It has begun, Ritter’s first challenge

Apr 20, 2009 in community news, editorial | Tags: carpentersville, carpentersville action network, corruption, ed ritter, editorial, government, judy sigwalt, politics, school buses, village board

The Daily Herald sat down to talk to Ed Ritter about his plans and intentions as the newly elected Village President of Carpentersville.

In answer to a question about how his leadership style will be different, Ritter responded, in part:

[T]o be much more inclusive of the trustees. There were a lot of issues and decisions that we never heard about or never knew about. It was very frustrating. I am still learning about things that Bill made decisions on that we never knew about. Negotiations that were going on that none of us knew about.

So, how will Ritter handle “negotiations … going on that none of [them] knew about”? Here is a fresh challenge to see if Ritter will make good on his promise…

At Tuesday’s upcoming meeting, the current Village Board will be discussing whether to revise the Municipal Code allowing school buses to be parked overnight at residences. Setting aside the discussion of the actual issue for a moment, it seems that there have been some negotiations taking place.

Despite this being an issue the current Village Board is considering and will likely decide at the meeting on April 21, Judy Sigwalt did not inform Bill Sarto and Linda Ramirez Sliwinski of the outside discussions taking place, or include them on the email that appears in the correlated posting.

How will Ed Ritter handle this first test? Will he call out Judy Sigwalt the way he has Bill Sarto? (Yes, Ritter has made complaints at Village Board meetings about not having been informed.)

Or, will Ritter handle this situation with quiet acceptance the way he did with Humpfer’s domestic battery convication, violations of the Open Meetings Act, and other deceptions and unethical behavior by his allies?

In order for Ritter to do what he says he will do — “set a new course for Carpentersville” — he is going to have to stop this type of behavior. I would love for Ritter to surprise me and actually take on Judy Sigwalt and tell her that she was wrong for not including Sarto and Ramirez-Sliwinski. Unfortunately, I don’t think he will. And the pattern of double standards and backroom negotiations and corruption will continue to be “respected” in Carpentersville.

See the post below “Sigwalt’s exclusionary email” for the email mentioned above.

April 2009
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Mar		May »
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

68 comments

Apr 20, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Dear Residents of Carpentersville,

At times like this I think of a proverb someone once told me, “stupid people talk about people, normal people talk about instances, and smart people talk about ideas”.

I am the person who has teamed up with the bus drivers. We were the ones who walked into the meeting with the supposed “protest signs” as my appeal was the one being addressed that evening. The items spoken about were not “protest signs”. They were just enlarged copies of our research on this ordinance.

Out of respect for the young women who was presenting blueprints about a CarMax on Randall Road, we turned them upside down as to not cause a distraction. We felt she was due the respect of receiving the commissions’ full attention. At least someone in Carpentersville is trying to bring jobs to our community. Unlike this ordinance which will only drive away the backbone of the American workforce, the blue collar worker.

Isn’t it funny that Trustee Sigwalt, a women who wants to improve our community and attract legal citizens, is actually working hard to do the exact opposite. Only people who have lived in an oppressive society will live under an oppressive government. The blue collar worker that brings stability to our economy is not going to buy a home in a community that makes his life harder and tells him what he can do on his own property, like Carpentersville is doing with this ordinance.

The bus drivers and I are asking for anyone who is affected by Ordinance 15.50.020 subsection 302.23 to contact us (elizabeth.blaszik@yahoo.com).

In summary, this ordinance states that ANY vehicle with a Class D or heavier license plate AND/OR has a GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) over 8001 lbs, cannot legally park that vehicle in the driveway on their own personal property. This includes Silverados, Ford 250’s and above; RAM Chargers; Hummers, Lincoln Navigators, Dogde Sprinters and such. It does not have to be a commercial vehicle, any vehicle meeting the above criteria will be given a citation.

The bus drivers and I have tried to resolve this issue calmly and quitely, but after reading Trustee Sigwalts email and President Elect Ed Ritters article, we do not feel this is possible. Hopefully, Ed Ritters team will reach out to us, but we are not waiting for this to happen.

The people of Carpentersville, I ask you to join us. Even if this Ordinance does not affect you directly it will affect you indirectly. This ordinance is trying to take food off of the plate of your neighbor and is exposing Carpentersville to the risk of more homes being used as rental properties or forclosed on. It is time we take our village back.

Elizabeth Blaszik

Apr 20, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Chrysippus

Ms. Blaszik,

Thank you for your comments and call to arms. Unfortunately, it probably has come about 2 weeks too late. The Board that was elected on April 7th is the same one responsible for those types of ordinances that you spoke about.

While I agree that it is important to talk about ideas versus people (something this blog has tried to be about for nearly 2 years), I also find it important to understand the mindset behind those that govern.

As you probably can tell from Trustee Sigwalt’s email, and many other actions that have been brought to light on this blog, there is little interest in what is right for the People of Carpentersville. Instead, there is more of a concern about playing the type of “political football” that Ed Ritter gives lip-service condemnation to.

Now we have, for at least 2-4 more years, a Village Board that is more about serving their own interests, and that of their friends and allies, than they are about serving the People of this town.

I wish you luck in your actions to fight for what you believe is right. I will, through this blog, help you in any way I can — as I have tried to do for this Village (myself included) throughout the time I’ve been writing this blog — to alert the People about just what kind of things are happening in their Village government, and the mindset of those controlling it.

I only wish more people would have taken heed.

Apr 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm

carpentersville2

Nice Letter, A little premature don’t you think?

Apr 26, 2009 at 10:58 am

Elizabeth Blaszik

Carpentersville 2,

Premature, yes. Unforutnately, I have only lived in the village 2.5 years. Shame on me, this is the first time I have ever attended a village board meeting or paid attention to the information on the agenda.

This is the first community I have ever lived in that has made me feel harrassed by its code enforcers. I am appauled to admit this, but I thought code enforcement officers were there to protect the residents from unethical trades men. I was born and raised in the Chicagoland area. This is the first community, in my experience, where the code enforcers patroled the neighborhood and acted like a police officer. My experience is that the neighbors had to call and complain to get them to deal with an issue. I have never received a warning or a citation because a neighbor called and complained I have only received warnings brought about my the code enforcement patrols. My neighbors usually come over to see what the code enforcers are focusing on now.

Liz B

Apr 26, 2009 at 12:06 pm

theyhavespoken

So you are suggesting that code enforcers should not be proactive? Sounds counterproductive to me.

Apr 26, 2009 at 1:04 pm

carpentersville2

Liz,

I agree with your concerns over the Vehicle parking, School Busses’s should of never been regulated by that Ordinance that has now been tabled.

I’m not quite sure what section of town you live in, but by Me, I’m next to the public works on the east side, and the Code enforcement here, seem to have their blinders on.

Richard Grass

Apr 26, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Richard,

The ordinance has been tabled. Supposedly the board is going to write in an exemption for buses under a certain size. One problem solved. However, we still have the problem with the GVWR issue. The wording of our ordinance states that ANY VEHICLE with a class D licenses plate OR GVWR 8001 lbs or more can not park on private property or in the street. Unfortunately, this includes the Silveradoo 1500 with a 4X4 upgraded suspension (9100 LBS GWVR) which is the most popular pickup truck on the market. This also includes Yukon Denali (10,000 LBS); Cadillac Escalade (10,000 LBS); HUmmer (10,000 LBS), Lrg passanger vans ( 6 – 11k LBS); and more. There is a list of about 15 vehicles that you as an average Joe would purchase to use everyday. Now they are trying to tell us what vehicles we can purchase. This is okay?

I live east of RT 25 (the courts off of Wakefield). The code Enforcement team patrols the courts like they are police officers. I actaully see our code enforcement officer several times per DAY where I might see a police officer once per day.

Please understand, I believe the police are doing a wonderful job and I am not trying to say anything against them. However, code enforcement officers are not trained police officers and no one should be making them to act as like one. That is what I believe our board is doing. Instead of paying for trained officers they putordinances under unsual municiple code sections so that the Code Enforcement officers can be used to enforce. This exposes them to foreseeable risks that they are not trained to deal with and are not properly outfitted to deal with. This is wrong.

Additionally, Plumbers, Electricians; 24 x 7 emergency service providers are affected. They will not be able to park their vehicles in their driveway. How are you going to feel when your toilet backsup and it takes the neighborhood plumber 1.5 hours to respond because he had to driver to the warehouse where his truck is stored and then drive back to the neighborhood to fix your toilet.

TheyHaveSpoken,

Code Enforcement was established to protect the resident from unethical tradesmen not to act as a police officer.

Lis B

Apr 26, 2009 at 8:28 pm

theyhavespoken

Liz, you are embellishing greatly. I would suggest that you take a look at the IVC to verify the classes of vehicles before spouting off a bunch of untruths.
First of all, when is the last Escalade you saw that had a D plate on it? How about Silverado 1500 , a half ton pickup? The Silverado 2500 HD , a 3/4 ton does not even need a D plate. I have a 1 ton pickup, and that does not need a D plate.
Now, when the neighbors are doing work on their homes that require a permit, and they don`t have one, whom do you suggest handle that? Or, cars parked on the grass ? What about a house that has a lawn that is a foot tall?
Plus, I guarantee that the police patrol your street more than once daily.
Liz, I`m not trying to sound like a jerk. We cannot have D plated vehicles in the driveways where I live either. They can be in the garage, however. I come from a construction family and this ordinance is fine with me. It prevents dump trucks, 6 wheelers, semi`s and whatever else from being parked on, and even worked on in the driveways next door.

Apr 27, 2009 at 5:46 am

Joey Clusters

Ms. Blaszik,

One of your comments is not correct. There is one code enforcement officer who is a retired Sergeant from the police department and another is a former CSO.

You should have lived here 10 or 20 years ago. Code enforcement was a joke. Now that the codes are being enforced people are getting upset about it. If you have a problem with the job they are doing. Blame the board. They write the rules. These people are enforcing the municipal code. I have to say that I am glad people are getting upset with them. It means they are doing they’re job. If there were never any complaints then I would have to question what these people are doing all day.

I have no opinion either way whether or not a school bus should be allowed to park on a driveway. That isn’t an eyesore to me. I am concerned about the falling fences, peeling paint and vehicles parked all over the front lawn.

Instead of trashing the employees who work in the village. Get to know them. Talk to them at the 7-11 if your in there. If you see them at the BP ask a question if you have one. I started to and got to know some of these guys. I appreciate the job they’re doing and will continue to call them when I have a concern.

Apr 27, 2009 at 8:31 am

Chrysippus

Liz, could you provide a link to the vehicles you mentioned that would provide both the GVWR and the configuration of the vehicle. According to the Illinois Vehicle Code, vehicles with a GVWR over 8,000lbs require a Class D plate.

At Cadillac’s website, I could only find configurations of the Escalade that had, at most, a GVWR of 7,400lbs. However, I did find at GMC’s website that the Yukon XL can have a GVWR up to 8,600lbs, in a 3/4 ton configuration, and certain Sierra heavy-duty trucks have a GVWR up to 9,200lbs.

I think having the additional information would be helpful to the discussion.

Apr 27, 2009 at 8:40 am

Chrysippus

I still think that the situation with Trustee Sigwalt excluding Sarto and Sliwinski, while including others who are not yet seated on the Board is of importance. Cutting members of the Board out of the information is something that other Trustees were very critical of, particularly in the campaign — and to see them doing it themselves is quite problematic.

The actions of Trustee Sigwalt here appear familiar enough to her that we might be reasonably assured this is neither the first time she has communicated her position in this way, nor a mere oversight.

This should cause great concern considering that this type of standard operating procedure from the incoming Board members could signal a process of deliberation that could freeze out community input into their governance. Put more simply, it would allow them to hide their actions from the public because of a significant lack of oversight and checks and balance.

Apr 27, 2009 at 9:37 am

Elizabeth Blaszik

Chrysippus

I believe we got that information from an article in the Courier in Dec 08 or Jan 09. I will try to find it and post the link for you. While doing the research we found that there seems to be a corrilation between 4X4 vehicles and GVWR in excess of 8000 LBS.

As for the Escalad. The 2009 model has been downsized. I believe the Weight is higher in older models with awd upgrades. But I will get you clarification. Unfortunately I cann’t gaurantee I will get to it before Thursday. For once my week is packed.

There was a gentleman at the last board meeting who handed the board the breakdown the GVWR. I am not sure specifically what it said. I am hoping he can get it to me sometime this week. I am was planning on scanning it and posting it on the web, just not sure where yet.

Several of the ladies and I are going to start a walking group (ladies and weight, not a good topic to mix together). We are going to walk in different areas of Carpentersville. When we come upon a vehicle we believe violates this ordinance, we are going to leave a note (in english and spanish). The note will instruct them where to look and what to look for. We will then list the ordinance and let them know they have a right to complain in front of the board. We are also going to include the board mtg dates for the year, the address, and start time.

Apr 27, 2009 at 10:43 am

At a Glance

I thought that the CIC was to help inform citizens about possible code violations before they would be sited. Is this part not working? And, the argument that the grass is a foot tall is bogus since it would be identified long before it go to that point. The same for peeling paint before it gets to the point of a violation. So, shouldn’t we be seeing less violations if CIC was doing its job instead of cutting grass at vacant houses for caimpaign purposes?

Apr 27, 2009 at 10:46 am

Elizabeth Blaszik

theyhavespoken

The ordinance in Carpentersville states a Class D plate OR GVWR over 8001 LBS. It also does not specify Commercial vehicle.
Ordinance 15.50.02 Section 302.23 Item 10. See the link below.

http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/carpentersville/

The other thing you need to keep in mind is this ordinance was written in 1995. The world has changed since then. Who ever thought people would be driving their own personal Hummers. Wasn’t this a publicity stunt of Arnold? No one thought there would be so many personal vehicle s on the road that would weight that much. In 1995 a class D was the box truck you rented from budget to move.

I don’t think you are a jerk. I don’t have to agree with what you say to accept and appreciate the freedoms granted you to say it. Open debate is not personal. When I am with friends and we get into a heated debate and we are tired of debating one of us will say “I agree we disagree, now who is buying lunch”.

I have not stated nor do I blame the code enforcement officers. I do hold the board accountable. I believe I was very clear about that in statement you questioned.

Joey Clusters

Retired CSO is Kevin and he is my Code Enforcement officer. I do speak with him frequently. I now speak to him before I go to get my permits.

Actually the board does not write the ordinances. They just vote on them. From the paperwork I received from the lawyer, it is my impression that he and/or the community development director write the rules. What really was upsetting was the paperwork submitted to the board explaining the who, what where when, how and why of the ordinance. Other ordinances were sited with a 1 or 2 sentence summary. The actual ordinances being used to support the writing of our ordinance were not included. The board members don’t’ seem to be aware of the significant differences between them all. For instance, our ordinance is under Building and Construction. Arlington Heights (one of the ones id’d for support) is under Traffic.

If anyone is interested in receiving copies let me know or you can request a copy from the Village Manager, Mr. Anderson.

Again, I have never stated nor do I blame the CEO’s. However, I don’t appreciate the way in which they are being used to circumvent police authority. I believe it exposes them to unacceptable risks.

Apr 27, 2009 at 10:47 am

At a Glance

Oh, and as Chrysippus said, the real problem that is being talked about here is the communication of the Board on issues that are to come before it. It is very likely a violation of the Open Meetings Act that is in question here and instead there are attacks on a woman that points this out while refering to her issue to come before the Board.

How will Mr Ritter handle this? That is the real question!!!

Apr 27, 2009 at 11:16 am

theyhavespoken

Liz, if you are planning on doing this, then I would strongly suggest researching the subject matter before doing so.
For starters , you say that you and the ladies walking will leave notes? What right do you have entering the property of another to leave a note, or otherwise? As you said about code enforcers, you are not trained in this field.
Secondly , chapter 12 , article 7 of the IVC clearly defines second division vehicles. As I said before, my 1 ton pickup does not require me to register it with a D plate. That said , a simple B plate shall suffice. However , if I were to tow a backhoe behind it , then I must register it with a D plate.
Thirdly, you should check on the specs of the vehicles you mention. A Ford F350 pickup is a 1 ton pickup. It has more capabilities than a Chevy 2500 HD, and it does not come close to weighing 10,000 pounds.
Lastly, you say that code enforcers were established to protect residents from unethical tradesman ? Not true. One of their responsibilities is to protect homeowners from inadequate workmanship. If that was their only responsibility, then how could you possibly justify paying a $50k plus salary to numerous code enforcement officers when possibly 15-20 permits weekly are drawn. Seems like a lot of down time.
Perhaps there are questions that you need to ask trustees that support this ordinance before you start bashing board members and code enforcers.

Apr 27, 2009 at 11:23 am

theyhavespoken

At A Glance, regarding the foot tall grass; identified by whom? Fellow neighbors? And who is attacking anyone? You don`t think that proper research of subject matter and not being ignorant of the topic is prudent before debating the issue?

Apr 28, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Chrysippus

How would you like the list of autos that Attorney Rhodes gave the board in his report?

The report from the Attorney and Dir of Com Dev are very interesting. They both site ordinances from other communities, but don’t actually show the ordinance language verbatum. it is an excel spreadsheet with a one sentence description of the ordinance.

Liz B.

Apr 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Chrysippus

You can email it to me (cvillecan@gmail.com), I can upload it and then link.

I have read the ordinance language from Maywood, IL and it is identical to the language of the ordinance for Carpentersville.

Apr 28, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Chrysippus
The maywood ordinance is listed below. Three words Omited: on private property. Two words added: No Truck or Commercial (Vehicle).

Maywood is also listed under Traffic Code Stopping Standing Parking.

According to Maywood Village only the police write these tickets.

Maywood Ordinance:
§ 72.20 TRUCK STOPPING AND PARKING.
(A) No truck or commercial vehicle bearing a Class D or heavier State of Illinois “license plate,” as such classes are defined in Section 3-815 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/3-815), or having a gross weight capacity (including vehicle and maximum load) in excess of 8,000 pounds, shall be parked or stored on any street, alley, right-of-way or easement in the Village, except as otherwise posted to the contrary. The provisions of this division shall not apply to any vehicle making a delivery or picking up a load or performing a requested service at a particular residence, in which case the vehicle may be driven on such street, alley, right-of-way or easement only for the minimum distance necessary to make the delivery or pickup or to perform the requested service and shall remain parked only the minimum time required to make the delivery or pickup or to perform the requested service.

Liz Blaszik

Apr 29, 2009 at 10:20 am

At a Glance

theyhavespoken – obviously, you misunderstood my comment refering to the determination of a code violation when foot long grass is “suddenly” found. My comment was based on the fact that grass takes weeks to grow to a height of a foot, so why wasn’t it given a warning before it ever reached the stage of a violation? If we have the CIC out looking or these type of things to catch possible problems before the reach the stage of a violation, then why would this happen as indicated in the comment that was made earlier. My concern is that we have political stunts being done by the CIC “Carperntersville Cares” and rather than doing the work they were originally designated to do, they use their time campaigning for Trustee candidates. Someone is not doing their job if a violation of this type is suddenly found. I would appreciate your using common sense before commenting on these issues.

Apr 29, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

theyhavespoken

You make some interesting points. However, I don’t appreciate the tone of your writting. It is coming across as very aggressive. I hope this is not your intent.

As for research, have you read the ordinance? If you have you will want to read it again. It does not stated Class D License plate with a GVWR over 8000 lbs. It states Class D License plate OR a GVWR over 8000 LBS. The word “or” completely changes the meaning of the ordinance. In addition to that, the ordinance is placed under buildings and construction. The ordinance that the attorney sited as reference are all placed under Motor Vehicle and Traffic.

Apr 29, 2009 at 8:53 pm

theyhavespoken

Mrs. Blaszik, my intent was not to be agressive. All I`m suggesting is that it is more constructive to debate a topic when one has done his/her research. Educated debates are much more effective and tend not to create hostility between the debaters.
I have not read the ordinance. This is precisely why I have not posted an arguement for or against the topic. You should check the weights of the vehicles you have mentioned. They are not accurate, and that is what I am trying to say.
I have remained silent for a long time. The board meetings in Cville have been a joke for a long time now. {moderated}

Apr 30, 2009 at 8:36 am

Chrysippus

Liz, I admit that I could be missing certain exceptions in the statutes, but when I look at the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/3‑815), I believe that it shows that vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 8,000lbs require a Class D plate in Illinois.

theyhavespoken, an “educated debate” would seem to require that one participating in the debate provide something educational in a rebuttal for the benefit of those involved and the audience. Not having even read the ordinance in question yourself has already put those who have in a more credible position.

Apr 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Chrysippus

Below is the language I cut from IL Secretary of State Cyberdrive. Also included is the address to the site so you can read it for yourself. State of IL does not list pickup trucks as class D if they are owned by a private individual because the primary use is NOT for transporting property but for transporting people. This is also why the Hummer which is over 10K GVWR does not have a Class D license plate. Our ordinance does not include the word commercial. This is a loop hole that would allow the code enforcement officers to write citations on ANY vehicle they can prove is over 8000 LBS no mater which license plate the state of IL assigns the vehicle.

Additionally, the other ordinances the attorney sited as examples are all listed under Motor Vehicles & Traffice section of the municiple code. Ours is under Building and Construction. Isn’t anyone curious as to why? This is a red flag for me that our villgae is up to something. My question is what do they gain from this extremely unusual and confusing misplacement of this ordinance?

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/vehicles/license_plate_guide/truck_and_trailer_plates/truck8000.html

Class D License Plate

Flat Weight Trucks (over 8000 pounds)

A truck is defined as “Every motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property “(625 ILCS 5/1-211).

A truck tractor is defined as “Every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load so drawn” (625 ILCS 5/1-212).

Every truck tractor is issued one plate, which is displayed on the front of the vehicle. Trucks and truck tractors in weight classifications exceeding 8,000 pounds are issued plates with a one-letter suffix designating the vehicle’s specific weight classification. “T” denotes truck tractor plate.

Apr 30, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Elizabeth Blaszik

Chrysippus

Check out the link below:

http://www.iml.org/dbs/imllegal/dyncat.cfm?catid=416

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Hanover Park, 311 Ill. App. 3d 515, 724 N.E.2d 132, 243 Ill. Dec. 823 (1st Dist. 1999), held that the defendant municipalities lacked the authority to issue P-tickets, previously appeared in Legal Bulletin 2000-1. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the defendant municipalities’ leave to appeal in People v. Village of Hanover Park, Illinois Supreme Court No. 88942 (March 29, 2000). In their petition for appeal, the municipalities argued that they were authorized to regulate traffic on their streets and issue P-tickets via their home rule and statutory powers. However, the Supreme Court denied the appeal.

Therefore, the decision of the appellate court stands which provides that both home rule and non-home rule municipalities lack the authority to issue P-tickets because it is an alternative traffic enforcement program that disrupts the uniform citation and enforcement provisions of chapter 11 of the Illinois Vehicle Code and Supreme Court Rule 552.

Apr 30, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Tom

Elizabeth, your case history would not apply to this particular ordinance. It is not a traffic offense.

May 1, 2009 at 4:02 am

theyhavespoken

Hey Chryssipus, how does someone having read an ordinance have more credibility than someone who is not debating the content of that ordinance, just the manner in which it should be debated? What`s wrong with having an educated perspective?

May 1, 2009 at 6:32 am

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken; there is nothing wrong with an “educated perspective”. I believe that Liz is trying to provide that here, as are some others engaged in the debate of the topic. However, questioning the manner of debate is a debate itself, and is disingenuous when used as a rebuttal to a good faith presentation of facts.

May 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm

At a Glance

theyhavespoken – I went back and read your earlier comment, and I believe you are actually debating the content of the ordinance in your discussion of the D plate and vehicle weight, however, you admit to not even having read the current ordinace to offer anything “educted” in the discussion. But, you quickly charge Ms. Blazsick with the requirement to be better prepared…

I don’t think you are “debating” the debate format but the details of the discussion, which seems to find you inadequately prepared for this discussion…In my view…

May 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm

theyhavespoken

Hey At a glance, you could not possibly see what I was debating if I was debating anything at all. {moderated}
She was making an arguement out of inaccurate information. I was not debating her. I was not attacking her. I was merely pointing out that she was misinterpereting what is written in the IVC. I have not read the ordinance but I do know the IVC.
So you believe that it is a good idea to precipitate a debate when one is misinformed? This is why any candidate should cringe at the thought that someone like you would be publicly backing them in a blog such as this. {moderated}
That said, I believe that Liz realizes that I do not disagree with anyone questioning a proposed ordinance. I just believe that before you debate it , you should research it enough too be able to articulate the reason behind one`s contention.

May 1, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, I agree that research is necessary for debate. I believe Liz has done — and continues to do — precisely that. She has offered information on the ordinance, noting that its language could create a situation where a violation is cited on a non-Class-D plated vehicle. I presented an example of a Yukon XL, a passenger vehicle, that would violate the ordinance because it has a GVWR of 8,600lbs (even if it didn’t require a Class D plate).

In this case, even if Liz has not interpreted the IVC correctly, she has read the ordinance correctly and apparently researched enough to be able to put forth a valid argument against its language.

At this point the IVC is relevant only if all vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 8,000lbs are required to obtain a Class D plate. If a vehicle like the Yukon XL can be plated at less than a Class D, then the IVC is irrelevant.

So, since you say you are familiar with the IVC, is a Yukon XL — with a GVWR of 8,600lbs — required to be Class D plated?

May 1, 2009 at 9:04 pm

theyhavespoken

And there is my point, thank you. She researched it further and can now ask pertinent answers to the subject matter.
Your answer about the Yukon; it does not require a D plate because the vehicle is utilized for non commercial transportation.
I realize that these posts may appear as pompous. They are not intended that way. The objective should be to be better qualified than the person you are debating, no matter if you are the one asking the questions..

May 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Chrysippus

Thank you for your answer on the Yukon. I concur.

And yet a resident of Carpentersville who owns that vehicle could not park it in their driveway because it violates the ordinance, because the ordinance does not only prohibit Class D plated vehicles, but also ANY vehicle with a GVWR in excess of 8,000lbs.

All in all, I think discussions of these sorts are good for the community, because it helps everyone better understand matters of law, and raises awareness of various codes and laws.

May 4, 2009 at 9:23 am

At a Glance

The topic of this thread has to do with the way in which Judy Sigwalt handled communication between present and future Trustees. The proposed ordinance exception is the subject of that communication. Judy Sigwalt has very possibly violated the Open Meetings Act and failed to inform some other members of the Board of the issue at hand.

We can dance around the proposed exception to the ordinance but the major point of discussion is really the manner in which certain Board members are operating in this community. As I said before, we need to see what Mr. Ritter is going to do about the on-going violations. Mr. Sarto tried to stop the illegal activity and was rebuked by the Board for trying to uphold the laws and the oath of office he and the Trustees take. It is important that the community be involved in the discussion of the proposed ordinances – the basic reason for the Open Meetings Act.

It is all well and good that we have this blog to offer discussion about the things going on in the Village but it is not the forum that is required for the actual ordinance discussion, nor is email between Trustees. That, too, was one of the main points of Elizabeth Blazsick’s initial comment.

May 4, 2009 at 10:22 am

theyhavespoken

And how can you prove that a violation occurred? Are you aware of what criteria need be met to constitute a violation? This is petty politics at its finest At A Glance. Bill Sarto perpetuated it and he will be done as of tomorrow.

May 4, 2009 at 10:27 am

theyhavespoken

Besides , didn`t this supposed violation take place on Sarto`s watch.?If there was a violation, and it happened on his watch , then he should have stepped down from office instead of coasting and doing nothing for the last month….

May 4, 2009 at 11:29 am

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, are you supportive of the backroom deliberations that Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer (and others) have engaged in?

As for Sarto stepping down: why? I have seen evidence that he is continuing to do precisely what he was elected to do right up to his last day in office. Are you saying that because he lost the election? Well, if that’s the case, maybe we need to recall the situation of 4 years ago when the voters rejected Paul Humpfer. Was it a problem for him to accept an appointed to a position on the Board, against the objections of the people?

Things like that, and the backroom deliberations on public policy matters (of which Judy’s email is one of multiple examples), and other deceptions are really what should concern everyone in the Village.

I wonder what Ed Ritter will do to change that, and get the discussion and direction of such matters out into the “Sunshine”, for everyone to see. I don’t think he has the power to prosecute it any more than Sarto did — that is the job of the State’s Attorney and Attorney General’s offices; but apparently they are asleep at the switch, even when presented a mountain of credible evidence.

May 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm

theyhavespoken

I am not supportive any back room deliberations. The question was if a violation did in fact take place. For a crime to be committed , all the elements need to be met. Just because someone does not approve of certain emails does not mean a criminal offense has occurred. It`s not your interpretation, At A Gance`s interpretation, nor is it Sarto`s interpretation that makes it a violation. It is the letter of the law.
You are correct however. If a violation occurs, it`s the State`s Attorney`s Office that prosecutes it. The problem; their office is entirely too busy prioritizing violent crimes that are committed . If I , or any member of my family were ever victimized by a violent offender, I would be extremely critical of their office if a petty politicks case took priority before mine.

May 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm

At a Glance

You see how we miss the point…We talk about the overburdened States Attorney work and forget that the problems with government are created by the lack of a responsive or informed electorate. The lack of adequate staffing and funding could be “fixed” if the people knew they needed to address the problems to keep our people and form of government safe. Our voters need to know what is needed, or even being done, so they can participate in the elections and “take care” of problems. Instead, the voters are kept out of the deliberations, likely intentionally, and the problems persist. Democracy cannot happen in a vaccuum. It requires informed and involved voters and looking at the way things are being done in Carpentersville, in particular, it is no wonder that only a little more than 5% of the people in the Village voted in the past election. Is this truly a representative group of voters?

And, based on the information I was able to obtain from the Internet, this would most definitely be a violation of the OMA. We have been hard pressed to get action by the authorities in the past but I understand that there was a notice to the Board that there had been problems of this type with this group in the past and that it was to stop. Apparently, it has just taken on different method of abuse.

As Chrysippus asks about backroom dealings, is this the type of approach our Trustees should take to “discuss” issues to come before the Board? I would hope not. And, it is something Sarto has been fighting for the past several years, to no avail. Now, let’s see what Mr. Ritter does. Will he even address the problem or will he avoid confrontation and allow it to continue? That is what I’m afraid that the “Respect” platform he used will mean to our local government.

May 4, 2009 at 3:39 pm

theyhavespoken

So, if does not exist you are going to assume that he is part of the violation, right?

May 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm

At a Glance

OK, so theyhavespoken, I’m not sure what you are asking but did you read the email from Judy Sigwalt to a quorum of the Board…It includes the following as shown in the information below: Please note the names to whom this was sent…(the full email can be found in an earlier post on this site.)

From: JUDY SIGWALT [mailto:newportt2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:34 PM
To: Cindy McCammack ; Craig Anderson ; E Ritter ; K Teeter ; PatS ; paul humpfer; [Paul Lanspa]
Subject: school bus drivers
____________

I’m assuming the “he” in your comment above is refering to Ed Ritter. If that is correct, HE was one of the recipients of the email and has direct knowledge of the possible violation of the Open Meetings Act. My question was aimed at Mr. Ritter regarding the way he intends to handle this issue. If this is not “backroom” politics, then I’m not sure what would be considered as such.

You said you did not support this type of activity but do you think the Board should act against itself to stop such behavior or should it be allowed to continue? Mr. Ritter is going to be in charge as of the time this issue is next presented.

I don’t agree with Sarto’s approach on everything but I do agree with the principles for which he fought. Mr. Sarto was not included in the email and only thru indirect information would have been a party to it. I do not believe this is anything different however than Sarto has been fighting for the past several years. Let’s see what Ritter does or doesn’t do to ‘fix” this type of illegal or unethical behavior. Will he avoid conflict…(and possibly the law, as well)? Respect for whom???

May 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, a few questions:

1. What are the reasons that backroom deliberation should not be allowed to occur?
2. Why do you oppose it?
3. What do you believe should be done in the case where it is found to be occurring?

May 4, 2009 at 5:33 pm

At a Glance

And, does “petty politics” include abuse of power by our government officials? (Considered a high crime or misdemeanor- open to impeachment and removal from office of some government positions, like Blagojevich.)

May 5, 2009 at 7:25 pm

theyhavespoken

Chrysippus, I have read the email over and over to see if I felt a violation occurred. I admit, I am not familiar with what criteria need be met to constitute a violation of the open meetings act. However, it does not appear that Sigwalt is attempting in any way to construct a meeting. Yes she emails others on the board , but it appears to be for informational purposes only.
If you read the email for what it appears to be intended, I believe you will realize that there is no targeting whatsoever. I feel that her stance against ANY commercial vehicle in the village shall not be allowed. She simply points out that someone has an agenda to contest this ordinance. I further believe that it was Sigwalt herself that is open to the variance for school buses.
I believe this is a viable response to your question Chrysippus. I hope this will provide you with a different perspective.
At A Glance, I will try to make sense of that attempt you made as a question regarding petty politics. I believe that if one must really analyze the email as you have, you are simply chomping at the bit to find a violation. It does not appear that Sigwalt had anything to hide, as she encourages communication between Lanspa and Anderson. One of the elements of committing a crime is to have knowledge of committing a crime.

May 5, 2009 at 7:39 pm

At a Glance

I believe that Sigwalt should have directed Paul Lanspa to talk to Anderson and that should have been the limit of her involvement. Under the conditions of the Open Meetings Act, I understand any contact wiith a quorum of the Board to discuss, or in your intrepretation, to point out a particular position of someone else (Lanspa) took her over the line of proper conduct. She had no purpose to contact the Board – or only a select group of Trustees, to discuss any elements of the issue scheduled to come before them at the next meeting. The other Board Mambers would have heard the discussion in open session, if things would have been allowed to be done correctly…

That’s my understanding. I do not understand why or for what purpose the contact would have ocurred without some intent to discuss the issues outside the view of the people they are to represent.

May 5, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, the purpose of the OMA, first, is described as follows:

The intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is to ensure that public business is conducted in public view by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum.

This is the “spirit of the Act”, and I believe it is that which Trustee Sigwalt has once again violated (recalling the Attorney General office’s letter last year cautioning her, Trustee Humpfer — and then extending it to all members of the Board — in response to previous complaints).

Now, according to the Act, email and other electronic means cannot be used to circumvent the purpose and requirements of the Act.

“Meeting” means any gathering, whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business or, for a 5‑member public body, a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.

Given this criteria, there is no question that the “majority of quorum” criteria was met. And, there is no question that this relates to a matter of public business, since it involved a pending amendment to an ordinance.

To follow the letter then, there would have to be “discussion” involved, meaning any reply that also included a “majority of quorum”, or the re-transmission or summarization of a reply by an individual. The State’s Attorney or AG’s office would have to investigate further to make an official determination.

So, I guess I would say that … given the fact that Sigwalt and Humpfer have violated the OMA in the past, and have been cautioned by the AG’s office for other instances that have been reported to have taken place for over a year, it seems more likely than not that a violation has again occurred here that should be investigated by the AG’s office and all instances prosecuted in order to hopefully put an end to these continued deceptions and secret deliberations.

As for the content of Judy’s email, the first thing I see is that it is passing on third hand knowledge, but doing so in a way that shows her support for that position. Second, having received information from other parties that were present, there are several things contained within that have been called out as false. Such things also make her email more disturbing and can give everyone just a sense of the way their government is being run.

May 6, 2009 at 5:33 am

theyhavespoken

So because of a past warning, an email without a response is reason to believe that a violation has “likely” occurred? I have a question; Who brought forward the email from Sigwalt? Where are the “deliberations”? Where are the responses? There is no conference whatsoever. She is not attempting to sway a vote.
You people are allowing your personal disdain for an individual to twist the law to read the way you want it to read. What is contained in that email is not a violation in and of itself. If the person that brought forth this email felt this was a violation, then there should be more to their discussion to support that claim. Will this email alone be enough to declare that a violation has occurred? The answer is no.
Because law is based on facts, and not on likelihoods and probabilities, what is your next step in investigating this incident?

May 6, 2009 at 8:38 am

Chrysippus

Not only the past warning, but the year long “secret deliberations”, and a past violation … plus this email … provided basis for a complaint.

What is the next step? Complaints have been filed. And, I urge others who read this blog to make complaints as well so that may ensure further investigation and attention by the AG’s office, so that this type of behavior will end.

If Trustee Sigwalt is not trying to sway a vote, then what is the purpose of the email? It was much more than trying to provide a “heads up” to Manager Anderson. It went far, far beyond that.

May 6, 2009 at 9:33 am

At a Glance

Theyhavespoken, maybe it is Sigwalt’s disdain for the law that causes our outrage!!! And, if you note in the email, she asks others to pass the information on to others on the Board or connected to the issue. If they followed her instructions, this constitutes a violation. Why are you not outraged at the lack of respect for the people of this Village that Sigwalt and Co continue to demonstrate by their actions? Wow!!!!!

May 6, 2009 at 9:41 am

At a Glance

theyhavespoken….way to fight for open government!!!! You are really just a flunky for the continuation of the criminal, immoral and unethical behavior we have seen from Sigwalt and Humpfer for the past several years.

This is garbage and I hope the AG’s office will investigate this type of activity. It is not Sarto raising this question for so called political purposes but the citizens of the community. Do we not have a voice? Do we not have a right to know what is going on in our Village government? This is not just a “nice” thing to have but an essential element of a democracy!!!

The issue may seem small but if this is the way they handle small things, what can we surmise is happening with the big things?

May 6, 2009 at 7:54 pm

theyhavespoken

Chrysippus, I appreciate the fact that you can talk about this without attacking another who may have a different opinion than you. I can understand your concern, however, my opinion is that there is not enough to investigate.
I have read up on open meetings act and I disagree with you. Please do not allow your personal feelings for certain trustees dictate your opinion of whether or not a violation occurred. We can agree to disagree.
You are urging others to come forward with complaints. If you are urging them to form a complaint on this incident, I`m afraid you are wasting your time. If the Attorney General`s Office deems that there is validity in even one complaint of a violation, they will investigate it. If there are 10,000 complaints of a violation, and all are of the same incident, one is headed for heartache and frustration if the Attorney General`s Office deems there is no validity to the complaint. A square peg does not fit in a round hole; no matter how hard you try. It just does not fit. That said, perhaps you could view it from this perspective. If the Attorney General`s Office receives 500 complaints in which they feel are petty or frivolous, how long does it take them to feel that all this is petty politicking? Perhaps it is more effective to formulate a complaint when a more clear and serious violation occurs. Am I advocating that it is ok to violate any act? Absolutely not. It`s like complaining of someone in your neighborhood that drives 5 miles per hour over the limit when there are others possibly driving recklessly and 15 mph over.
At A Glance, who do you think you are calling me any kind of flunky? Because I disagree with you? Let me tell you, that with the amount of diologue you and I have countered, there is no doubt in my mind that you are attempting to ride the coat tails of others. A true characteristic of the ignorant and uneducated. You can be easily embarrassed.
As for immoral and unethical government; You really should know some of the things that Sarto was capable of. I will not go into that, as he deservedly is no longer in office. I called him out on several lies but he refused to post them.

May 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, I’d be interested to know what particular portions of the Act you disagree with my interpretation of.

And, to be honest, there are no “personal feelings about certain trustees” that I am basing any of this on. What I am basing my statements on is a long history of actions of questionable ethical and unlawful nature by certain trustees.

As for the number of complaints, I am somewhat in agreement; but I am also of the opinion that several complaints might receive more attention than one or two.

That said, I know the previous “caution” from the AG’s office was prompted by only two complaints, and was not viewed as “petty politicking”. Given that previous “caution”, it is my hope that the AG’s office will take this situation more seriously, particularly in light of the fact that this suspicious behavior continues.

May 7, 2009 at 6:04 am

theyhavespoken

Chrysippus, I read the ect in its entirety. The language speaks of discussion and how it includes email, telephone, etc..I simply do not feel that an email sent out equates to a discussion. I feel that just because she breeches the threshold of explaining the content of the conversation, it appears that she is merely keeping the others can be prepared for discussion at the next meeting.
This is what I`m saying. This may not be what her intentions were. It lacks intent. The one email has surfaced. There are no follow up emails from anyone to support that there was intent at all. Just because there have been past violations, there are guidelines that the Attorney General`s Office must strictly adhere to. The violations in the past are viewed as a case by case elements and have nothing to do with this incident at all.
I respect that you can view this as a violation because of nature and past incidents , and not because of personal bias. There is nothing wrong about being passionate your beliefs when it comes to politics ,or anything else for that matter.
As for the number of complaints; if the office gets flooded with complaints, then the cases will be assigned to numerous investigators. It will undoubtedly fall on one investigator`s desk more than once. They will see it as foolishness that they are all being assigned for the same incident and the end result is that it will end up with one investigator after all this. There is only room enough for a couple witnesses on the complaints.

May 8, 2009 at 9:49 am

At a Glance

theyhavespoken, I believe you are badly mistaken and it is the blind loyalty in light of continued abuses that prompt my assertion that you are indeed just a flunky of this group. Why are you not questioning the intent of Sigwalt? Instead, even with previous warnings issued, you seem to give the benefit of the doubt to her without questioning that intent.

My concern as a citizen of this community is that there was no purpose that would seem advisable, let alone permissible, for communication between the Trustees. It was one-sided and gave direction to those that received it to take action. That is a violation in the spirit of the act. She also excluded certain members of the Board in this discussion so I believe it was not, as you seem to want to believe, simply informing the members of a contact that she had. If that was so, why did she not “inform” everyone?

It is pretty obvious to anyone that is objectively viewing this single example of communication that she had intent and purpose for her even sending the email and that is what I feel is improper action by the Board. Tolerating private discussions with a quorum of the Trustees is limiting me and violates my rights to an open and fair exchange of information. If it had not been disclosed, and I can only think that this is not an isolated email, then we would not have even known that the Board was discussing issues to come before it, outside the Board room. That is what I’m concerned about.

And, to close, I’ll put my experience, education and knowledge against yours, if you think that I’m just a follower. My name appears in the “Who’s Who” in my profession because of my demonstrated leadership abilities. Is you notice, this issue of the violation of the open meetings act was first raised by me in this blog. It was my feeling that my rights were being violated and I so stated as directly as I could. Others, including Chrysippus, have only responded to my comments. So who is riding whose coat-tails?

Loyalty is fine when it is warranted but when we do so without enough knowlwdge it is an opportunity for others to abuse their powers and our rights. My loyalty is to the law and the rights of US as citizens. The Trustees were elected to represent and serve us. It is a responsibility not a right. Let’s not give them more respect than they earn and no more than we give ourselves.

May 8, 2009 at 8:46 pm

theyhavespoken

At a Glance, loyalty has nothing to do with this. In fact, I am very unbiased when it comes to the trustees. And you keep patting yourself about being in a “Who`s who” in your position. I`m sure that if that was something you achieved 20 years ago you would still be congratulating yourself.
You write of being concerned as a citizen ,that there was no purpose for the email. You mention that she excluded 2 board members. You say that private discussions violates the OMA because it limits your rights for open and fair exchange of information.
Consider this if you are able. I`ll even slow it down for you if it helps. Intent can only be proven in case by case basis. If she did violate the OMA in the past, how does that possibly prove intent in this incident. Your opinion has nothing to do with it. Opinions are not based on fact. That is how courts rule.
Further, the mere fact that Sarto and Slawinski were not emailed means nothing. Did it ever occur to you that she may have negated them simply because their terms were ending soon? I think this is a pretty safe assumption , as the topic was not something that was ultimately going to be ruled on while they were sitting members. This is a viable rationalization for her not to email Sarto and Slawinski and certainly does not support your claim of intent. And quite honestly, there was not and “exchange” of information.
To participate in an open and educated discussion is a wonderful thing. The positive is that a different perspective can clarify an otherwise cloudy view. To be so closeminded and unwilling to entertain different points of view is never going to broaden that person`s mind and he will consequently remain uneducated and ignorant. For this you will always lack credibility. Chrysippus and I have disagreed; but our dialogue offers proof that each of us appreciate the perspective of the other . Notice we don`t call each other flunkies? I have offered a legal perspective. Do with it what you want.
Lastly, I would be more appreciative of your diligence if it were for noble reasons as you suggest. When you speak of public outcry for abuse of power, you appear quite tolerant of Sarto. Ask him if he ever tried to exercise his authority has a village president to trump a court order set forth by a judge. Before he lies during his response, ask him about trying to have officers fired because of an incident in which they acted within the law opposed to violating the law and perform a duty (unlawful) just to because the situation involved a friend.
I could go on and on , but why?

May 9, 2009 at 8:08 am

Chrysippus

theyhavespoken, I think your speculation as to why Sigwalt left Sarto and Sliwinski actually makes further case against her intent.

While I think her own personal politics and campaign against these elected officials played a major part in her decision, why would she feel that Sarto and Sliwinski would not be voting on the matter before the end of their term? It could have very well been decided at the last meeting in April … unless there was already intent and collusion to stall this thing, perhaps to wear the people down … (which now seems even more likely).

May 9, 2009 at 2:55 pm

J. Krenz

The content of the email in the preceding discussions is in regard to an email written about a discussion between P. Lanspa & J. Sigwaldt.
The following is a memo I handed to then VP elect Ritter on 4/21/09.
My intent in joining this blog conversation is only to clarify the fact that the purpose and content of the email in question was based on assumptions and claims that were wholly untrue. As to the legality of the email itself, in regard to the Open Meetings Act, I believe the previous comments have very completely disected the subject from both pereprctives.

Dear Ed:
Since last December 08 I have been attending most PZC, Audit & Finance, & Board meetings as a spectator.
At a Village Board meeting in early 09 a group of Barrington school district bus drivers were in the audience and participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. They addressed the impact the enforcement of the commercial vehicle in driveways ordinance was causing on them. I had never seen them before.
During that evenings meeting it was determined that the revised ordinance pertaining to parking of commercial vehicles in driveways might have flaws and/or might be imposing a burden on the bus drivers. Staff was instructed to review the matter for a future meeting and enforcement was to be curtailed against the drivers until the review was completed at a future date in mid April.
At a later PZC meeting which I was in the audience, a lady I did not know (Liz Blaszik) was on the agenda to discuss a citation she had received from Code Officer Craig Martin citing her for having a commercial vehicle (husbands Sprinter van) parked in their driveway. As she finished making her comments to the Commission members I raised my hand to speak. They allowed me to speak at which time I reminded them that the Board had set a decision on this issue aside for future consideration due to possible flaws in the ordinance, as it seemed that even parking a Suburban or Crewcab pickup created a violation. The issue was tabled.
Before leaving the meeting I met Mr. and Mrs. Blaszik for the first time. They thanked me for my input and when she found out I was running for office she offered to assist the campaign making phone calls.

I had attended the Noland/Farnham presentation at the Village board meeting on Tuesday 4/14/09.
By coincidence Liz Blaszik was also in attendance as she had mistakenly thought that the PZC meeting was to be on that evening. Manager. Anderson was also in attendance and I suggested to Liz that she might speak with him as to some direction on her quest to resolve the issue of her husband parking his employer provided Sprinter van in their driveway.I introduced her to Mgr. Anderson and they discussed the possible directions she might go. So in fact Liz never intended to “blind side” Mr. Anderson. Liz is not a bus driver.
I have nothing to do with the bus drivers other than being sympathetic to their dilemma as residents.
I was in attendance at the PZC meeting last week (ten minutes late) as I have most of the others this year.
Liz Blaszik along with some bus drivers were in fact at the meeting. By the way they had photos, mounted diagrams, and other visuals for their presentation, not “protest signs in a pile”. They apparently have joined together to voice objection to the ordinance enforcement they’ve all been effected by.
When Liz left the meeting as the issue (Blaszik citation) was again tabled forward, I left to talk to her.
End of the story. Paul L. & Judy S’s entire last three paragraphs of the email are an unbelievable 100% fantasy. Paul L. should be ashamed and Judy obviously does not care to check facts before spinning a tale!

1. Me Pay for someones lawyer???………NO!………. and Tom R knows nothing of this entire fantasy tale
2. I have never been in any PZC meetings with any bus drivers or had anything to do with them before Thursdays seeing them at the PZC meeting.
3. When I bought my home in 2005 it had no finish flooring, hvac zoning, landscaping, yard sprinklers, and the carpentry trim was not completed. I bought it from a distressed builder who had been trying to sell it for 3 yrs.
My staff spent “on & off” eight weeks getting it liveable. During that time a lady in the subdivision started a blind email diatribe believing that I was parking AMY trucks at my house during the day instead of at my shop on Rt 31.
I haven’t driven a truck or done field work in fifteen years nor do I wish to have any AMY vehicles parked at my home……that’s why I moved into this subdivision & own the commercial property on Rt 31.
Doing some plumbing at my mothers house?????……….She’s lived in Elgin for seventy five years.
I have no relatives living in Carpentersville & I didn’t even know my neighbors at that time.
Paul L. must be nuts………why would I wish to keep any of our twenty three vehicles in the subdivision?
Yes we do lots of service work in the area, so we’re seen often….but what a stretch?????????
Paul Lanspa and Judy should write fiction mystery novels……they are missing a calling!
I guess it was not just Bill S. who has the wild imagination.

Jim K. 4/21/2009

May 11, 2009 at 9:51 am

At a Glance

Theyhavespoken, You are living in the past. Sarto is gone but you seem to want to “blame” him for this. What part did Sarto play in this —and you say that we can’t look at other occurances, but have to look at the issue at hand…my words not yours…

The issue was to come before the board prior to Sarto and Sliwinski’s terms being ended. The issue, as I remember, was tabled for review of a possible revision to the current ordinance at the Meeting over which Sarto presided as Village President. So, the exclusion of Sarto and Sliwinski, while likely done because they were not suiting the desires of Sigwalt, was relevent to the current Board findings and should, in your explanation, have been provided to inform ALL current, and possibly, future Board members. I wonder, is it even permissible for those not yet sworn in as Trustees to have access to information to come before a currently sitting Board, outside the Board Room?

So, you have heard of abuse of power? It can be a single act but it usually is related to a series of events, actions or behaviors and it is taken in it’s entirety, not on a single case by case basis. It is the repeated actions of Sigwalt, for which a warning has already been issued by the AG’s office, that leads me to the simple deduction, as this is again a similar repeated action, that represents a pattern of behavior.

And, you can honestly say that in reading the email from Judy Sigwalt, you saw no exchange of information? (So, again, no purpose for the email if that is true.) You have to look at the very contridiction that your earlier statements make. You said in earlier comments that Sigwalt was passing on information that she had received from a source to provide the board with the same information she had. Then you say there was not an exchange of information. So, in YOUR opinion, you think my opinion is less valid than yours? Again, it contridicts your own position that there has to be fact, and not opinion…but the facts are not fully known and my rights are in jeaprody of being abused. That’s what needs to be investigated. That’s what I’m calling for… I take that seriously. Maybe you care less about democracy than I do and that’s fine…but please do not argue that Sigwalt is justified in abusing my rights simply because you chose to give yours up!!!

May 11, 2009 at 10:55 am

At a Glance

theyhavespoken said…”It does not appear that Sigwalt is attempting in any way to construct a meeting. Yes she emails others on the board , but it appears to be for informational purposes only.”

…and you said in your latest comment…”This is a viable rationalization for her not to email Sarto and Slawinski and certainly does not support your claim of intent. And quite honestly, there was not an(d) “exchange” of information.”

In light of your comments above, I thought you might do better to just understand how difficult it is discuss the issues, logically, when you are doing so well debating yourself. Seems to be some pretty contridictory comments…maybe just for the purpose of making the point you want to make without regard for the facts…????
__________________

Also you said… “One of the elements of committing a crime is to have knowledge of committing a crime.”

You see, that is simply not true. Lack of knowledge of the law is not a defense against being tried and convicted of a commiting a crime… of breaking the law!!!
____________________

And again you said…”Your opinion has nothing to do with it. Opinions are not based on fact. That is how courts rule.”

Sorry, but I do try to use fact in forming my opinions. Maybe your’s are not fact based and you simply assume that everyone has opinoins that lack fact…but if I paid people to give me their opinions that were not fact, I’d not keep them too long… or i’d be out of business. And, courts try to make judgement based on the facts of the case and rely on the opinion of the jury or the judge to make their rulings…so, sorry again for the lack of understanding and perspective on the issues. Please, I’d suggest you refrain from comments when they lack such credibility that they offer only a fool’s understanding….

May 11, 2009 at 5:35 pm

theyhavespoken

Well At A Glance; It is rather obvious that someone who knows law, and has been in law for better than half of my life should rethink my position on which is within the law, and which violates law. You my friend, are ignorant and cannot accept an honest and professional answer. That`s like if me telling you how to run a plumbing job if you were the plumber! It makes me laugh though. It shows just how shallow minded some of you are. You see, lawyers and judges do not know all the answers to all the questions. They are just smart enough to look at caselaw and base their arguements on that. Not because they are so blind of the truth because of their blatant disregard of law and misguided passion for something that simply cannot be what they want it to be.
If what I have just written applies to you, then I would strongly suggest that you stop wasting your valuable time on this blog and get your behind down to the Attorney General`s Office and set them straight. Ask them where they are in their investigation and if their answer does not satisfy you, then tell them how it needs to be done…

May 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm

At a Glance

theyhavespoken, – Maybe its not your lack of knowledge of the law but just common sense that you are lacking. I’m not sure. With some kind of involvement with the law as you want us to believe you have, you would think you would know better. You say you believe that ignorance of the law is a defense against being guilty of a crime. Wow, That is far from true. And, you say that lawyers and judges don’t have all the answers, then why do you think you do? You want to believe that Sigwalt had no purpose or motive for sending an email to several Trustees and expect me and others, to simply accept that as truth but then you say you don’t know why she did what she did. That concerns me. You accept things without knowledge. You give others permission to continue to act in ways that are not known or understood by you by your very acceptance of questionable behavior.

And, to say that opinoin is not fact is just totally missing the point of law. Yes, opinion may not be based in fact and might be wrong. It might be made without knowledge or understanding of the facts. But the courts – based on the law, helps bring facts into the review of the cases that come before them and try to make opinions based on fact. Are they always right? No but if things are done correctly and facts are given to the judge or jury to make the decisions, their opinions are based on the facts and evidence, as they know them and the verdict is rendered. You do understand that basic principle I hope!

I’m asking for an investigation, based on the obvious grey areas of the law. See, I too have been involved in law (business side – not criminal) and accounting for many years and know how things work. I’m not going to accept things as ok when there are many obvious problems with the behavior of our Trustees that affect my rights. I am not going to sit by and watch as time after time the idiots tell us they are doing what is right only to be told, as the AG’s office already did, that they were wrong. That, to me, means the Trustees either didn’t understand what they were doing or knew and did it inspite of them knowing they were violating the law.

If you are involved in law as you want us to believe, then how can you accept violations of the law? Isn’t that against the very nature of the work you say you do? To make the statements you made, you would have to know very little about the law to even make passing comemnts as you did, or are trying to make us believe something that is not true. If this is your understanding, then there is a very basic lack of understanding of the laws, the oath of office, the laws that the Trustees swore to uphold, and the very nature of the Consitution. I’m absolutely surprised that you would so easily give up your rights to people that you contend you don’t know. I don’t understand how you cannot be outraged at the lack of care they take in doing their service jobs – service to us, the people. You give up your rights easily but I don’t intend to do so.

Those that you support have violated the Open Meetings Act in the past and yet you give “permission” without knowledge or question and that is an abuse of my rights. Again, I chose not to accept it or give them permission to abuse the community or me. And, you can count on me to make sure that the apparent violation is addressed with the authorities. By the way, outside the AG’s office, in your experience in “law”, to whom should I personally address my concerns? Any suggestions?

May 12, 2009 at 8:57 pm

theyhavespoken

At A Glance, you sit here cackling about violations of the law and that the “AG`s Office said this, and the AG`s Office said that”. And you ask me to whom do you address your concerns to? You have local, state, and federal authorities. Pick one. But , sounds like the AG`s office is not investigating anything at all. If you are this outraged, why are you wasting your time on this blog instead of contacting your congressman ?
Be prepared to answer the following questions when taking your complaint to the authorities in which you choose.
1) Who received this email? We need to know this so we can subpoena the IP addresses from where it was sent and where it was sent from. If you know the person to whom it was sent, please have him/her come in so they can tell us who their internet provider is, thus allowing us the opportunity to subpoena those involved in a more efficient manner. If not, case done.
2) Was this email sent to you? By whom? If you are not able to answer this then your case is done.
3) Where is this exchange of information you are talking about ? You show an email sent from whom, sent to whom? Then we will have to subpoena the records for the supposed recipients of this email to validate whether or not those recipients were indeed board members. We must also declare whether or not there are responses from the recipients to the original sender. If there are none, no EXCHANGE has taken place. Case done.
4) Have you spoken to the person who allegedly sent this email? What did they tell you?
5) How do you know what her intent was when the email was sent? If you cannot prove the intent, case done.

Can you answer yes to any of these questions? How many ? If not, case done. If you can, then we will deem whether or not if there is a probability that a criminal offense has taken place. If we do, then this information will have to go before a grand jury to rule that probable cause has been met. If a true bill is met, then we may proceed in the investigation. If not, case done.
If we determine that a criminal offense has not taken place, case done. If we determine that a criminal offense has taken place, but the grand jury does not agree, then we must regroup, investigate further, then provide further information to a grand jury if new information is obtained.
In the event that the offices of which you seek an investigation conclude that there will not be an investigation, whether it be because her intent cannot be proven, or no exchange had taken place, or whatever the reason, then by all means don`t stop there. Follow up with some law professors at John Marshall, DePaul, Harvard, or wherever else, and ask them why so many of their graduates lack the common sense necessary to succeed in this profession of law.
They gray areas of the law are gray only to you. Law is very specific and is supported by caselaw, not your interpretation of it.
As for me accepting those who break the law; this could not be further from the truth. I support law and the integrity of the law. I do not stray outside the scope of the law for any reason whatsoever, let alone for self gratification.
You keep plugging away At A Glance. Here`s an idea; if you feel so strongly that your rights have been violated, then perhaps it would be in your best interest to seek a civil rights attorney.

May 13, 2009 at 8:37 am

Chrysippus

I guess here’s the thing from my standpoint … when provided significant evidence of an Open Meetings Violation, neither the State’s Attorney nor the AG’s office pursued the violation.

The violation? A meeting of 4 members of the Audit & Finance Commission to discuss a matter being considered by the Board, and given further significance because it occurred in a town that was having significant issues related to financial audits.

If those agencies did nothing with regard to a violation delivered to them on a silver platter, why should any of us think that they will do anything that they might have to do some work to investigate?! So, what you are saying, theyhavespoken, makes sense considering these agencies’ past inaction. The excuses for them are noted. It certainly makes a case for why people “take the law into their own hands”.

“Myra” asked in a comment on another posting, how could government officials be able to get away with this “unprofessionalism” and “immaturity” … and there are two reasons:

The first is when citizens fail to get involved; when they get concerned about a single issue, and then walk away afterwards.

The second is when law enforcement agencies and officers look the other way (such as they have in Carpentersville). Heck, think Carpentersville has too many problems with crime and gangs and drugs, etc in the community? Just look at the Village Board!

When elected officials are allowed to commit crimes with impunity, why should citizens be expected to be punished?

The government official who commits crimes and manipulates the system, I say, is affecting more people than the person who goes out and kills another or sells drugs. So it is upsetting when incompetence in law enforcement and regulatory bodies let these things go unpunished and even uninvestigated.

BTW, theyhavespoken, I believe that violations of the Open Meetings Act are prosecuted under a civil, not criminal, process. Further, particularly in civil matters, there are “gray areas of law”, and judges do interpret … which is how case law is established. They make decisions based on their interpretation of the law (in other words, opinion), as well as intent, and past decisions. Most case law, especially civil, is not without its “gray areas”, which is what causes similar cases to be litigated; and what allows defense attorneys to make arguments against it.

May 13, 2009 at 9:28 am

Myra

At the last meeting the Board was talking about forming a new committee in respect to writing ordinances. From what I understood they were going to appoint some board members to this committee. Is this appropriate to have the same group writing the ordinances that vote on them?

May 13, 2009 at 9:40 am

At a Glance

Lisa madigan is the Attorney General. She has, to date, ignored most of these types of problems and is likely to do so with this case as well. I’m not being unrealistic. It is not likely that she is even doing her job. But I have hope in the system that it will eventually happen.

Theyhavespoken, I thought with all your legal background (Ha ha), you would be able to give me the name of one of your ‘contacts” that could help us stop the backroom deals that you said you don’t condone. Instead it seems you are relying on Madigan’s lack of involvement so that it permits the abuses of power to go on. I do beleive that this is a violation of the OMA and it is a continuation of the violations that have been ocurring for years. As a citizen and a voter, I will do what I can to see that this type of action is not just swept under the rug. That will be at both the state, county, and local levels. It is amazing to me that so many people tolerate or even permit abuses by our elected officials to occur to the point that it is not even recognized. It is so commonplace. We see it at the local level where we as taxpayers have to pay for the special deals our elected “representatives” give to their friends or for “kick backs”. It is more money out of our pockets for their abuses of power and this is just another way to exploit others for the gain of the Trustees themselves.

We the people lose when abuse of power goes without punishment; when it is allowed to exist and tarnish the community we live in and effect the values, both financial and moral, we hope to have for our families. No, this is a very serious matter, despite how insignificant it seems on the surface. It is just an example of the way our local government works and abuses our rights as citizens.

May 13, 2009 at 11:34 am

Chrysippus

Myra, that is basically what happens now anyway. They are just looking at moving this to a committee, instead of the current process that is to happen during Board meetings (which is also viewable on Comcast or via the DVDs; presently committee meetings aren’t recorded — except via meeting minutes that get approved for release, often a few months after the fact — or broadcast.)

May 13, 2009 at 11:42 am

At a Glance

Myra, you ask a very good question about the “ordinance committee”. I don’t necessarily believe there is anything wrong with Trustees writing ordinances for consideration by the full Board for passage. I would hope that this would be a very limited participation by Trustees so that it doesn’t constitute anything close to a quorum.

I do think it is important that the public also be given an opportunity for review/discussion of the proposed ordinances so that all perspectives can be heard and considered. With some of the new rules Mr. Ritter established for our Board Meetings, I’m not sure that the people will have an opportunity to participate in discussions and be given a voice in our government and community. I’m just not sure how this will work….

It has begun, Ritter’s first challenge

Recent Comments

Interesting Reading

Recent Posts

Contact the Network

Highlights

Post Archives

Post Calendar

Blogroll

Links

68 comments