photo provided by Mark Charvat
My best guess is 120. Somewhere around 120 people showed up the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Electors of DeKalb Township. The late Pat Lavigne would have been proud and perhaps a little jealous of Eric Johnson, the current township supervisor, because this many residents haven’t been to a township meeting since before the 1970 Illinois Constitution Convention. The staff prepared the Township Garage for a large audience and the facilities were as accommodating as possible.
Voter registration rolls were checked to make sure all those who voted as Electors were indeed residents of DeKalb Township and registered voters. There was a slight delay to the 7pm scheduled start to the meeting but Lynne Kunde and Jodie Peterson checked the Electors in while Johnson, John Huber (Road Commissioner) and John Heitiko (tax assessor) made sure the elderly among the Electors had a chair to sit in for the meeting. Seats were limited.
As expected the outcome of the advisory referendum questions was determined with the election of the moderator. Mark Charvat nominated Kay Shelton. Obviously he wanted the questions on the ballot. Elizabeth Bass was nominated by Curtis Wood, an associate professor with the NIU Division of Public Administration and frequent contributor to the Center for Government Studies. Proof there were neutral Electors in attendance was provided with the nomination of Eric Johnson. Bass was elected moderator by a wide margin.
All three of the proposed ballot questions were rejected by more than a 2-1 margin.
On the question of:
- Home Rule failed 65-30
- the City Manager form of government failed 62-28
- the Library issue failed 62-26
Had the DeKalb Township Electors approved any of the questions being placed on the ballot they would have been advisory only.
Personal notes and observations.
Fans of clairvoyance every where who’s your Daddy? I predicted here, in this media, that the 2012 Annual Meeting of the DeKalb Township Electors would have record attendance. Done.
The method for counting votes was the most efficient available considering the circumstances. It was also the most graphically representative of the division in the City of DeKalb. If you were in favor you walked over to one side of the room. If you were opposed you walked to the other side of the room.
If it’s news happening here it’s news to me: Kay Shelton announced that the advisory referendum initiatives were her idea. I thought they were the brainchild of Mark Charvat. Not that it would have made any difference.
Before the meeting started Herb Rubin came bouncing over my way as if he was some sort of long lost friend for some small talk. In my experiences with him he has been as intellectually dishonest as they come. He purposely misleads and misrepresents others for whatever goal that serves. And that pleases him. So I told the slimy SOB to get away from me. It kept the rest of the meeting civil.
Charvat was ready to take signatures for a binding referendum on Home Rule for the November ballot before the meeting started. I will sign the petition. I’ll blog about it. But the Clairvoyant One will make no prediction on whether the voters will get to weigh in on the issue or what the results would be. Big Money backs Home Rule. Big Money wants Local Control. Big Money wants their ROI now and they want the other half to pay for it in installments, Rule of 72, of course. If the petitioners do not have competent legal representation and a campaign budget their effort will fail.
When the question of whether or not to put the City Manager form of government on the ballot came up for a vote 1st ward alderman Dave Jacobson and 6th ward alderman Dave Baker walked over to be counted with our side of the room. I never got to talk with Jacobson but in explaining why he wanted the question on the ballot Baker told me that Mark Biernacki’s contract required six of the eight corporate authorities (mayor and council) to fire him.
Carol Zar (NIU Center for Governmental Studies-retired) told the Electors that the voters of DeKalb chose the City Manager form of government multiple times in local elections as if the supporters of that question should know better than to try that question again. Some critics wonder why the mayor and city council would once again put a binding referendum on whether or not the City Clerk should be appointed or elected since voters have chose the elected option in multiple elections. The mayor and council feel they may have a better shot since they reduced the pay from $60,000 to under $10,000 in case voters don’t give them the answer they want this time.
Jennifer Groce (NIU Center for Governmental Studies) pleaded with the Electors not to put any of the questions on the ballot because some voters residing in DeKalb would not get to vote on the advisory questions while some who don’t live in the city would. That was the most legitimate opposing view I heard.
But was the concern genuine? When Ted McCarron wondered if her and any of the others would vote yes if that situation was changed the opposing side of the room erupted with objections to even being asked such a question. It went unanswered.
The most troublesome view expressed by another retired NIU professor was that the average voter wasn’t smart enough to vote on an issue as complicated as Home Rule. He made the statement when the topic was on the City Manager form of government. This is 2012. Taxpayers, students and parents have invested for generations in education. DeKalb is one of the more educated communities in the nation. That argument has no basis in reality. And it’s insulting.
Township government rocks! I can’t wait until next year!!!
Click Here To Submit A News Tip Or Story
28 Comments
The annual township meeting is different. Everybody who is a registered voter has rights that cannot be taken away from them.
This might be one to give it a rest.
Assuming mac is using the official figures and no one present abstained, the participants showed patience for a long meeting (with many having to stand)
95 voted on the first issue and 88 were still around for the last. Kudos on that what.
I fear that we might end up with a cycle now of everyone introducing their pet issues at the township meetings, leading to not only battles on these issues but on those that prevail battles on how to prioritize them on a ballot.
I’m asking state officials about what happened to the legislation to force townships to dare I saw only be concerned about township issues.
If Mark C was serious and a serious effort is made to get the requisite number of signatures for a binding referendum many problems could/will be avoided. We can have an official vote on the matter that counts and perhaps spare the township from dealing with advisory votes that can go no where.
I will seek to inform myself about the different structures for library districts, as that is new to me. I have already done so about home rule and city management and if anything my last review of the material strengthened my support for each, not necessarily for the incumbents of offices but for the form of government.
Herb and others,
You want to be informed on the issue of whether DeKalb should have a public municipal library which includes trustees appointed by the mayor, or a district library where trustees are elected? Here is a link to a very well done handbook on library law, issues, and policies. Advantages/disadvantages told in first few pages…
http://www.lincolntrail.info/consultresources/Librarydistricthandbook2010.pdf
My view on the library issue is similar to Home Rule. In the right hands, either form works. In the wrong, autocratic hands (what I see in DeKalb), power is better spread among more people, namely a district library with elected trustees, and non-home rule power for municipal and county government. City fathers’ power grab on the city clerk situation frames the power issue quite nicely. They are stepping nicely into Mike Madigan’s shoes. How ironic that lack of home rule would perhaps return some power over local affairs to the Speaker. I guess each local voter must decide which devil he knows best.
I commend all who came to the township meeting, and the township authorities for handling it well. Had the venue allowed space for more non-voting members, I might have come just to observe. Certainly I am interested.
I look forward to more work on these issues. And Mac, thanks for the venue in which to make these remarks.
Kerry,
That is an excellent resource for folks creating a new library district from scratch. Charm is well-respected statewide, too.
There was room for folks to stand up but not enough chairs. I almost brought all the folding chairs I owned with me–I wish I had done that. There were plenty of people who came to observe and abstained from voting.
Mac
I really do get your goat. A shame.
Intellectually dishonest: means that I make strong arguments against your stands and on many times the side I have pushed for has prevailed, often independent of my efforts one way or the other.
Agree though that during public discussion everyone was quite civil and Elizabeth really rocked at moderator.
Herb
Intellectually dishonest means you are a liar. Yes, you do get my goat because of what you are doing to this community and the working class folks who live here. It’s not about winning but you have forgotten that. You used to be on the outside looking in and was quite the town critic. Once you got “in” you took the spoils, drank the tea, did the lunch thang. You imposed your warped sense of values on almost every aspect of city government.
Your strategy of repeating lies until they are accepted as truth has proven to be quite effective in the perpetuation of your acceptance into the old boys network. You are the Champion of the corruption that Illinois needs to get rid of.
Mrs. Bass did do a good job as moderator. You really didn’t mean to compliment her as much as you did to insult Ms. Shelton. But that’s you.
Also, the mayor announced during the public city meeting on Monday night that he planned on attending the meeting. Ald. Teresinski also mentioned the township meeting at Monday night’s meeting.
Hey Mac, you forgot something. >;-)
Actually I was pointing out how dominant the presence of the NIU Center for Government Studies was at this meeting.
Everybody who attended last night has next year’s meeting date, and technically, we the people, approved that date. 🙂
April 9, 2013
Yes, what really happened is I read a newspaper during lunch on March 1 and found out that was the deadline to get agenda items on the annual township meeting. The deadline is the same statewide. I contacted Mark and gave him ideas for questions. He turned in the questions. There was a limit of three questions. He picked three.
So, that is why there were not fifteen signatures for the agenda. The questions got thrown together and delivered in about a hour and a half’s time. Nobody seemed to ask why there were not fifteen signatures but there were a lot of assumptions made about that, and criticism directed toward Mark about not having fifteen signatures, which I did not feel he deserved.
Because there were not fifteen signatures, the township had to approve the questions at the March meeting. With fifteen signatures, the township has no choice in the matter the people get to set the agenda if there are fifteen of them. Setting the annual township agenda appeared on the March meeting agenda, posted publicly, which is most certainly subject to the Open Meetings Act.
One would think that after the record breaking 2010 Cortland Township Annual Meeting, more people would pay attention to township meetings.
Hey, maybe next year, there will be an advisory referendum on allowing chickens within all of DeKalb Township . . . 😉
Hey slick tell me how the mayor and 5 council members at that meeting wasnt a OMA violation? were you talking township business or city business?
I guess my argument would be that in this instance township and city business were the same. This meeting was a public meeting. Public notice was given. The agenda was published on the township’s website in compliance with OMA.
If any of the council members had spoken, it would have made me think twice about the OMA implications. But they didn’t. I might have concern about potential conflicts of interest in voting, but no objections based on OMA.
I do appreciate Ald. Lash’s absence, which I hear was based on such concerns — erring on the side of caution should be noted and Lord knows the local electorate gets precious little time at sharing views without interference.
Thanks Darold, whoever you are, for the question.
Lynn-
I somehow missed your comment before I posted mine to darold.
Are you saying you know the council/mayor did not speak at all, as in open discussion with the rest of the crowd during the meeting?…
Or are you saying you watched and none of them spoke at all to each other? That would be commendable if true and could be verified.
Sounds like Ald. Lash certainly took the safe road. Good for her.
The mayor spoke but only after Mark called on him to speak.
>;-)
I don’t recall any of the elected officials speaking publicly, except it sounds like I might be wrong! But I only meant that their speaking publicly would mean I’d have to think more about OMA implications.
Certainly I thought their presence was inappropriate, and some of their behavior was (making fun of the opposition within their hearing). In any environment I’ve ever operated in, such a level of disrespect openly displayed by the leadership has always signaled abuse of power so I always have a visceral reaction to it.
I asked Ald Lash (in the presence of Township Board member Jim Lubke and another individual who has commented on this story) after the city council meeting on Monday night if she would be in attendance at the township meeting on Tuesday night. She told me she would not be there due to potential open meeting act violations. Ms Lash after Monday night’s meeting was not feeling good.
Follow up….Mr Lubke announced at the Township meeting on Tuesday that Ms Lash had a prior committment….hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Lynn- Ald Gallagher spoke up at least one time, his name is in the official record. He Motioned to Call the question on one of the referenda items
Hey Mark, even staying home to watch TV could be considered a prior commitment!
A very interesting legal question. If, say, an alderman and mayor speak out individually but publicly at an annual township meeting regarding city business (with a majority of a quorum of city council or subcommittee members present), can it be construed they are in effect speaking to each other and thereby “deliberating” on city business outside a properly called city meeting, thereby violating a provision of the OMA?
Individual constitutional rights of office holders must be conserved, yet under the OMA, so must be the rights of the public at large to know and interact with their elected and appointed officials while they “deliberate”. A conundrum?
One obvious “safe” solution as a city official at a township meeting but outside a properly called city meeting of their own body, is to keep one’s mouth shut and just vote. But of course that can be claimed as technically infringing the official’s first amendment right to free speech. Or one could avoid the meeting altogether, but that is even more burdensome Constitutionally.
It seems to me the obvious way to deal with the dilemma is to properly call a joint meeting with each body conducting their own agenda in turn, while sharing the same audience/participants. Offhand I see no reason why this could not work and allow freedom to all without violating any rights. Perhaps someone can tell me why this would be inappropriate under some law? Is it really a solution?
I believe Mayor Povlsen also spoke and not just on procedural grounds. The meeting minutes will be available soon. Upon receipt, I may take up the issue with the Public Access Councilor to make an official assessment.
Someone called the question on the city manager item right after I raised my hand to be recognized to speak to it. I do not know who it was.
darold-
Just posted a few comments over at the Daily Chronicle on this issue of whether there was an Open Meetings Act violation.
Depends on who talked to who about what.
This was a very public meeting. The Open Meetings Act is to prevent things like a school board having a meeting in a school bus and preventing anyone from the public from attending (that really happened).
The Open Meetings Act is to prevent a school board from having a meeting on a golf course (that really happened, too).
Stop and think about this, and if it is worth the time and energy.
I rather doubt it is worth the time, but is an interesting question. Read case law to see the amazing “what-ifs” turned to actual legal challenges and court rulings that have preceded.
The township meeting was very open, but that wonderful fact does not automatically excuse or exempt city officials from OMA provisions, which are intended to provide transparency for each particular governing body. If city officials, sanitary district officials, school district officials, etc. came to the township meeting (or any other properly called meeting not their own) with a majority of a quorum and discussed business pertaining to their own governing bodies, that would be in violation of the OMA. Also, a violation of the same nature could occur at their homes, over the phone, on the internet, etc. The whole point is to keep all “deliberation” of business publicly noticed ahead of time and performed in complete public view, with the narrow exceptions allowing for a closed meeting. The reason we have new legislation requiring OMA training of public officials is due to the fact that its not always easy for some to avoid inadvertent violations. In my view, however, most serious violations are probably not inadvertent but rather the result of sloppiness or intentional disregard.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kerry–Most other cities function well enough without the citizens having to turn to an alternative venue, i.e. the annual township meeting.
Have you watched the footage of recent city meetings?
Think of the annual township meeting as a forum to ‘get away’ from how things usually get done at the city.