Listen to and respect the community

As regular readers know, and new visitors can see, I’ve been very critical of the way members of the Board have conducted themselves over the past several years.  But I’d like to draw a distinction between criticism of behavior or action and the presentation of feedback, input or commentary on issues.

I feel that the Board needs to seek out, and actually consider, input, advice and opinions from a wider base of the community and experts on the matters.  And, they should be open to accepting such input even from those who are critical of actions they have taken in the past.

This seems to be something that at least some members of the Board have thus far been unwilling to do, and has been most recently evident in the discussion of amending the parking ordinance for buses and large personal vehicles.

A recent decision by President Ritter Ed to no longer allow public comment during Board discussion of ordinances and other actions creates a situation where the Board could take action on a matter without the public being able to weigh in with specific information – whether opinions or from experts.

It seems to be a means to stifle public input into issues of concern to the community. Unfortunately, a prevalent philosophy of some Board members is to ignore — and often, in turn, criticize — those members of the community.

Board members should expect criticism from members of the community if they take actions that are seen as problematic; especially if such Board members are initiators or champions of a particular issue.   Likewise, residents should be encouraged to voice such criticisms without fear of being cut off from the dialog.

Now, some have considered my criticisms to be be “personal”.  But, as I said in a comment recently on this blog, they are not “personal” at all.  But, they are distinct from being input or feedback.  Instead, the nature of those comments are specifically aimed at actions engaged in which are illegal, unethical and/or complicit with such behavior.  Such actions by elected officials deserve no mercy or “constructive criticism” because engaging in them undermines the rights of members of the community or society.

As I said at the start, these two types of criticisms are of different and distinct natures, and both serve a purpose — both ultimately seek to serve the community in different ways.  Allowing input into, and hearing criticism of, issues and legislation from experts and members of the community helps elected officials serve better.  Denouncing illegal, unethical and corrupt behavior engaged in by elected officials helps the community be better informed, so they may choose officials that respect them (and remove officials that don’t).

Welcome your new Village Board

A few comments throughout the last nearly 2 years have assumed that the objections I’ve raised to various elected officials’ behavior is “just politics” and a result of personal feelings against these people.  That is simply not the case.  I, like most of you, are concerned about the image and reputation that Carpentersville has.  And, to have illegal, unethical and other questionable behavior engaged in by our elected officials does more damage than other crime, vacant homes or code violations.  The Village is a “laughing stock”, as some have said, not simply because of antics of one person, but moreso because the People of Carpentersville continue to elect these types of officials time and time again.

On May 5th, newly elected members of the Village Board were sworn into office.  All but one have a history with Village government that will be a tarnished coating over this town’s image as long as they remain.  Let’s take a look at five of the seven members of the Board that will be there for at least the next 2 – 4 years:

Paul Humpfer:

• Convicted of domestic battery with a weapon; March 2008
• Violated Illinois Open Meetings Act; October 2006
• Violated Village requirements, for up to a year, by using meeting rooms for an unauthorized use; ended by Village Manager, January 2008
• Lived in Hammond, Indiana; June 2007 – October 2008
• Appointed to a Trustee position after doing “free” work on Village finances; 2004
• Appointed to a Trustee position after losing 2005 election; April 2005

Additionally, at a Board meeting about 1 month ago, Paul Humpfer appeared to not even know which financial accounting basis was used.  He argued with President Sarto that the Village was not on “cash basis” accounting.  Sarto then asked Finance Director Happ, who confirmed the Village used “cash basis” accounting.  How is it that Humpfer supposedly “fixed” the finances when he seems to lack such rudimentary knowledge?

Judy Sigwalt

• Violated Illinois Open Meetings Act; October 2006
• Violated Village requirements, for up to a year, by using meeting rooms for an unauthorized use; ended by Village Manager, January 2008
  
• Conspired to disrupt the ability to conduct Village business; September 2006 – March 2009
• Voted to keep convicted criminal, Paul Humpfer, as a member of the Board; March 2008
• Used the Carpentersville Improvement Commitee project(s) for campaign; August 2008
• Voted to change rules to protect allies and friends on the Board; April 2008

Ed Ritter

• Allowed Village Committee to be used for campaign purposes; August 2008 – March 2009
• Was complicit in several of the above actions of Judy Sigwalt and Paul Humpfer, and voted in a manner that did not seek to see these actions punished or remedied.

Kay Teeter

• Was complicit in several of the above actions of Judy Sigwalt and Paul Humpfer, and voted in a manner that did not seek to see these actions punished or remedied.
• May have been present with Sigwalt and Humpfer during at least 1 meeting that would have triggered a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

Pat Schultz

• Violated Illinois Open Meetings Act, October 2006
• Was complicit, as Chairman of the Carpentersville Improvement Committee, in allowing Judy Sigwalt to use committee project(s) for campaign and personal purposes; August 2008 – October 2008

Time will tell about new comer Brad McFeggan’s role in the new Board’s agenda.

Of Buses and Politics

To weigh in on this matter of the ordinance prohibiting vehicles in excess of 8,000lbs from being owned and parked at residences in the Village (which have been debated in the comments of the “Ritter/challenge” entry), I have to say that I find that there are matters that the existing ordinance addresses that are important to the maintenance and safety of the community and its residents.  That said, I also find that there are cases where the existing ordinance unknowingly, unintentionally or unwittingly prohibits passenger vehicles from being owned and stored at residences in the Village.  Additionally, ordinances should take into account the sizable population of working class citizens who are residents of the Village.

I think it is good that the Board has asked for a revised ordinance to address these matters, and also provide exclusions that would allow certain buses to be parked at residences, which also are of benefit to the community.

So, those two things are good.

What I find disheartening, however, is that some members of the Board — Trustee Sigwalt, in particular — are using this ordinance in a discriminatory manner; specifically to harass a business owner in the Village, and perhaps others, as a matter of politics.  I believe that it establishes a dangerous precedent — with evidence that it was long established, and is now commonplace — that damages the image and credibility of the Board, the Community Development Division (specifically code enforcement officers), and also the reputation of the Village itself.

Steps may be taken by those involved to ensure that such commentary and prejudices do not “leak” to the public in the future, however, that is no assurance of protection against such.

Again, this is another case where there must be a show of good faith on the part of the government, that it will listen to the people when they bring objections; and that they will be properly addressed.   The passage of exceptions granted for non-commercial vehicles, and certain school buses is a start to demonstration of that commitment.