From: dangerspot.co.uk -- children's books
Today another editorial in the Herald-Advocate, The undoing of democracy for April elections, provides more evidence that our local press isn't quite what we may have hoped for.
The editorial writer describes "the dash to ensure election by eliminating opponents, finding any possible reason to have them removed from the ballot. Get enough candidates removed and the yard signs, buttons and candidate forums become a mere formality instead of a way a candidate has to prove their qualifications to voters," and laments "the extent to which the electoral boards go along with such shenanigans, or in some cases where the law allows such a meltdown of the democratic process."
In order to follow that line of thinking, one must assume that challenges to a candidate's paperwork are not a part of the democratic process -- that somehow holding candidates accountable for abiding by the arguably tedious election rules isn't an integral part of the democratic process.
The PRU Crew believes that such challenges are an integral part of the process, even when the challenges to a candidate's paperwork seem tedious or like nit-picking. It strikes us as short-sighted to say "democracy pays a price" because a potential candidate is "thrown off the ballot due to using the wrong clip to fasten their petitions together or not having them bound at all...When a candidate is challenged for an honest mistake, such as claiming to be an independent in a nonpartisan election in which everybody is theoretically running independently, the result is a disservice to the voting public." The PRU Crew would ask, if a candidate can't manage the little tedious stuff isn't the democratic process served by eliminating the potential candidate from consideration for the big stuff, like actually being elected?
Further along in the editorial, readers are told, "The law does not allow the secretaries who accept petitions at these local boards to give any direction to candidates, even on something as simple as the proper way to fasten petitions together." Well, if fastening petitions together is so simple, then why shouldn't a potential candidate be expected to accomplish that task all on their own, and then be held accountable to the simple fastening rule when they don't?
Reading between the lines of the editorial has lead the PRU Crew to believe the Herald-Advocate editorial writer had Park Board hopeful Meredith Wisniewski in mind when writing this editorial. In a February 11, 2009 article, it was reported that "Meredith is new to the process and followed the (election) handbook," said her father, Brad Wisniewski, who represented his daughter at the hearing. "We didn't find anything in there that said anything about binding" and "Wisniewski, a recent college graduate who grew up playing softball in the park district, said she asked the park district secretary about how her papers needed to be filed, but the secretary told her she could not help." And we see that young Ms. Wisniewski is still traveling the up-slope on the learning curve.
Has democracy paid a price for the loss of this particular candidate from the April 2009 ballot? Probably not, because the democratic process is a continuum of activity, not merely a moment in time. Ms. Wisniewski can move forward, tedious lesson learned, and try again at a future date. The PRU Crew deeply hopes that she does, as we are always excited about young people who not only take an interest in the democratic process, but actually step up to the plate and take a swing at public service.
As for the other two candidates removed from the April ballot, Nicholas Giordano and Peter Wachowski -- they are described in the 2-11-09 Herald-Advocate article as "attorneys with firms based in Park Ridge...removed from the ballot after both admitted they had not filed the required Statement of Economic Interest with the Cook County Clerk. Both stated they had overlooked this requirement."
Attorneys who "overlooked this requirement" for filing Statements of Economic Interest? Adios and good riddance.
February 19, 2009
Rules Are Made To Be Broken!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
I was going to run for office but I do not have a N0. 2 pencil.
Good points PRU. I can see both sides of this issue.
What it comes down to is dotting your "I"s and crossing your "T"s. The devil is in the details.
Citizens deserve candidates and representatives who will make those dots and crosses with care all along the way.
Not sure I agree with you on this. I don't know that I want our new Mayor worrying about meaningless details that admittedly have to be followed. I'd rather leave that to the support staff and have the Mayor do things like meet with Obama and the Daley.
I suppose it's all in what's not done properly. I agree with you on the attorneys. I doubt that was an error. I think it was intentional, but I'm suspicious of attorneys that way.
As one of the candidates running for Park District Commissioner in the upcoming election, and also one of the challengers to some of the other nomination papers, I applaud PRU for their response to the H-A Editorial.
As an attorney myself, I am bound to explicitly follow rules in my daily practice. Failure to "cross t's and dot i's" in my profession would likely result in significant harm to my clients. Why is it then that we would expect anything less from our elected officials?
Is it asking too much for someone who wishes to represent the citizens of our city or state to read the list of rules for candidates and follow them? I think not.
In the case of Mssrs. Wachowski and Giordano, they failed to file a Statement of Economic Interest with the County Clerk, as explicitly directed in the candidate rules. In the case of Ms. Wisniewski, she failed to properly bind her nomination papers, again, as explicitly required by law. There is ample case law to support the fact that these two “errors” amount to fatal flaws in the nomination papers and result in the Board having no choice but to not certify the name(s) for publication on the ballot.
If we as citizens find it abhorrent that the lack of proper binding results in removal of a candidate’s name from the ballot, then we should lobby our legislators to change the current elections laws. Until then, I plan to continue upholding the law as I was sworn to do…anything less would be a disservice to our democracy.
We look at a candidate's first steps into the election process as a kind of resume introduction.
Ever hire anybody who submitted a resume with a typo in the first paragraph?
That's what the circular file is for.
I guess Howard if re-elected could always find a job for the queen of Belle Plane. She's been hot to trot
ever since being given a kiss and a promise to represent the people.
She could help manage all that paperwork for ya!!
Bring on the " pie wagon"!
Open up your check book!
Come on 2016!!!
Come on Howie....you know you want a new secretary! But what will Linda do....at the $4000 a month since she's on your monthly pad.
I guess there's always an opening with the KGB!
Too many ladies of the day ha Howie!!
Too many and so little time.
Let the games begin!!
Like somebody said earlier, I can see both sides of this issue.
Mr. Biagi,
Thank you for your statement and explanation of your position. I appreciate your communicating your thoughts to us.
oh it's always the fault of the secretaries...
Anon@1:59 --
Your comment was rejected for posting because we have to see the proof behind your statement.
We will be more than happy to provide a link or quote or document from a source, along with your contention.
Mr. Biagi,
Thanks for your comments.
Would you care to share with us why you are running for the Park Board?
PRU==it's only a matter of time until all the facts come out.
Anonymous @ 2:21:
What facts?
What are you talking about?
Anon@2:29 --
We believe the comment was intended as a response to our earlier rejection of a comment.
The facts referred to have nothing to do with the topic of today's post.
I'm the father of four young kids and our family actively uses many Park District programs and facilities. I'm proud of our Park District and I want it to continue to thrive.
That being said, I am also not a fan of wasteful and unnecessary spending of taxpayers’ money. If elected, I plan to keep a close eye on finances, insure that we are using the taxpayers' money in the best way possible and to look at alternate means of increasing revenue to the Park District that will not result in increased taxes or fees to our citizens.
I also feel that the Board needs to be more accessible to the taxpayers and do a better job of listening to the overall needs and concerns of our community. I hope that the new Board will be able to open those lines of communication and continue the progress we’ve made in holding down costs and providing great services to our city.
PRUdos to the crew for thinking clearly and logically. My name is Nicholas Milissis and I am the only incumbent running for election as Park District Commissioner. I also am one of the objectors that filed against candidates for the same position. Denying someone the right to participate in the democratic process is by its nature an emotional situation. Nobody wants to be at the receiving end of it and it is a dificult situation for the objector to be in and who invariably ends up being the "bad guy" in the court of public opinion. However, I would think that we would want our representatives to be detail oriented. I would invite anyone to review a budgetary statement for a 10-15 milion dollar a year budget of a governmental unit. If you think attention to detail is not necessary you are saddly mistaken. More importantly the figures on those pages represent all of our money. So if you're starting off with the attitude that the election code, more commonly known as THE LAW, is just a bunch of useless and annoying details you are off to a bad start. I am currently a public official and as such I am obligated to make sure the law is respected and followed. I could've treated violations of the electoral law as annoying details but would you like me to do that when I'm reviewing the Park District's financial statements? I would think not. It is unfortunate that the H-A decided to play on emotion and disregard what all courts around the land, our legislature and all elected officials recognize as important. Each, "annoying" requirment is there for a specific reason. These are "annoyances" that have sprung from many years of electoral experience and situations that have "gone wrong". The binding-of-petitions-issue for exmaple. It seems pretty insignificant. However, it becomes important when you consider that loose pages are easier to tamper with. A person with bad intentions in control of said petitions can add or subtract pages changing the whole outcome of the election and question the validity of the electral process. If you think these are hypotheticals you should check out some of the existing cases out there. So, I agree that some good people get bumped off the ballot because they failed to follow something that seems like an insignificant detail. However, that is the law and I applaud those of the candidates that accepted that reality when confronted with it, accepted it and took it as a learning experience (Wisniewski, Giordano, Wachowski)and have to question those that either try to hide from it (Mizialko) or just try whatever they can to bypass it (Brandt). I personally was at the receiving end of an objection the first time I filed as a cnadidate and know that it is an unpleasant place to be in. But I did not let it discourage me. I learned and continued on to be elected in office after that experience. I personally invite Meredith (and will do so in a letter to her)to continue her involvement in the Park District as a committee member in one of the many advisory committess that augment the board and contribute significantly to the works of the Park District. I think she has a bright future ahead of her and should not be discouraged by one setback. I look forward to this contested election and am comforted by the fact that other citizens who truly only care for the betterment of their community (Biagi, Duerkop, Matula, Vile) are in this race. I am concerned that some other candidates (Brandt and Mizialko) will be subservient to the union which has supported them from day one and who will have to pay back that favor when time comes around to decide how the taxpayer's money will be spent on the District's employees pay increases. Educate yourselves as voters and look closely at who is running on this election and who will be handling your taxpayer money.
Mr. Milissis,
I appreciate that you are so detail oriented. Here are two important details for you to remembber if you are elected this Spring:
Meetings are the first and third Thursdays of each month.
Write them in your calendar and try to attend.
All I can say is OUCH!!!!!!!
ooohhhhhoooooo... SMACK!
PRU---you need to set a character limit so these folks can lasso their thoughts into something more readable.
Our P.Tech suspects that was a cut and paste -- probably readable in the original wp type/html.
how about the posting on the online Herald Advocate today about the Des Plaines mayor saying that the casino will not increase crime whatsoever?
Is that man crazy?
We think it was Police Chief Prandini who said that.
Anon 4:59-Thanks for bringing this up-I was thinking of this as I read his rambling post. Mr. Milissis has been absent for many meetings of the PRPD board. In addition, he was appointed to the board because he has some ties to Howard Frimark so he is using the word "incumbent" pretty loosely. He sits on the board yet he was not put there by the people of PR. Given your short term on the board and your lack of attendance at many meetings what exactly have you accomplished in the last months on the board? Your actions to date hardly warrant any support from the people of PR.
Trashed our first comment because it was incomplete.
Anon@8:46 --
Thank you for bringing up the issue of attendance at meetings by representatives of the people.
Mr. Milissis was appointed to the Park Ridge Park District Board in February, 2008.
Since that appointment and until the end of the year, there have been 25 scheduled meetings for Park Board members to attend -- including regular, cow, and special meetings.
Mr. Milissis has missed a total of 8 meetings -- 4 of those meetings, which we have counted as individual meetings, were on 2 nights; 2 special Board meetings, and 2 cow meetings.
Mr. Milissis' overall attendance at meetings is roughly 68% -- not the worst attendance record we've seen, but not impressive either.
If we count evenings instead of individual meetings, Mr. Milissis has missed meetings on 6 occasions, which boosts his attendance to 76%.
Still in the C-grade range.
Would the anonymous posters be people who did not get appointed to the Park Board when I was? Would they be people who got kicked off the ballot? If you really stand behind your allegations sign your name and let's talk. I believe in open discussion. Thanks to PRU for giving me the chance to post my thoughts, onymously.
Nick Milissis,
Since you were appointed to the Park District Board, can you tell us how many meetings you attended and how many meetings you missed?
Being a fifth ward resident, I am going to look at attendance to meetings as a very important quality of a candidate.
You were appointed to the fair housing commission which meets monthly along with the Park Board Commission.
The residents of this town would like to know what you attendance record is.
Mr. Milissis--how about the people who are citizens of this community? It's not all about YOU or your agenda.
Nick Milissis,
What about the MTRRO meetings? Since you were appointed Chairman of the Board, I heard that you only show up for meetings at a rate of about 1 per year.
Can you explain why?
hey Nicholas Milissis,
check your ego at the door.
PRU,
You may want to check his attendance at the Fair Housing Commission as well. I'm Not sure of the date of his appointment there, but I believe it was last spring. No doubt, his appointment was encouraged by Mayor Frimark.
We see the target has been chosen.
If you are going to run for office, no matter what office, you have to be able to take the heat.
Their has been a rumor going around since he was appointed to the Civil Service Commission and Fair Housing Commissions. Rumor was that Nick Milissis wanted to run for 2nd ward alderman. Howard was setting him up on committees to give him public exposure/recognition prior to the next aldermanic run.
Nick is someone who does not take attendance at meetings seriously. It is obvious that he is only trying to add to his resume and not serve the public. I would not elect him to any position.
he MADE himself the target, PRU.
Howard has been reported running around telling everyone the following:
That the PRMA has pledged to have all their parishoners vote for him.
That he has been promised the entire "GREEK" vote. (Could Milissis have made that promise to Howard?)
I personally think that bragging about a specific nationality being told to vote for a specific candidate is not complimentary.
You are saying that they cannot think for themselves and need to be told who to vote for!
Loose lips sink ships Howard!
Mr. Milissis:
A fact is no less a fact just because it comes from an "anonymous poster. Nor is a lie any less of a lie just because somebody puts his name to it.
Stop the Blago/Burris impersonations and either admit the PRU attendance figures are correct, or provide your own figures.
PRU. As I said in my last post I encourage open discussion and am always willing to answer any questions from the people I represent. I am willing to take the heat. So any resident of the Park District that has a concern about any of the things brought up by my "anonymous" friends in this posting please feel free to visit the Park District website at www.prparks.org, click on the Board tab, scroll down to my name on the left side and send me an e-mail. I am willing to share my phone number with any resident that wants to talk about any concern they might have. Just sign your name in your e-mail so I know who I'm talking to. Also while there please check out the rest of the site and find out more about the good works of your Park District and how you can take advantage of all the excellent programs offered. Looking forward to hearing from you. Signing off onymously.
Just like all slimy politicians, they avoid answering the questions. Especially when the answers make them look bad.
"Call me at home, and I will talk to you"
Reminds me of Howard avoiding forums that might ask a question that is not pre-screened!
anony-mouse --
We agree that anyone who steps into the public light makes themselves a target. That too is part of the democratic process, which requires an ability to take the heat, as one commenter said.
We have not found Mr. Milissis' record of attendance at Park Board meetings impressive. We disected that record both rigidly and generously in our attendance calculations. Our rigid disection put Mr. Milissis at 68% attendance. Our generous disection put Mr. Milissis at 76% attendance -- just a shade over the minimum standard, as referenced by the City Council when interviewing board and commission members.
However, because the Crew is a cynical bunch, what we also see here is that the incumbent will be the target for Vile, Brandt and Mizialko -- should the last two survive the challenges to their candidate filings, and who are decidedly the preferred candidates being supported by the SEIU.
We feel Mr. Mizialko's days as a candidate are numbered, but our sources tell us Mr. Brandt's candidacy is a go. We suspect that the SEIU will go guns blazing after "the enemy" -- an incumbent Park Board member who is part of the body with which the SEIU is engaged in battle.
Mr. Milissis has a record that can be attacked. Mr. Biagi and Mr. Duerkop are harder targets, and fairly active in the community. Mr. Matula and Mr. Vile are almost completely unknown.
Very generally, much of the traditional wisdom of campaigning says name recognition plays a large role -- have Mr. Brandt attack Mr. Milissis' record, and Mr. Brandt's name recognition ticks up while Mr. Milissis' name gets hammered. Then the SEIU backed candidate has a better shot at gaining a seat on the Park Board.
Mr. Milissis:
I do not know you and I will plead guilty that I have a great deal more research to do before I make a decision on who I will vote for. You can feel comfortable that my decision will be based a complete review of the candidates.
Than being said, you are not off to a good start in my review process. One of the main points of PRU's original post and this thread in general was attention to detail - a topic which you took advantage of in your post.
You CHOSE to come here and post to explain your actions. You also made an implied pitch about how detail oriented you are. To use your own words "However, I would think that we would want our representatives to be detail oriented".
Well sir, you were not even detail oreinted enough to either research or understand the blog medium. If you look at any given thread on this or virtually all blogs, 75+% of posts are in fact anonymous. Some of the things that are posted may not be accurate. I will certainly researh the attendance figures.
But this medium gives you every opportunity to reply to what they have said about you. You CHOOSE not to do that. In other words you want to come here to reach people with your crafted message but you do not want to answer questions.
From my persepctive you were not "detail oriented" enough to understand what you were getting into and it appears to have blown up in your face.
Of course I understand that my opinion does not really matter as I am ANONYMOUS!
JEEZ.
Dude, answer the questions about your lack of attendance at meetings! And LEARN HOW TO SPELL.
Mr. Milissis-I was the second anonymous poster to question your attendance record. I was not one of the other 8 people passed over so a friend of Dick Barton/Howard Frimark could pad his resume with a seat on the PRPD board.
Having been to PRPD meetings over the past few years to voice my concerns over what has been happening at the CC-I did not see you in attendance not at any of the meetings I attended after you were appointed. I also brought up the issue last Feb about how much the PRPD charges the affiliated sports organizations to use the fields. You blogged in here shortly after your politically motivated appointment that you would look into putting an area on the PRPD website so the citizens of PR could post comments-good and bad-about the PRPD's performance. Did that get done? Again, what accomplishments can you list since you began serving on the PRPD board. This is a very simple question to answer.
The fact is your attitude sucks. You appear to be on the PRPD board for purely selfish reasons and not for the purpose of doing what is best for the people of PR-having the best park district we can have with the reasonable amount of funds available.
We certainly do not want the board to have union picked members. The 30 or so PRPD union employees seem to forget we are a bedroom community and that nearly all of the funding comes from either property taxes or user fees. We cannot afford to give compensation packages in excess of the rate of inflation or raises that are not based on performance.
So Mr. Milissis your presence as a non-union backed trustee would be welcome. However, your perfomance to date and your crappy "don't attack me anonymously attitude" is definitely not what the people of PR need or want. Pad your resume some where else.
Mr. Milissis:
No offense, sir, but I don't want to chat with you; I don't want to have coffee with you; I don't need a personal e-mail from you; and I check the Park District's website regularly.
Will you please stop acting like a typically sleazy Illinois politician and just answer following questions about your attendance at Park Board meetings?
1. Were you appointed to the Park District Board in February, 2008?
[Y][N]
2. Were there 25 scheduled meetings for Park Board members to attend (incl. regular, cow, and special meetings)?
[Y][N]
3. Did you miss a total of 8 meetings (4 on 2 nights; 2 special meetings, and 2 COW)?
[Y][N]
If you wish to qualify or explain any of your answers, feel free to do so. But stop ducking and dodging.
Anonymous @ 12:16:
How much do you think the Park District should charge the citizens to use the fields/rinks/courts/diamonds?
Is this a fee you would like to see collected over and above what is paid to participate in the activity?
Also just wondering if you have brought this issue up to the Board during one of the times you were present at one of the meetings and what their reaction to your questions were?
Hey folks, at least Nicky's attendance was better than Alderman Ryan's. And at least Nicky probably remembers what happened at his meetings, unlike Ryan who apparently forgot that the City Attorney said Alderman Schmidt's exposure of the police investigation fiasco was not illegal.
anon 12:43:
I would rather judge a persons performance on what I would consider a reasonable standard. What good does it do to say he is better then someone who has a history of missing a huge amount of meetings??
As my mom used to say, "just because someone else does it does not make it right".
106, I wasn't excusing Nicky, I was simply pointing out another "public servant" with a poor attendance record. As for evaluating their performances, I do not know eno9ugh about Nicky to evaluate his. But I do know that Ryan is one piss poor alderman who consistently thumbs his noses at his constituents and serves as a lapdog for the outgoing mayor.
Anon at 12:40-yes this was brought up. Given that the PRPD struggles to keep particapant fees reasonable so that as many people as possible can sign up for classes/programs, they also have growing expenses and inflation to worry about. I was told by a PRPD board member that the PRPD spends about $3,000,000 on overall park grounds/maintenance, including the sports fields. The $5 charge to the affiliates-who are all separate legal entities and all have separate governing bodies and all who are 501(c)(3)'s-have been paying the $5 rate for years. Meanwhile, the cost to maintain the fields goes up. There are surely some improvements that are paid by the affiliates-like the lights at the soccer field at West Park. However, it would make sense that the cost for the affiliates to use the field's should go up to help the PRPD defray some of its maintenance costs. After all, the fee to play soccer or football or baseball does go up. What do these organizations do with all the money they collect? (Please note-these are all fine organizations and my children enjoy playing for all these organizations. I just think they should be paying their fair share.)
When the board last discussed this issue, they chose to raise the fee to participate in any PRPD class an additional $1 rather than raise the cost to the affiliates from $5 per participant per season. As I recall, Jim Lange (PRPD administrator) said raising the fee from $5 would hurt the kids.(How?) They estimated this $1 increase would generate $30,000 which was going to be used to start a reserve fund-which the PRPD did not have at the time. I believe this discussion took place in the 4th qtr of 2007 but would have to go back and check the minutes.
In speaking with a current PRPD board member, the matter has not come up again.
anon 1:54:
You clearly know more about this then I do. I have no problem with reasonable price increases for program fees and I have no problem with increase in fees for affiliate participants.
My question for you is how much money would this increase actually raise? You say the one dollar increase would have generated 30,000. I can only assume that the number of affiliate participants is well under the number who use PRPD programs - I may very well be wrong about this.
Maybe a little off topic but I come there's only 2 staff members with email adresses?
Mike,
Quoting you:
"Maybe a little off topic but I come there's only 2 staff members with email adresses?"
Seriously dude...proofread BEFORE you submit.
Thanks.
I'll try to be more carefull.
Anon at 3:56-At the time, the PRPD staff used 30,000 program/class registrations to assume that $30,000 would be raised.
I am not fully aware of the number of participants in the affiliate programs. PRBS has about 2000 or so kids in the spring/summer bb and then there is fall ball. Then there is fb and soccer. So you are right-not lots of kids in total as there is crossover between the sports. Which is precisely the point. The PRPD should not be raising only the price of using the com. ctr. or taking other PRPD programs and classes or pool passes etc. The cost increases incurred by the PRPD are likely across the board. Therefore, all the users of PRPD facilities should shoulder these costs.
Post a Comment