This comes from a new commenter, who calls himself PartickinCary:
While the analysis of the ADA is interesting (though, being more than passably familiar with it – I should say incomplete…the ADA doesn’t guarantee rights to elected officials; the only reason it is raised here is that the county board referred to is as a review standard), it nevertheless is moot.
The only way you get to a vote is if the illness requirement has been met.
If there’s no “illness” – ADA ‘disability’ or not – then you don’t even vote on whether the board member can participate.
So it seems that Mr. Walkup has spent a lot of ink in support of what is and is not an ADA ‘disability’, but misses the point that even if there is a ‘disability’ the board can, and in this case did, vote to disallow participation.
This is not a legal issue.
This is a political issue.
And politics is not a pillow fight.
Veterans like Mr. Hammerand do, or should, know this.
Joe Gotemoller was not supported by John Hammerand for County Board Chairman. Gottemoller cast the deciding vote not to allow Hammerand to participate in the Board meeting by telephone.
Mr. Hammerand’s winter location has been known for years; nothing new to see.
And it has always been a political liability.
Until now, nobody bothered to take advantage of that liability to inflict pain.
I believe that this paradigm changed in the past 18 months as Mr. Hammerand found himself in need of choosing a faction, and ended up choosing the faction that became the minority.
I suspect that the minority will continue to find themselves marginalized as the wax holding the feathers is melted off.
How does John Hamerand’s overall attendance record compare to everyone else on the County board.
During his 2014 County Board campaign YTD through October Hamerand had the best attendance record in District 4.
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2014/10/30/arne-waltmire-assaults-john-hammerand-with-mailings-robo-call/#attachment_74851
Did those people who missed meetings volunteer to call in remotely?
A Board going out of its way prohibit an elected official from participating in a board meeting seems highly questionable if board members have missed meetings yet not even bothered to to call in.
All those missed board meetings, it wasn’t possible to call in?
Where does common sense come in to play, he’s not here, he’s calling in, there are board members that have missed more meetings than the guy calling, we won’t let the guy calling participate because of the policy and procedures manual.
The November 2014 MCCD board meeting during which a $130 million bond refi was approved was attended remotely by phone by one Trustee, and his vote was recorded.
There was no mention of medical necessity.
http://www.mccdistrict.org/rccms/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/11-5-2014-Special-Call-Meeting-Minutes_Redacted.pdf
So it’s ok for Conservation District Board of Trustee members to dial into Board meetings remotely, but it’s not OK for County Board members to dial into Board meetings remotely?
Regarding the above board mentioned board minutes, there is no mention in the November 2014 McHenry County Conservation Board Minutes of the December 2014 $18M Original Issue Premium.
The Conservation District Board of Trustees chose not to disclose the bond premium in the Board Minutes.
Instead the Board seems to have buried the Premium in the following statement.
“…providing for the issue of not to exceed $130,000,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014.
The following comes from the bond Official Statement.
$108,215,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014.
$018,282,692 Original Issue Premium.
$126,497,692 Total
The refunding bonds are nowhere close to $130M.
The refunding bonds are $108,215,000.
The refunding bonds plus the original issue premium is closer to $126,497,692, which is closer to $130M.
The Board Minutes do mention advance refunding.
Be sure to read up on advance refunding.
Here is something else in the November 2014 Conservation District Board Minutes.
“The total savings is in the range of $12,000,000.”
And how were those savings calculated?
Because the bond principal was reduced $8,155,000.
More existing bonds were refunded than new bonds issued.
$8,155,000 more.
As a result of the refunding, the Conservation District has $8,155,000 less bond principal.
Where did the conservation district get the $8,155,000?
Presumably from the Original Issue Premium.
The premium is extra money the bondholders are paying for the bonds.
There’s more to the story.
The Conservation District never revealed the whole story on its website or in the board minutes.
For that matter, there is at least one county board member, while as Chairwoman of the entire board, reportedly, allegedly, spent her time at the meetings, “Knotting Off” to sleep.
Then, attends rehab, and suddenly, after just thirty days, is cured of a ‘drinking problem.’
What Gotemoller is doing to Board Member John Hammerand, is akin to political bullying.
I give Mr. Gotemoller the “Punk” of the year award!
May you find yourself in poor health one day Mr. Gotemoller and hope you don’t run into persons such as yourself.
Your the kind of guy who makes dying cancer patients fly cross country just to attend a deposition when it could have well been handled via “Telephone” or “Skype.”
What goes around comes around Mr. Gotemoller.
John Hammerand is one of the finest gentleman I have had the pleasure of meeting in McHenry County Government.
I agree with you Rodney King on, completely
All I can say about this situation is that those who voted against allowing the vote via phone but especially Joe Gottemoller are practicing vicious politics.
Take note on all of this.
Mchenry County just got rid of these types that have been doing dirty politics & punishing those who dare disagree with them – for decades.
We must keep on top of this because it looks like they are still rearing their ugly head through the county board and will continue to do so unless we the taxpayers and voters DO SOMETHING and remove them and take our county back.
Top on the list for removal besides Gottemoller & Co. is Althoff, Tryon & Wheeler who voted for the MCCD bill with zero consideration for those they represent.
In an interesting take on all of this the SA has informed us that County Board Members are not employees of the county notwithstanding that we are paid a salary and benefits, and that we really have no supervisors.
That means a couple of things in terms of ADA.
For one, it is a public access issue rather than an employment accommodation.
Second, there is no one who can really go over the ADA request for adequacy and make a determination.
Then there is the question of having to share medical records with the entire Board in a public meeting to prove that you fall within the ADA.
What this appears to mean is that an individual who does not want to share records will have to just put the question up to the Board and then file an EEOC complaint if denied.
Hopefully we are going to amend our rules to take out the ADA references, but then you still have the issue of someone having to potentially prove an illness is severe enough to prevent attendance in person with no mechanism to protect confidentiality, and with the people who may be politically opposed to you who don’t want you to vote making the decision.
It’s a mess.
Meanwhile, the Chair of the Transportation Committee announced that they will again be looking at the “salt storage factiliy” for the Southeast portion of the county which is something that Mr. Hammerand opposed in the past.
Will that committee vote to allow him to participate in those meetings?
Mike, are you John’s attorney or are you just rubbernecking?
I’d like to supplement a little based on the comments above- First, I think “HadEnough” said “Mchenry County just got rid of these types…” And by those ‘types” I suspect you are referring to the standard old guard county GOP and some of it’s members who were on the county board. What I would suggest to you is that the current issue disproves your statement, at least in part; Either you are mis-typecasting, or the county voters simply did not get rid of whom you typecast in significant numbers to matter, at least in this last election cycle.
To Mr. Walkup’s comment: Your comment to my story is a different beast than my comment to your story. Objectively I can interpret you as changing tack from arguing ADA to admitting it has no real relevance. Knowing that opinions can and do differ, I’ll choose to accept that as a point validated.
Finally, to everyone who is claiming some fundamental inequity in how this board treats the phone-ins, or how other boards treat phone-ins I say this: 1) the mccd is a different unit of government. No need or expectation of parallel rules or behavior exists; and 2) even among the county board, the rules set up to allow phone-in participation clearly incorporate political decision making by the board, WITHOUT reference to any standard that the board members should use to cast a vote. I stand by and reiterate my previous comment that this is a political issue and will be resolved with politics. I just do not see the rule changing in a way that helps Mr. Hammerand for another two years, minimum. In the meanwhile I think there probably will be some movement among board members to allow him to participate in the future under the guise of Medical Compassion, though the same cannot be proven without Mr. Hammerand personally allowing verification – something I also don’t see happening.
I’m not in D4, but find it interesting to watch, at any rate.
I’d like to supplement a little based on the comments above- First, I think “HadEnough” said “Mchenry County just got rid of these types…” And by those ‘types” I suspect you are referring to the standard old guard county GOP and some of it’s members who were on the county board. What I would suggest to you is that the current issue disproves your statement, at least in part; Either you are mis-typecasting, or the county voters simply did not get rid of whom you typecast in significant numbers to matter, at least in this last election cycle.
To Mr. Walkup’s comment: Your comment to my story is a different beast than my comment to your story. Objectively I can interpret you as changing tack from arguing ADA to admitting it has no real relevance. Knowing that opinions can and do differ, I’ll choose to accept that as a point validated.
Finally, to everyone who is claiming some fundamental inequity in how this board treats the phone-ins, or how other boards treat phone-ins I say this: 1) the mccd is a different unit of government. No need or expectation of parallel rules or behavior exists; and 2) even among the county board, the rules set up to allow phone-in participation clearly incorporate political decision making by the board, WITHOUT reference to any standard that the board members should use to cast a vote.
I stand by and reiterate my previous comment that this is a political issue and will be resolved with politics. I just do not see the rule changing in a way that helps Mr. Hammerand for another two years, minimum. In the meanwhile I think there probably will be some movement among board members to allow him to participate in the future under the guise of Medical Compassion, though the same cannot be proven without Mr. Hammerand personally allowing verification – something I also don’t see happening.
I’m not in D4, but find it interesting to watch, at any rate.
Oh crap, forgot to also mention: The implicit threat of an EEOC action following a negative vote probably isn’t a valid one – the EEOA specifically exempts elected officials from the definition of “employee” protected thereunder, and the Commission’s counsel has validated this position with regard to local and state elected officials. As a result, any EEOC complaint would not likely survive the initial respondent filing
Bottom line: Forget all of the palaver.
The ten people who voted against remote attendance DEPRIVED the citizens of their right to have their elected representative represent them.
It is that simple folks!
The McHenry County Board elected someone who is willing to deprive citizens of their representation to be county chairman.
Remember this when he runs for Chairman at large or any other political office.
IMHO he is not fit to be anything other than what he is – a lawyer.
“The ten people who voted against remote attendance DEPRIVED the citizens of their right to have their elected representative represent them. It is that simple folks!”
Isn’t “John Hammerand is a bum who takes 2 months of vacation per year and expects to be paid for it” an easier summary of the situation?