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
Hi All, I just got a call from Paul Lanspa about the PCZ meeting. I’m relaying what he said at his request. Paul Lanspa asked if he should contact Craig Anderson . I suggested he should so Craig is not blindsided.
The school bus drivers showed up at the PZC meeting with protest signs in a pile and said a lawyer contacted them (the bus drivers) this week about their problem with parking their buses in the village. The bus drivers said they would be at our Tuesday board meeting.
It is Paul Lanspas thought, if they get a lawyer Krenz or Roeser will pay for it. Paul Lanspa said every time the bus drivers came before them Krenz was in attendance with them. Paul Lanspa believes it is because Krenz was parking his Amy plumbing trucks frequently in their subdivision of Spring Acre Hills. When he was told by the SAH/HOA he could not do this and they put a stop to it, Paul Lanspa said Krenz became very indignant and said he was doing some plumbing at his Mothers house.
Paul Lanspa believes Krenz has a stake in this issue as he wants to park his commercial vehicles in the subdivision. Paul Lanspa said he’s not opposed to granting a variance to the bus drivers as long as there’s a strong exclusion on all other commercial vehicles as we all are trying to improve the looks of our village.
Please email Keith and Brad for me. If you have any questions of Paul Lanspa his email is [redacted]. feel free to contact him. The PCZ continued the agenda item.
Take Care Judy
15 comments
Apr 20, 2009 at 8:58 am
Bill Sarto
It’s funny how Sigwalt transposes (PCZ) for PZC. She does it twice in this brief E-mail.
This is typical if Sigwalt trying to shift the issue to something off subject. The issue is should the School Bus drivers be allowed to get a wavier from the ordinance so that they can continue to do what they have been doing for many years. Is a School Bus an eyesore?
I spoke with the Illinois Director of Pupil Transportation the other day and was told that many school buses are allowed to be taken home throughout the state. In rural areas it’s a very common practice. Also the sight of a Shool Bus is a place to seek help if you are a child in danger. Having School Buses parked at homes offers some level of safety to a neighborhood. All School Bus Driver’s must pass a background check before they are hired. Also many School Bus Driver’s are trained and know life saving techniques. They are an asset to have in a neighborhood.
Some years ago, ComEd did a campaign to encourage youngsters to go up to a ComEd truck if they were being threatened or needed help in any way. Employees for ComEd are also screened before they are hired.
I support the School Bus Driver’s being allowed to park their mini-buses at their homes. It does no harm to the community, whatsoever, in fact, it is in my opinion a benefit to the community to have these dedicated people living in our Village. They deserve a pass on this ordinance.
Apr 20, 2009 at 9:35 am
At a Glance
I have a greater issue than simply leaving Sarto and Sliwinski out of the discussion. I question the behind the scenes dealings that show corruption and disregard for the people of our community.
Is this special interest politics as usual in Carpentersville? Why would Sigwalt discuss with the Board one side of an issue offering a decission before there is even a discussion about the issue before the Board?
That seems like democracy at its worst…just backroom deals being made for the benefit of punishment of whom???? Makes you wonder what’s been going on for all these years… Good luck Mr. Ritter.
Apr 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Chrysippus,
I ready the Illiinois AG’s Office issues “cautionary note”. A thought occured to me.
The email was sent to Ed Ritter, Kay Teeter and Paul Humpfer from Judy Sigwalt. In the email, a waiver for the bus drivers is specifically stated. Wasn’t the OMA created to ensure that the actions of the public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
This email discusses an item on the agenda with a quorum of the membrs of a publc body included in the email. This is not a staff member talking to the board but one board member pushing their choice of the outcome using a “behind the doors” medium.
Wouldn’t this also be a violation of the OMA?
Apr 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
She also excludes 3 members of the board from her email.
Apr 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm
At a Glance
That is also the concern I was trying to raise only Elizabeth, you put it much better!
The Board seems to have been working in this way for quite some time. Secret Meetings (as Sarto had tried to have stopped) are not unusal for them and discussion between Board Members is obviously commonplace as this email from Trustee Sigwalt would seem to indicate.
Maybe Mr. Ritter will tell us how he plans to handle this type of thing. The Open Meetings Act was established for the purpose, I believe, to keep backroom deals from being made. This group has been warned, as I understand from an earlier post by Chrysippus, by the Attorney General’s office for violations of the Act.
Apr 22, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Here is a suggestion:
Print out a copy of the Illinois AG’s Office issues “cautionary note” and a copy of Judy’s email (also listed here).
Type up a letter to:
Terry Mutchler
Public Access Counselor
Assistant Attorney General
500 S. Second Street
Sprinfield, IL 62704
Name of Public Body: Carpentersville Village Board
Date of Violation: Thursday, April 16th, 2009
Contacted Locla state’s attorney: No, following up with you directly since you have already sent this board a warning.
Assistance seeking: This board violated this Act again and we want you to charge them.
Include your name, address, telephone number and email address.
Sign the letter and mail it along with the print out of the previous warning and a copy of the email showing whom she sent it to.
Last time they addressed after one person wrote in and 2 people called in. Please make sure you reminder her that Trustee Ritter is now President Ritter.
If we get enough people to do this we may see some action.
Apr 22, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Chrysippus
Elizabeth, I encourage you, and all other interested parties (complaints of this nature do not require one to be a resident; merely an interested party), to make complaints to the Attorney General’s office, for them to conduct an investigation.
It is my understanding that a violation would only occur if there was “discussion”; meaning that there would be a reply made to a quorum of the Board. Board members are allowed to send emails to the rest of the Board, but any responses cannot include a quorum of Board members. Unfortunately, I am was not privvy to any replies that were made, so I cannot confirm a true violation this at the present time.
That said, it is possible that the AG’s office could investigate to determine whether there were email replies made to the original email that would trigger a violation of the Act.
As you may be aware from reading other articles on this blog, this type of behavior is, sadly, commonplace.
For instance, for more than a year Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer were meeting together on Friday nights before Board meetings, with a select group of “friends”, to discuss matters that were to come before the public body at the next meeting, often using their Trustee packets. Those “friends” were many of the same ones who would then come to the next Board meeting to make public comments in favor of the position that Sigwalt, Humpfer, Teeter and Ritter were proposing (to create a false sense that the community supported the position). [This seems to be what happened also after Trustee Humpfer's domestic battery conviction, too.]
This is the way they do business, and why I have been as vocal as I have about it — because it overshadows every decision that the Board makes, and interferes with the ability of the “average citizen” to get a fair hearing before the Board when an issue comes up that concerns them.
Apr 22, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Bill Sarto
Just a point of clarification, a violation of The Open Meetings Act is triggered when 3 or more members of the public body communicate on a matter of Village business. Yes, E-mails are considered communications among those members. Even if the other members do not respond, it can still be considered a violation of the Act.
This particular case is very interesting, since not only sitting members of the board were involved in the E-mail, so were those who had been elected in the last election held on April 7, 2009. This is important because these “new” members of the board will be voting on the revised ordinance. Those Trustees-elect are Brad McFeggan and Patricia Schultz.
This is indeed troubling from a few different directions. 1. Ed Ritter, who will be the Village President was included on this E-Mail from Trustee Sigwalt as were Trustees Humpfer and Teeter. Trustee Sigwalt asked that the E-mail be sent to Trustee Keith Hinz and to Trustee-elect Brad McFeggan. 2. This Email virtually involves not only the current sitting members but also the new members who have not yet taken office but will have when this issue is decided. 3. Patricia Schultz and Paul Humpfer and Judy Sigwalt have been involved in illegal meetings in the past. Patricia Schultz was a member of the Audit & Finance Commission when she was meeting with Humpfer and Sigwalt. That too was a violation of the (OMA).
Apr 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Chrysippus
Since Judy has already been warned, she should have known better. If the email had contained all the board member there might be doubt of intent. This email only contained the people she thought would side with her and she was very direct about the variance and it was on the agenda which means she had the packet at the time of the email. I think complaints should be filed. If nothing more it will give the AG documentation to help establish a pattern so when the big one hits they can act.
I have heard something about this Humpfer issue. As a woman I am outraged. Nothing save, self defence of you or your child makes this act excusable. In the end though, how does rehashing this change our community for the better. I feel incredibly sad for Mr. Humpfers’ children. Question: Have you ever asked yourself, who Sarto would have replaced him with?
People, in two years we have the chance to get 3 new people on the board. I don’t know anything about Keith. Does he need to be replaced or is he stuck in the muck from the others mud slinging?
Judy Sigwalt, in my opinion, needs to be replace. When I watched her on tv and when I presented at the board meeting the phase that kept coming out of her mouth was “I don’t want these trucks (or what ever) allowed” . She said it several times. Normally, elected officials say, “My constituents don’t want these trucks allowed”. “I have gotten alot of complaints” and then show the pile of printed emails and letters. The way she speaks makes her look narcissistic.
As for Paul, we all know your opinion. I to believe that he should be replaced in two years. My opinion is based on what I have seen at these meetings. Tuesday, I was very concerned for his health. He did not look well at all. He kept looking at the ceiling. His face, especially his eyes, were extremely puffy. To tell you the truth, I was half expecting him to fall over. Whatever is going on with him, it seems to be causing him extreme stress. I would hope he would realize that taking care of himself and his children are far more important than sitting on the village board. If his wife was as off balance as Sigwalt stated, his children will need him greatly.
Gossiping is fun. Hello, I AM a women. However, why haven’t any of you run for office, or helped someone you believe could bring about better result run for office? This last election was a horrifing experience for me. 14K registered voters and only 2K could take the time to vote. The biggest problem with our community seems to be us. What it is it going to take to motivate people to vote? This is the one challenge I hope I can figure out in the next year.
Apr 23, 2009 at 12:54 am
Bill Sarto
To answer your question: I would have replaced Humpfer with the best qualified person who would have applied for the position.
I most likely would have picked someone who was not interested in running again. That way the voters could have made the decision in this last election, by electing someone to a two year term. That would have been the best way to have delt with it.
Apr 23, 2009 at 6:33 am
Chrysippus
Elizabeth, you are correct; “Judy should have known better”, based on the past warnings. She should have known better than to have simply moved the “secret meetings” to a private residence after the warning too; but that is what they did. Yet, because they seem to have been allowed to get away with this type of thing in the past, it is not surprising that it continues.
That is the reason I bring up the past. Because it explains, first, that this is not an isolated incident; it has happened before. And, second, serves as a reminder that, despite the past behavior being made known to the the voters in this past election, voters chose candidates who have both allowed this to occur, and/or actually participated in them.
Yet, I have no problem filing a complaint, like those made in the past.
Yes, in 2 years we will have the chance to remove Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer from the Board by our votes. It is unfortunate that voters did not take the opportunity to do something about it in this last election; having handed victory to the “Friends of Sigwalt and Humpfer” team. I admit that I wonder what voters will do differently 2 years from now.
I concur with your assessment of the last election. Only 14,000 registered in a town with a population more than twice that. And then only 2,000 vote? I too wonder what it is going to take to motivate people to vote — it appears that dealing with corrupt and criminal elements in the government isn’t enough.
Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Chrysippus
You still haven’t addressed my question about why haven’t you run for office or helped a person who could bring about change? If you know that we have a voter issue and it obviously appales you, what are you going to do to change that? Doesn’t this all affect you too? If you are tired of it, what are you going to do to change it? Besides this blog.
Apr 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Chrysippus
Actually, Elizabeth, I was very active in the last election. There were good candidates that I supported, but they did not win. There are things that I learned during this last election cycle. I’m not giving up and will continue to seek out good, qualified candidates to put my support behind. Unfortunately, right now my line of work does not afford me the opportunity to run for office — already we see that elected office is more than the part time job that some are making it.
As you pointed out, it is more than just good candidates that are necessary to get elected and make the change that we need. We need to get more of the community tuned in and active. That seems to be the challenge in the next 2 years.
In addition to that, I run this blog as a place for people, such as yourself, to make comments, and get information, that can help candidates and the community.
Apr 27, 2009 at 10:22 am
Jason
The way I read Judy Sigwalt’s email she is trying to use the ordinance to attack Jim Krenz and the Roeser’s. Or political favors?
May 10, 2009 at 1:15 pm
J. Krenz
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 perspectives.
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