The games have begun! In today's issue of the Journal & Topics, we read two interesting items. The first is an article about the amazing disappearing council agenda item regarding council decorum:
click on above photo for larger view
It seems the city council has more than one whiny cry baby occupying a seat. It appears the 5th Ward's Benedict-Alderman Ryan went running to the Mayor to wail about a personal email from the 1st Ward's Alderman Schmidtzkrieg that he didn't like, and the Mayor was willing to place the item on the city council agenda for public discussion. We understand that Benedict-Alderman Ryan isn't used to being strongly challenged either publicly or privately, but we had no idea he was such a remarkable cry baby.
According to Mayor Fri-nocchio, he pulled the item from the council agenda because he was afraid the meeting would last too long. Since that entire city council meeting was about 30 minutes in length, we feel Mayor Fri-nocchio must have pulled the agenda item for other reasons. And we are digging in to find out why.
The second item of interest is a letter from 1st Ward resident Dave Kemerer:
click on above photo for larger view
Mr. Kemerer accuses Alderman Schmidtzkrieg of having a "penchant for loose rhetoric." It appears to us that Mr. Kemerer has a penchant for "loose truths." As an attorney, Mr. Kemerer should know better than to declare something unconstitutional before a court has declared something unconstitutional. But we feel the crux of the matter for Mr. Kemerer is not necessarily the truth involved with the constitutionality of a recall ordinance as much as it may be his desire to spin the message and provide his pals with cover.
It appears to us that Mr. Kemerer isn't any better with numbers than he is with his treatment of the truth. The final vote to approve the density variance for Norwood's condominium project was 4 to 3. Schmidtzkrieg was joined in voting "no" by Aldermen Wsooooolman and DreadBach. So, in fact, "the rest of the council" did not "conclude" that the density variance was justified.
Mr. Kemerer also seems extremely concerned that Alderman Schmidtzkrieg may run for mayor - something Schmidtzkrieg himself has said he is not doing, much to the PRU Crew's disappointment.
We wonder what Mr. Kemerer is "running" for?
In any case, what is going on here is that the Usual Suspects Club is cranking up the smear and spin machine. It's of vital importance that a representative with populist appeal gets knocked down and dragged around so that the politically connected can have their way with public policy.
It's nothing more than absolute bullshit.
November 28, 2007
Worse Than Kool-aid!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Wasn’t Dave Kemerer the bumbling speaker with the bad brown suit who talked about the Norwood development like it was second coming at the last council meeting involving EOP? According to the City Council minutes “He (Dave Kemerer) is in favor of the development and believes the Council should try to meet a developer halfway who is contributing positive attributes to the community in order to protect the City’s credibility.” Protect the City’s credibility? Being credible at what? The most easy to fleece town in the northwest suburbs. Not to mention his fuzzy math regarding the tax benefits. Yep must be a product of the “new math” generation.
If I’m right it doesn’t surprise me that Davey K neglects to mention that Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect and Wheeling already have recall ordinances on their books. Good old Dave seems to make a habit out of deceitful oratory. Oh that’s right he runs with the Frimark crowd.
Watch yourself Alderman Schmidt these guys are great at this stuff.
Let's not confuse form with substance here. It's not how he speaks or what he wears that's important, but the content of his speech. Mike Royko was an incisive political observer and thinker, but he was neither an impressive dresser or a stirring speaker.
And in comparison to his comments about EOP, his suit was positively splendid.
I just got my Word of the Day email [how appropriate]:
incongruous \in-KONG-groo-us\, adjective:
1. Lacking in harmony, compatibility, or appropriateness.
2. Inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense.
Anonymous 2:10
Completely agree. I'm sorry, but it was just a way to identify who he was. It’s like referring to Howard as the circus freak at the head of the table.
I'm confused though....based on the email that Alderman Schmidt sent to Mr. Kemerer...it
appears as though he does have designs on running for Mayor, or at least an office which serves a larger voter base than just his ward.
I don't think that would be a bad thing, but do believe Ald. Schmidt doth protest too much.
Puleeze! Every single time anyone has dared to buck the Bozo in the big chair, somebody takes the buckaroo aside to tell them they might become "irrelevant".
I read Kemerer's reported quotation of Schmidt's email as nothing more than a thumb to Kemerer's arrogant eye about the issue of being "relevant".
Alderman Schmidt is and is likely to remain very relevant to those of us who do not favor the "traditional" deal making that seems to always go on, especially behind closed doors...or down in Florida...among the old boys club. Alderman Schmidt is very relevant to those of us who have dunderheads representing us in other wards outside the 1st.
Hope that clears things up for you, confused @ 4:04 PM.
Is that you Dave Kovic? You are the only person I know in Park Ridge who has ever said "doth protest too much." Unless it's the Bean.
Wasn't me. I'm a firm believer in protesting out the kazoo! ;)
Bean,
I like Ald. Schmidt based upon what I've seen thus far...but if that email quote was accurate...I might deduce (apparently incorrectly) that the fine Alderman was thinking about running for Mayor...or State Rep...or State Senator (duck danny).
You'd be "deducing" that without having read Alderman Schmidt's letter in the press...that he is not running for Mayor; the only "higher office" in question...especially as Frimark is concerned.
The email quotation alone might give one some reason to "deduce" that Schmidt is considering it, but any "deduction" AFTER Schmidt's letter to the press, which is EXACTLY what Kemerer has done, is just plain idiotic...but then...we are talking about Dave Kemerer.
On the off chance that Schmidt changes his mind about a run for Mayor, I won't hold any of this against him. At least he will not have pulled a HOWARD and begun a run for Mayor the moment he was elected to his Aldermanic seat. And if Schmidt runs for Mayor and even wins, he won't be the first Park Ridge Mayor with only two years of council experience under his belt. But he might be the first Mayor with only two years of council experience AND a full load of personal integrity.
I don't recall saying "doth" about anything, but irrespective of that the comment about Schmidt wasn't mine. I do, however, think Schmidt has done a great job so far - but my opinion of him would plummet if I found out he was goofy enough to actually want to become part of the bad joke that is the current Illinois General Ass-embly.
Bean: I read his letter to the editor when it ran and took it at face value. I still do. However, when I see the email that he himself sent to someone, I start to think that there is something to him being interested in a higher office; and that isn't a bad thing.
Let me state, I like Ald. Schmidt. He is serving us residents of the first ward very well, as well as taking a stand for people in many wards other than his own.
My only point was and is, that if I was sent that email, I would think he's running for Mayor as well.
Kovic...sorry to get you dragged into my debate with the Bean.
The Dave Schmidt lovefest continues.
Dave and I did not get off to a good start back in 2005. We have since developed a more cordial relationship. I have seen a side of Dave that is very favorable (independent and apparently genuinely concerned for the welfare of the town and its citizens), and he seems to be starting to come around to my point of view that some of the City leadership could use improvement or removal.
Dave is also frosting Howard and some other members of the old guard. That's a good thing.
What I read as an official tax payer - is that the pleted hushpuppy crowd needs to wake up ! Its real, its happening..they really are playing with a full deck - up there on the round table.
Credibility...I don't think so!
Just because his rear license plate
reads " Alumni Club" does not mean
that he has common sense.
Its really lacking this election cycle.
Wow!!!
Thank you.
To my anonymous but confused admirerer...
My point was and is, if you only had an email that spoke of being "relevant" to the Mayoral election, then perhaps thinking Schmidt is running for Mayor might be logical. But having read a letter from Schmidt in the press, expressly stating that he is not running, makes any assumptions to the contrary idiotic. Unless one thinks he is lying to the people of Park Ridge in his letter in the papers.
However, we all might now be able to "deduce" who was the gossiping bad-brown-suit-sporting biddy who began the rumor about Schmidt's possibly running for Mayor...inspiring Alderman Schmidt to attempt to disavow the rumor.
And I fully agree with the PRU article today...Kemerer's letter and Frimark's and Ryan's attempted public catterwalling (not to be confused with caterwauling) is part of a concerted effort to undermine the "populist appeal" of Alderman Schmidt.
Is anyone suprised that the Mayor and his minions would be looking to castrate their opposition?
The only notable element in Mr. Kemerer's letter is an absence of his mentioning his law school alma mater. He liberally enjoys reminding people of his degree.
Where did Kemerer go to school?
To the former 6th ward alderman who I've been debating, but not admiring.
Why would Ald Schmidt craft an email that implies one thing and then send a letter to the editor putting down that "rumor?"
Seems strange to be both fanning the flames and throwing water on them.
Just my observation from the cheap seats.
Folks it time....lets band together and form a real govenment ..you know.." For the people..and by the people" good stuff like that.
Why else would anyone want to be a fulltime - paid congressman or woman?
Most of the folks in congress are either millonares or close to it.
Let's face it...they really don't care about us or they would be there and resolving the key issues.
If you saw the republican debates last evening...you would score it how ?.
I for one believe that hillary will stop at nothing - now that Obama ( who still refuses to wear or place his hand over his heart for the national anthem) is breathing down her neck.
Let's stop the hillary express - here too !
Read the book " Unlimited Access "
that covers the clintons' and their escapdes in OUR white house.
Why would people flee this country in order not to testify against the clintons ? Why would "China" have a vested inerested - still in the clintons ? Why is it that the clintons are charging the U.S. Government 10,000 dollars per month to house the Secret Sevice agents at their estate in NY?
You know ..just like that other state/city that hillary chose to call her home like
" PARK RIDGE ILLINOIS".
Yes - Gov. Blago will help here to get out the democratic vote - here in Illinois.
Please don't look for this voter to attend her afternoon teas...I'd rather watch those folks in spandex that could earn their own zip code instead.
See Ya!
To Anonymous 8:13,
Wow...are YOU ever off the mark...on all fronts!
I strongly urge you to contact Alderman Schmidt and ask him your question, as I must confess to an inability to read minds.
After that, I strongly urge you to contact Mayor Frimark and ask why he pulled the decorum item off the City Council agenda.
Then, if you aren't too tuckered out, why not contact Alderman Ryan and ask him why he's acting like such a cry baby.
Finally, contact Mr. Kemerer and inquire as to whether or not he was the gossiper who began this rumor.
Good luck.
Dave Schmidt just told me about this blog entry - you guys are a tough crowd! I wasn't aware that expressing an opinion at a Council meeting was going to get me on Mr. Black's fashionista victim list. And a whole constituency of minions has been invoked for me, too! Remarkable, and very entertaining.
bean, you should really read Dave Schmidt's letter again. If he really wants to decline to run, he could 'just say no' when the rumors come to him. Or send a 2 sentence letter to the editor denying interest. But if he wanted to spread the idea around that he would respond to a populist draft - and simultaneously fan that draft - he would write exactly the self-congratulatory letter he submitted. You did notice that his disclaimer of political ambitions was carefully qualified with an "at this time"? Sorry DS fan club, that letter was too transparent a move to ignore. Dave does bombast and bluster very well, but he should stay away from the cutesy stuff.
By the way, municipalities can and do pass all sorts of damn fool ordinances which wouldn't stand a prayer were they to get a court challenge. Does anyone know if those other suburbs have ever tried out their recall ordinances? Civics 101: If Illinois can't validly recall an elected official without first passing a constitutional amendment to give itself that authority, and the powers of local government are entirely devolved from the State, how can local governments like Park Ridge recall anyone? You don't have to have a constitutional scholar or a lawyer to figure this one out.
Counsin dave:
Good thing you were directed to this blog entry. We are guessing you were too busy looking at every other entry to notice this one during your visits.
The PRU Crew
Cousin Dave - I'm not "a constitutional scholar" so maybe that's why it was so easy for me to type in the search term
"'Illinois Constitution' recall of elected officials," and in less than 10 minutes found the case of Williamson v. Doyle, where the court wrote that "a home rule unit [of government] could enact a valid recall ordinance" because the 1970 Illinois Constitution
"gives home rule units broad legislative powers and states that those powers are to be construed liberally."
Cousin Dave, are you a constitutional scholar? Maybe you should try Google.
Sit back and buckle your seatbelt, I've got to throw a little law at you now. Williamson v Doyle is an Appellate Court case in which the issue was the the validity of a recall procedure enacted by referendum in a non-home rule municipality. The court ruled that referenda, whether or not passed by a home rule municipality, are governed by Article VII, sec 7-3, which doesn't contemplate the use of referenda to enact recall petitions. The case is decided. The court then went on to state a gratuitous observation, which you quoted, to the effect that a home rule municipality could pass an ordinance authorizing a recall, while a non-home rule town could not. This finding is known as dicta, a term signifying that this portion of the opinion has no value as legal precedent. No one is bound by it. It wasn't properly before the court under the facts presented by the parties, and therefore probably would not have been properly briefed and argued for the Court.
Interestingly, the Williamson court also examined a Supreme Court case from 1967 called "In re Petition for Removal of Struck" which blocked an attempt by a commission form of local government to conduct a recall. It's a pretty quirky case, but the Supreme Court concluded that, for a recall procedure to be constitutionally valid, any municipality had to be free to adopt it. Article III of the Illinois Constitution expressly provides that election laws must be general and uniform. But the Williams court proceeds to opine that one form of government, a home rule municipality, could in fact pass a recall ordinance that a non-home rule municipality could not. Oh-oh, what happened to uniformity here? On constitutionality issues, you want to go with Supreme Court decisions, rather than self-contradictory, non-binding dicta by one panel from one Appellate District.
Why take my word for this? Well, I do have some back-up. If you go ahead and Google Williamson v Doyle you'll find this link to the website of Ancel, Glink: http://www.ancelglink.com/qanda/a23.html They are the preeminent-eminent municipal law practice in Illinois, probably representing more local governing entities than anyone else around. Highly respected. They examined exactly this issue, even discussing Williamson v Doyle. "Q: Can an Illinois governmental body, either by ordinance or referendum provide for the recall of its elected officials? ANSWER: No. The State of Illinois has never been a State with broad recall power over elected officials." They conclude: "Pick your officials carefully - they will be around for a while." You should read the full discussion. Would I accept their opinion over that of our City Attorney, Buzz Hill? In a heartbeat. Buzz was recently quoted in the local papers as opining that, if he had it to do over again, he would have a referendum to enact a municipal recall ordinance. Clearly, he has never read Williamson.
As additional support, we have the pending Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment, which seeks to amend Article II by adding a new section 4.6: Recall; Local Officials by Law. Officers of units of local government and school districts who hold office either by election or by appointment to fill a vacancy in an elected office are not subject to Sections 4.1 through 4.5, but the General Assembly, by law may provide for recall of those officers. This was drafted up by the Illinois Legislative Service, an official body that exists to analyze the language required to accomplish the legislative goals proposed to it by State Legislators. They, as well as the joint sponsors, are convinced that local officials may not be removed under the existing law, and that nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment is required to enable recall elections to be validly conducted. You can Google SJRCA-70 for the latest on the progress of this legislation.
Andrew, I do congratulate you on doing more research than Dave Schmidt did before proposing his ordinance in Park Ridge. He's told me that you were the first to call the Williamson case to his attention!
A C-note says a majority of readers will fall asleep somewhere in the first paragraph.
Cousin Dave-
If you are a litigator, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you have used dicta in the past to support a legal position, especially when there was no contrary authority. If you are not a litigator then you should stick to whatever you do. Ancel Glink is a law firm, not a court. Their opinion is worth less, much less, than dicta from an appellate court. Now wanna bet we are the only two people (other than the PRU crew) who will ever read this exchange?
Ah, anonymous, keep it in context! Ald. S relied on 2 bases of support for his recall ordinance, the opinion of Buzz Hill and ordinances in 3 other suburbs (1 or 2 of which apparently also relied on Buzz). Ancel, Glink easily trumps Buzz Hill.
And, to my mind, the Illinois Legislature, backed by the IL Legislative Service, trumps a couple of suburbs. They don't idly propose unnecessary constitutional amendments. I don't find anyone who thinks Williamson will stand up as a basis for a recall ordinance.
As to whether there's contrary authority, I'd refer you to the Supreme Court decision in the Struck case cited in Williamson and the Illinois Constitution.
Damn, I've always said this town is crawling with attorneys!
Post a Comment