk. Prior to being elected as Ela Township clerk, Prouti served as an Ela Township trustee from 1991 to 2001. Prouti said that defendant was the Ela Township supervisor during the period that she served as a township trustee. According to Prouti, the township supervisor ran the day-to-day business of the township. Prouti explained that four township trustees, the township clerk, and the township supervisor were at the monthly township board meetings. At the board meetings the supervisor would bring in the township’s bills and the trustees would go through them and vote to pay them. Prouti testified that when she voted on bills she relied on the supervisor’s honesty with the board and the accuracy of all of the bills he submitted for payment. Prouti explained further that the township also held annual township meetings. Within 30 days of the township meeting, the supervisor provided a statement of the township’s finances. When asked about Ela Township’s policy regarding private-pay patients at Winchester House during the years in question here, Prouti said that Winchester House billed the township and the township would pay Winchester House. In turn, the township would bill the family of the private-pay patient and the family would reimburse the township.

Prouti testified further that it was the supervisor’s duty to bring outstanding debts owed to the township to the attention of the township board. Prouti also said that the supervisor’s job included consulting with the township attorney regarding the possibility of taking action to collect such debts and to bring possible litigation to the attention of the township board. According to Prouti, Ela Township did not give defendant the authority either to allow his family members to stay at Winchester House for free or to submit Winchester House bills to the township for payment for which the township was not being reimbursed. Prouti was not aware of any confidentiality policy that prohibited defendant from disclosing that someone was not reimbursing the township for a Winchester House bill.

Prouti explained that a board audit report was a list of all the bills that were accumulated during the month and that it served as a request that the bills be paid by the township. The township supervisor, the township clerk, and the township trustees would sign the bottom of the audit report as having been audited and approved for payment. Prouti identified the township board audit reports for each month from September 1991 through March 1997. These documents contain an aggregate bill for the Ela Township residents in Winchester House and do not include the residents’ names or their individual bills. Prouti also identified the township supervisor’s annual statements of the financial affairs of the township. These supervisor’s statements were filed within 30 days of each annual township meeting. The financial statements filed in 1992 through 1999 do not disclose the outstanding debt owed to the township by Ruth Grever for her mother’s charges at Winchester House. Prouti also identified the minutes from the annual township meetings in 1993 through 1999, which show that defendant did not reveal to the township board his wife’s outstanding debt to the township as a result of his mother-in-law’s charges at Winchester House. Each month during these years the board voted to approve payment of the Winchester House bills for all the private-pay Ela Township residents staying at Winchester House. Prouti also identified the minutes from the township board meetings in 1991 through 1998, which show that defendant did not reveal to the township board his wife’s outstanding debt to the township as a result of his mother-in-law’s charges at Winchester House.

Prouti said that defendant did not reveal to the township board his wife’s outstanding debt to the township until the August 1999 board meeting. At that meeting the board went into executive session and defendant told the board about his wife’s delinquent payments owed to the township for the charges for her mother’s care at Winchester House. A decision was made to seek a legal remedy for the debt against Ruth Grever and her mother’s estate.

On cross-examination Prouti related that she has never seen the township’s Winchester House billing policy in writing. To Prouti, “policy” is synonymous with “the way things are done.” Prouti said that she does not remember the Ela Township board passing a single resolution from 1991 to 2000. Prouti said that she does not remember any trustee questioning a Winchester House bill that was submitted for payment.

William L. Donnan testified that he was an Ela Township trustee for 13 years beginning in 1981, and was the Ela Township clerk for the following 7 years. As such, Donnan said that he was at every township board meeting, except one, for 20 years. Donnan related that as trustee he relied on the township supervisor to provide him with accurate information regarding the township’s bills. Donnan said that the township supervisor was responsible for communicating with the township attorney and for bringing to the attention of the township board any possible litigation. Donnan testified further that before August 1999 defendant did not disclose to the township board that his wife, Ruth Grever, and his mother-in-law, Mae Chvojka, were not reimbursing the township for Chvojka’s Winchester House bills. Prior to August 1999, defendant did not make such disclosure in any board audit report presented at the monthly township board meetings or in his annual supervisor’s statement of the financial affairs of the township.

Richard Cowen testified that he became the attorney for Ela Township in 1981 and served as such until 2002. Cowen explained that the private-pay Winchester House patients’ charges were paid by the township and the township was responsible for collecting from the person managing each patient’s funds. According to Cowen, it was the supervisor’s responsibility to bring to Cowen’s attention any possible legal action or other issues concerning the township. Cowen said that if a person was not reimbursing the township for a Winchester House bill, he would know about it only if the supervisor notified him. If Co-wen was made aware of such a situation, he would advise the township board as to its options for recovering the amount due. In March 1994, defendant wrote Cowen a letter regarding a Winchester House patient’s representative who was not reimbursing the township for the patient’s Winchester House bill. In the letter, defendant indicated that the amount due to the township was $8,773.07 and suggested that the township take action to attempt to collect the money. Cowen explained that in that case the patient had died and the amount due the township represented some four or five months of Winchester House services. Cowen related that the ultimate decision to file a lawsuit in such a case would be made by the township board. Cowen testified further that in July 1999, defendant first brought to his attention the fact that his wife, Ruth Grever, had not reimbursed Ela Township for the care of her mother for a number of years. Defendant told Cowen that his wife owed the township a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that she kept promising to pay but had not, and that they needed to consider legal action. Shortly thereafter, Cowen attended an Ela Township board meeting during which an executive session was called. During the executive session Cowen, by referring to the conversation he had with defendant, brought the matter to the attention of the board. The board authorized his filing a lawsuit against Ruth Grever for the amount due to the township.

Certified public accountant David Bark testified that he has performed the yearly audits for Ela Township since 1981. Bark explained that Ela Township was on a cash-receipts accounting system. Bark identified the annual audits he prepared for the township from 1992 to 1999. Bark said that during that period defendant never informed him that his wife and mother-in-law owed Ela Township money for the mother-in-law’s care at Winchester House. Bark first heard about the debt sometime during 1999 or 2000 while conducting the audit and talked to defendant about it in January or February 2001.

On cross-examination, Bark testified that the cash-receipts method of accounting is more prevalent among governmental bodies than is the accrual method. Bark explained that the cash-receipts method of accounting is a cash-in, cash-out system in that money received is reported as receipts and money paid out is reported as expenditures. Bark also explained that the modified accrual method reflects receivables and payables where the cash-receipts method does not. Bark said that the amount owed to the township for Mae Chvojka’s stay at Winchester House would be considered an account receivable. According to Bark, under the cash-receipts method of accounting, an account receivable would not be reported until such time as it was paid. In Bark’s audits of the township’s financial records, he never saw listed any accounts receivable of any type. The annual audited financial statements of the township that he prepared contained no accounts receivable. According to Bark, the supervisor’s annual statement of the financial affairs of the township show no accounts receivable, and that is consistent with the township’s use of the cash-receipts accounting method.

Investigator Dean Kharasch of the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office testified that he interviewed defendant after his arrest in February 2002. According to Kharasch, when he asked defendant whether it was within his duties as township supervisor to notify the township board about anyone failing to make private-pay Winchester House payments to Ela Township, defendant said, “that’s my job to let the board know.” When Kharasch asked defendant why he waited so long to tell the township board about the outstanding debt, defendant said that he thought the money would be paid.

At the close of the State’s evidence, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied that motion.

Defendant called Victoria Grever, who testified that she is defendant’s and Ruth Grever’s youngest daughter. In 1997 or 1998, Victoria overheard her parents arguing over the Winchester House bills. According to Victoria, defendant was pleading with Ruth to pay the bills. Ruth responded by saying that it was her parents’ money, that she could do what she wanted with it, and that defendant should butt out. Ruth also said that she did not tell defendant what to do with his parents’ inheritance so she did not want defendant to tell her what she could or could not do with her inheritance. Victoria also testified that in June 1999, she had an argument with Ruth during which Ruth told Victoria that before she died she was going to find a way to ruin defendant professionally, politically, personally, and financially.

Defendant testified that he was Ela Township supervisor from 1981 to 2001. In the fall of 1991, his mother-in-law Mae Chvojka was admitted to Winchester House as a private-pay patient. At the time Chvojka was admitted into Winchester House, defendant was aware of various assets owned by Chvojka including her home, various bank accounts, and her income from social security and a pension. Defendant knew that Ela Township was reimbursed only for the first 4 Winchester bills that it paid on behalf of Chvojka during her approximately 64-month stay at Winchester House. Defendant said that he had no choice but to present the bills that came into the township to the township board for approval of payment. Defendant did not tell the township attorney about the outstanding bill until July 20, 1999. Defendant did not disclose the debt sooner because he believed and trusted that Ruth Grever would eventually pay the bill owed to the township. According to defendant, the supervisor’s annual statement of the financial affairs of the township was generated by a computer program and did not include information regarding the nonpayment of the amount owed to the township for Chvojka’s Winchester House care. Defendant admitted that it was the duty of the township supervisor and the township board to take legal action if the township was not being reimbursed for its payment of Winchester House bills on behalf of private-pay residents. Defendant also acknowledged that he was the only person who had knowledge of the outstanding debt due to the township for Chvojka’s Winchester House care and that the members of the board would not know about it unless he told them. Defendant was aware that for 7Va years the Ela Township board did not know about the debt owed to the township for Chvojka’s Winchester House care. According to defendant, in the only other case where the township was not reimbursed for a private-pay Winchester House patient’s bill, he sought legal action to collect an outstanding debt of approximately $8,000 for four months of care. At that same time, the outstanding debt due to the township for Chvojka’s Winchester House care was almost $120,000.

The defense also called various character witnesses who testified that defendant’s reputation in the community for honesty, integrity, truth, and veracity is excellent.

After hearing argument, the trial court found defendant guilty of all 12 counts charged in the indictment. Defendant’s posttrial motions, including motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, were heard and denied. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgments of conviction on the findings of guilt on counts I through VI, VII, and X of the indictment. The trial court sentenced defendant to a 30-month term of probation that included the payment of $205,000 restitution to Ela Township, six months of periodic imprisonment in the Lake County jail to be served on a work release basis, community service hours, and 90 days in the Lake County jail stayed pending defendant’s compliance with the terms of probation. Defendant’s motions to reconsider the sentence and to stay the sentence pending appeal were denied. Defendant now appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, with respect to counts I through VI of the indictment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the allegations in those counts fail to state offenses; because section 70 — 15(c) (v) of the Township Code (60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c)(v) (West 1998)) is too ambiguous to supply the mandatory duty defendant was alleged to have failed to perform in those counts; and because the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses alleged in those counts. As to count VII of the indictment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the allegations in that count fail to state a criminal offense and because the State failed to prove defendant guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As to count X of the indictment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove defendant guilty of the offense alleged therein beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the statute of limitations.

A. Counts I through VI

1. Whether counts I through VI state offenses of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a)

Defendant’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because counts I through VI fail to state offenses. The State argues that counts I through VI properly state offenses.

Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the charges alleged in counts I through VI in a posttrial motion in arrest of judgment, asserting that counts I through VI do not charge offenses punishable by the criminal law of the State of Illinois. A motion in arrest of judgment shall be granted when the indictment does not charge an offense. 725 ILCS 5/116 — 2(b)(1) (West 1998). If the indictment fails to set forth the elements of the offense, then a motion in arrest of judgment, if made, must be granted by the trial court. People v. Lutz, 73 Ill. 2d 204, 211-12 (1978). If such a challenge to the indictment is made in a motion in arrest of judgment, the defendant need not show actual prejudice but may obtain relief if the indictment does not strictly adhere to the statutory and constitutional requirements. People v. Wisslead, 108 Ill. 2d 389, 394 (1985); People v. Komes, 319 Ill. App. 3d 830, 833 (2001) (“When the indictment is challenged in a posttrial motion, the indictment must set forth the nature and elements of the charge in order to be considered sufficient”). The United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution afford criminal defendants the right to be informed of “the nature and cause” of the accusations against them. U.S. Const., amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. Section 111 — 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 requires that a charging instrument set forth “the nature and elements of the offense charged.” 725 ILCS 5/111 — 3(a)(3) (West 1998).

Section 33 — 3(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) provides: “A public officer or employee commits misconduct when, in his official capacity he commits any of the following acts:

(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law[.]” 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a) (West 1998).

In counts I through VI, the State alleged that defendant failed to perform the mandatory duty required by section 70 — 15(c)(v) of the Township Code (60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c)(v) (West 1998)), in that he failed to inform the Ela Township board of the indebtedness of Mae Chvojka and Ruth Grever to Ela Township within 30 days of the annual township meeting. Section 70 — 15(c) provides:

“(c) The supervisor shall, within 30 days before the annual township meeting, prepare and file with the township clerk a full statement of the financial affairs of the township, showing (i) the balance (if any) received by the supervisor from his or her predecessor in office or from any other source; (ii) the amount of tax levied the preceding year for the payment of township indebtedness and charges; (iii) the amount collected and paid over to the supervisor as supervisor; (iv) the amount paid out by the supervisor and on what account, including any amount paid out on township indebtedness, specifying the nature and amount of the township indebtedness, the amount paid on the indebtedness, the amount paid on principal, and the amount paid on interest account; and (v) the amount and kind of all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid, the amount and kind of indebtedness not yet due, and when the indebtedness not yet due will mature. The township clerk shall record the statement in the record book of the township as soon as it is filed and shall post a copy of the statement at the place of holding the annual township meeting 2 days before the meeting is held. The clerk shall also read aloud the statement to the electors at the annual township meeting.” 60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c) (West 1998).

The parties disagree as to the meaning of the term “indebtedness” in section 70 — 15(c)(v) and, in turn, whether the failure to perform a mandatory duty required by law has been alleged in counts I through VI.

Defendant argues that section 70 — 15(c)(v) does not require the inclusion of the debt owed to the township in the annual financial statement because the term “indebtedness” used in that section means money owed by the township and not money owed to the township. Defendant, therefore, concludes that the facts alleged in counts I through VI fail to state offenses because the failure to include the debt owed to the township in the annual financial statement, even if true, does not, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of section 70— 15(c)(v). In response, the State maintains that the plain meaning of the words “all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid” in section 70 — 15(c)(v) is all monies owed by the township and all monies owed to the township and, therefore, it has properly stated a failure to perform a mandatory duty required by law in counts I through VI.

Defendant has presented an issue of statutory construction. Issues of statutory construction are questions of law subject to de novo review. Lulay v. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d 455, 466 (2000). The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d at 466. The best evidence of legislative intent is the language employed in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d at 466. The statute should be construed as a whole, with each section read in conjunction with every other section. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d at 466. A court is not permitted to ignore the plain meaning of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d at 466.

Applying these well-established principles to the statutory language at issue in this case, we conclude that the phrase “the amount and kind of all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid” in section 70 — 15(c)(v) is unambiguous and means exactly what is written. This language means both the amount the township owes to others that is due and has not been paid and the amount that others owe to the township that is due and has not been paid. “Indebtedness” means the condition or state of owing money. Black’s Law Dictionary 771 (7th ed. 1999). The fact that the legislature chose not to qualify the word “indebtedness” in subsection (v) to indicate by whom or to whom the indebtedness is owed, as was done in subsections (ii) and (iv) with use of the language “township indebtedness,” evidences an intent to encompass in subsection (v) both indebtedness owed by the township and indebtedness owed to the township.

The defendant argues that construing the “all outstanding indebtedness” language in section subsection (v) to mean all indebtedness owed by and owed to the township is flawed from a definitional standpoint because “indebtedness,” in common parlance, refers to amounts owed unless the context dictates otherwise. Defendant maintains that, when amounts owed are envisioned, the appropriate term is “accounts receivable.” Defendant then points out that the legislature appreciates the difference between debts and accounts receivable and directs us to 28 statutory references to the term “account receivable.” We agree with defendant’s assertion that the legislature has manifested its awareness of the difference between debts and accounts receivable. However, the point ignored by defendant’s argument is that the plain meaning of the words of the statute demonstrates that the legislature did not intend to limit the application of subsection (v) only to amounts owed to the township or only to amounts owed by the township and, therefore, did not use the term “accounts receivable” or “township indebtedness.” Rather, it meant to encompass all types of indebtedness in subsection (v) and selected the language “all outstanding indebtedness,” covering both amounts owed by the township and amounts owed to the township. The amounts owed to the township, accounts receivable for example, are one of the types of indebtedness that the supervisor must include in his full financial statement pursuant to subsection (v).

Defendant also argues that construing the “all outstanding indebtedness” language in subsection (v) to mean all indebtedness owed by and owed to the township flies in the face of applicable tenets of statutory construction by considering and defining “indebtedness” in isolation and divorced from its context. Defendant argues that in every instance, except in subsection (v), that the word “indebtedness” appears in section 70 — 15(c), it unquestionably relates to the indebtedness of the township and not to amounts owed to the township. Defendant cites Guillen v. Potomac Insurance Co. of Illinois, 203 Ill. 2d 141, 152 (2003) (dealing with the recurring appearance of the phrase “proof of mailing”), Trettenero v. Police Pension Fund, 268 Ill. App. 3d 58, 65 (1994) (dealing with the recurring appearance of the phrase “act of duty”), and other authorities for the principle of statutory construction that where the same words appear in different parts of the same statute, they should be given the same meaning unless something in the context indicates that the legislature intended otherwise. We disagree. The above authorities are inapposite. The words “township indebtedness” appearing in the other subsections of section 70 — 15(c) are simply not the same words as “all outstanding indebtedness” used in subsection (v).

Defendant highlights Kuznitsky v. Murphy, 381 Ill. 182 (1942), which involved the construction of the word “day” in “An Act in relation to a system of unemployment compensation” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, ch. 48, par. 217 et seq.). Kuznitsky, 381 Ill. at 183-84. Kuznitsky is simply a case where the unmodified use of the term “day” had about it no indication that the legislature did not mean what it stated earlier in the statute when it used the term “calendar day.” Kuznitsky, 381 Ill. at 184-85. In contrast, the word “indebtedness” in section 70— 15(c)(v) is not unmodified as was the word “day” in Kuznitsky but, in fact, has been modified differently than in the other subsections of section 70 — 15(c). More specifically, in the phrase “all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid,” the word “indebtedness” is modified by the words “all,” “outstanding,” “due,” and “unpaid.” As we have stated, use of the phrase “all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid” indicates that a different meaning is intended than when the phrase “township indebtedness” is used.

Defendant’s last argument with respect to the construction of the term “indebtedness” in subsection (v) is that the natural progression, after showing the amounts paid on township indebtedness as required by subsection (iv), is to show the remaining outstanding township indebtedness, not accounts receivable. We disagree. Among the township supervisor’s duties are to receive and to pay out moneys raised in the township for defraying township charges. 60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(b) (West 1998). The supervisor has a duty to annually file a full statement of the financial affairs of the township. 60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c) (West 1998). This financial statement must include, inter alia, the amount collected and paid to the supervisor (60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c)(iii) (West 1998)) and the amount paid out by the supervisor (60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c)(iv) (West 1998)). The amount paid to the supervisor, without question, includes amounts paid to the supervisor by a person or entity as a result of an obligation or debt owed to the township. The amount paid out by the supervisor specifically includes the amount paid out on township indebtedness (60 ILCS 1/70 — 15(c)(iv) (West 1998)), that is, amounts owed by the township. Accordingly, subsections (iii) and (iv) of section 70 — 15(c) require the township supervisor to show what he has collected on amounts owed to the township and what he has paid out on amounts the township owes to others. In our view, after requiring the supervisor to show these amounts, the next logical requirement of a full statement of the financial affairs of the township would be to show the amounts that the township is yet due from other persons or entities and the amounts the township still owes on its own indebtedness. This is exactly what subsection (v) requires. In fact, from a logical perspective, it is defendant’s construction of subsection (v) that is faulty. For section 70 — 15(c)(v) to require the township supervisor to prepare and file a full statement of the financial affairs of the township and not require that he show amounts owed to the township that are past due is absurd. A court must presume that the legislature, in enacting a statute, did not intend absurdity or injustice. McNamee v. Federated Equipment & Supply Co., 181 Ill. 2d 415, 423-24 (1998).

Accordingly, we hold that section 70 — 15(c)(v) requires the township supervisor to include all debts owed to the township in his annual full statement of the financial affairs of the township. Hence, the allegations in counts I through VI of the indictment include an allegation that defendant failed to perform a mandatory duty required by law and, therefore, state offenses of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a).

2. Whether section 70 — 15(c)(v) gives the supervisor fair warning as to what action is required

In counts I through VI defendant is charged with violations of section 33 — 3(a), which does not by itself make criminal any specific omission but must be read together with those laws that impose duties upon public officials (see People v. Thoms, 50 Ill. App. 3d 398, 402 (1977)). Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts I through VI because section 70 — 15(c) (v) is too ambiguous to supply the mandatory duty defendant was alleged to have failed to perform. Defendant maintains that section 70 — 15(c)(v) fails to give fair warning to persons of common intelligence that accounts receivable must be included in the supervisor’s annual financial statement. Consequently, defendant concludes that section 70 — 15(c) (v) did not give him fair warning that he had to include the amount owed to the township by Mae Chvojka and Ruth Grever in his annual financial statements.

A criminal law may be declared unconstitutionally vague where it fails to provide the kind of notice that would enable a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct is prohibited. People v. Law, 202 Ill. 2d 578, 582 (2002). Where a criminal statute imposes an affirmative duty upon an individual to take action, the actus reus refers to a failure to act and the focus is on conduct that is required of the individual. Law, 202 Ill. 2d at 583. Thus, in determining whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague, the proper inquiry is whether the statute gives fair warning as to what conduct is required. Law, 202 Ill. 2d at 583.

In support of his contention that section 70 — 15(c)(v) does not give him fair warning as to what conduct is required, namely, that he is to show the amounts owed to the township in his annual financial statement, defendant reiterates the statutory construction arguments that he made to support his first appellate contention. He asserts that it is counterintuitive to construe subsection (v) to impose such a duty. As noted above, we believe that the language “all outstanding indebtedness due and unpaid” is unambiguous and its plain meaning is any indebtedness, including that owed to the township. For the reasons stated in the previous section of this opinion, we hold that this language gives fair warning as to the conduct that is required.

Next, defendant maintains that the counterintuitiveness of construing subsection (v) to impose a duty to show outstanding amounts owed to the township on the financial statement is exacerbated in the context of Ela Township’s use of a cash-basis system of accounting. Defendant defines a cash-basis system of accounting as that system of accounting wherein revenues are accounted for when received in cash and expenditures are accounted for when paid. Defendant maintains that under such an accounting system, revenues are not reflected when accrued like an account receivable but, rather, only when received. Defendant concludes that a public entity using a cash-basis system of accounting would not reflect accounts receivable in financial statements. We believe that the type of accounting system used by Ela Township is irrelevant to the issue of whether subsection (v) provides fair warning of the duty to show amounts due to the township on the full statement of the financial affairs of the township. Defendant equates a financial statement prepared for the township by its accountant under the cash-basis accounting system with the full financial statement he is required to file pursuant to section 70— 15(c). The requirements and components of a cash-basis accounting system financial statement cannot alter what must be included in the full statement of the financial affairs of the township that the supervisor is required to file annually pursuant to section 70 — 15(c).

Based on the foregoing, we hold that section 70 — 15(c)(v) adequately provides the kind of notice that would enable a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what he must do. Therefore, a charge of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a) predicated on a failure to perform the mandatory duty prescribed in section 70— 15(c)(v) is not unconstitutionally vague.

3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Defendant contends that the State failed to prove him guilty of the violations of section 33 — 3(a) alleged in counts I through VI because it failed to prove that he had knowledge or awareness of the mandatory duty imposed by section 70 — 15(c) (v) to include the outstanding debt owed to the township in the annual financial statement. Defendant’s contention is specific. He submits that the offense of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a) has an implied mental state of knowledge of the law imposing the mandatory duty that was not performed.

In support of his contention, defendant cites People v. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d 984 (1972). In Campbell, the Fifth District reversed the defendants’ convictions of official misconduct pursuant to section 33— 3(a) because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were not acting in ignorance or mistake as to fact or law. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 995. It was alleged that the defendants in Campbell, trustees of a levy and sanitation district, violated section 33 — 3(a) by knowingly entering into contracts without letting the contracts to the lowest bidder or giving notice to the public, in violation of state law. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 988. The court said that there was no question that the defendants’ acts were illegal, but found that the defendants’ criminal responsibility was in doubt because the defendants acted on the advice of experts that an emergency existed and were of the mistaken opinion that in such circumstances they could enter into contracts without letting the contracts to the lowest bidder and without giving notice to the public. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 994. The Campbell court held that section 33 — 3(a) “does not describe an offense which involves absolute liability. It provides that one charged must act ‘intentionally’; it prescribes a particular mental state to the offense as [a] whole.” Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 994. The court rejected the State’s contention that the defendants’ convictions must be sustained because the defendants’ conscious objective or purpose was to enter into the contracts without taking bids. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 995. The court reasoned that the unrefuted evidence showed that the defendants acted through ignorance or mistake, that the State did not show that the defendants profited from their illegal acts or that the acts involved moral turpitude, and that there were no circumstances from which criminal intent could be inferred. Campbell, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 995.

The State argues that defendant’s contention fails in light of People v. Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d 180 (1990). Scharlau involved, among other convictions, convictions of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 33 — 3(c)). Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d at 183. In Scharlau, our supreme court noted:

“[A] conviction under section 33 — 3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 requires only that the accused have an intent to obtain personal advantage for himself or another. [Citation.] Knowledge that the action in question violates the statute by being outside the officer’s lawful authority is not an element.” Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d at 199.

The Scharlau decision alone does not dispose of defendant’s argument regarding the mental state requirements of a charge under section 33 — 3(a); however, as explained below, the Scharlau decision is a component of our analysis of the issue defendant raises.

Section 33 — 3 provides in pertinent part:

“§ 33 — 3. Official Misconduct. A public officer or employee commits misconduct when, in his official capacity, he commits any of the following acts:

(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or

(b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or

(c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority; or

(d) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.” 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a) (West 1998).

The general provisions of section 33 — 3 require that the person charged be a “public official or employee” acting in his “official capacity.” Subsection (a) adds two additional elements that must be proven by the State in order to sustain the charge. First, the actus reus, that is, the guilty act or omission, here the failure to perform some act. Second, the attendant circumstance, that is, a fact surrounding the act or omission, here that the act that was not done is a “mandatory duty required by law.”

Criminal liability requires the conjunction of a culpable mental state (at common law, the mens rea) and a punishable act or omission (at common law, the actus reus). See 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.1, at 269-70 (1986). With the exception of certain absolute liability offenses, the Code (720 ILCS 5/1 — 1 et seq. (West 1998)) retains this distinction. Compare 720 ILCS 5/4 — 1 (West 1998) (“A material element of every offense is a voluntary act, which includes an omission to perform a duty which the law imposes on the offender and which he is physically capable of performing”) with 720 ILCS 5/4 — 3(a) (West 1998) (“A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense which involves absolute liability, unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, he acts while having one of the mental states described in Sections 4 — 4 through 4 — 7”). We agree with the conclusion in Campbell that official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a) is not an absolute liability offense. The statute clearly requires proof of one of the two alternate mental states of intent and recklessness. 720 ILCS 5/33 — 3(a) (West 1998). The question raised by defendant is what mental state applies to the second component of section 33 — 3(a). More specifically, what mental state has to be proven with respect to the “attendant circumstance” that there is a “mandatory duty as required by law” that was not performed. It is on this point that we disagree with the Campbell court’s position that section 33 — 3(a) prescribes a particular mental state to the offense as a whole.

Section 4 — 9 of the Code provides:

“§ 4 — 9 Absolute Liability. A person may be guilty of an offense without having, as to each element thereof, one of the mental states described in Sections 4 — 4 through 4 — 7 if the offense is a misdemeanor which is not punishable by incarceration or by a fine exceeding $500, or the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for the conduct described.” 720 ILCS 5/4 — 9 (West 1998).

We believe that section 33 — 3, read as a whole, clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability as to the “attendant circumstance” element of subsection (a). In addition to the general elements of section 33 — 3, each subsection adds an actus reus in the form of an act or an omission, and an attendant circumstance in the form of a law prohibiting or requiring the act or omission. With regard to the mental states applicable to these attendant circumstances, subsections (b) and (d) expressly provide that the actor have knowledge of the law that prohibits the act he or she has knowingly performed. In contrast, subsections (a) and (c) have no express requirement that the actor or omitter have knowledge of the law that forbids or requires the act or omission. The legislature’s provision of a mental state for the attendant circumstances in subsections (b) and (d), and not in subsections (a) and (c), is a clear indication of its purpose to impose absolute liability as to the attendant circumstances in subsections (a) and (c) but not in subsections (b) and (d). There is a well-established rule of statutory construction which states, “an express statutory requirement here, contrasted with statutory silence there, shows an intent to confine the requirement to the specified instance.” Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 67, 133 L. Ed. 2d 351, 360, 116 S. Ct. 437, 442 (1995), citing Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 404, 112 L. Ed. 2d 919, 930, 111 S. Ct. 840, 846-47 (1991), and quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17, 24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 300 (1983) (“ ‘[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion’ ”).

Moreover, our determination that there is no implied mental state of knowledge as to the “mandatory duty required by law” element of section 33 — 3(a) is supported by our supreme court’s holding in Scharlau. In Scharlau the court stated that in a prosecution for official misconduct under section 33 — 3(c), the State does not have to prove that the defendant knew that he was exceeding his lawful authority but only that he had the intent to obtain personal advantage for himself or another while performing an act in excess of his lawful authority. See Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d at 199-200. We cannot conclude that subsection (a) of section 33 — 3 has an implied mental state of knowledge as to the attendant circumstance when our •'Supreme court has held that there is no such mental state as to the attendant circumstance in subsection (c) of that section.

While the State was not required to prove defendant’s knowledge of the law prescribing the mandatory duty, it is important to realize that proof of defendant’s knowledge of the outstanding debt was essential to proving that defendant intentionally omitted the debt owed to the township in the full statements of the financial affairs of the township for the pertinent years. “A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/4 — 4 (West 2002). In order to prove that it was defendant’s conscious objective or purpose to omit the debt owed to the township from the full statements of the financial affairs of the township, the State had to prove that defendant knew about the debt owed to the township and chose not to include it in the statements. Had the State been unable to prove defendant’s knowledge of the debt, it would not have been able to prove the alleged mental state of intent with respect to the omission. If defendant had never known about the outstanding debt, he would have been able to mount an ignorance or mistake defense because defendant’s ignorance of the fact of the outstanding debt owed to the township would negative the existence of the intent mental state which section 33 — 3(a) prescribes with respect to the omission. See 720 ILCS 5/4 — 5(a) (West 2002). In this way the statute insulates inadvertent conduct from punishment as criminal conduct.

For these reasons, we reject defendant’s contention that there is an implied mental state of knowledge as to the attendant circumstance element of section 33 — 3(a), and hold that the State is not required to show that a defendant charged with official misconduct under section 33 — 3(a) was aware of the mandatory duty required by law in order to sustain a conviction. Hence, in this case the State did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of the section 70 — 15(c)(v) duty to include all debts owed to the township in his annual financial statement in order to sustain the charges alleged in counts I through VI of the indictment.

B. Count VII

1. Whether count VII states the offense of official misconduct under section 33 — 3(c)

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to count VII of the indictment because the State failed to state a criminal offense in count VII. Specifically, defendant argues that the State has failed to sufficiently allege that he committed “an act in excess of lawful authority” because there is no “law” which limits his authority such that he can submit to the township board only bills that are being reimbursed. In response, the S