Township Consolidation Comment Cards – Part 5

This is the fourth installment of what people wrote on note cards at the McHenry County Township Consolidation Task Force Open House.

Public Comment Cards from 8/18/15 Township Consolidation Open House

Another view of the Township Consolidation Open House.

Another view of the Township Consolidation Open House.

  • Abolish all townships. Make the county responsible for everything.
  • The State of Illinois needs to fix their problems. The townships don’t have a problem.
  • Scenario #1 is the least one to object to.
  • Leave townships along
  • Townships are very economical and careful in the use of taxpayers’ money. They are less expensive and more efficient. No one does the job of assessments or takes care of roads better than township government. Do not consolidate them, but learn from them.
  • Consolidation is not good for taxpayers or township residents.
  • 141 miles of roads? Seriously? Bigger government does not mean better government.
  • The only reason to do this is to save money. Since there is not financial information given I have to oppose the consolidation. Get numbers together first!
  • If this can save money send it to the voters. I think this is a “silver bullet” or people think it is. It probably won’t save much but whatever. I think there will be definite winners and losers in every scenario and have little faith it will pass any of them. Probably a waste of time.
  • Why not take it one step further have county take over the townships and save even more tax dollars?
  • Townships are the closest government to the people. Taxes will have to go up if consolidation occurs. Stop listening to Bob Anderson! Say “no” to township consolidation.
  • All individuals involved in the consolidation task force should be banned/fired from participating in any county functions. Based on wasting taxpayers money and/or resources.
  • Consolidate McHenry and Boone County to save money.
  • Please make no changes, I’m against township consolidation.
  • Leave everything as is. No consolidation.
  • As a life-long Riley resident I see no financial benefit in changing the current township structure. Leave it alone.
  • Please use your time to actually save our state some money instead of just reducing government because townships provide services better than the state or county do!
  • Elimination of townships would seem to be the most appropriate selection.
  • Why is the county spending this kind of money doing all the leg work on obtaining facts and figures when all the consolidation group did was equal! Clearly a waste of our tax dollars. Leave things as they are.
  • Very bad idea
  • Leave a well working government alone. The waste of time, resources, and money that were used on this could have been spent fixing a road or  plowing snow. If this kind of action continues in McHenry County I will be moving my family to Boone County or WI.

Comments

Township Consolidation Comment Cards – Part 5 — 47 Comments

  1. Getting figures is a great idea.

    Start by making the TOI cough up the information or have them disband if they say they don’t have the info.

    Naïve people think townships run by so called local people are the best thing since sliced bread.

    Wake up folks, there are paychecks and benefits involved.

    Also cronyism.

    They are a stepping stone to bigger offices and more money.

    They are the foot soldiers for other politicians.

    They aren’t altruistic anymore than any other public officials.

    They exist to build even bigger government and wave their power in our faces.

    Yes there are some folks who are good.

    The rest not so much.

  2. Re: Post by anonymous

    He / She should contact their County Board member and ask for a copy of what I gave them relative to this attempt to get the Consolidation referendums on the ballot next year.

    I will not respond to your comments because they are so far from reality they need to be ignored.

  3. mr. Evertsen displays that typical, down-home warm township attitude…”ignore’em.”

    He is the same township supervisor who cost the taxpayer $10 for every $1 given in aid.

    He’d like to ignore that fact too.

    Don’t you dare question township government, anonymous, the knives are out.

  4. Anonymous

    all the info came from the county and Twhs,

    what we are lacking is info that this deal will actually save rather than raise our taxes.

  5. The Township consolidation sounds good on the surface, but holy moly! If they do consolidate people like Alg. township’s road commisioner BOB MILLER, his $90K admin asst/WIFE and CLAN, will have an even BIGGER empire!

    With consolidation there will be less people to bribe for the unions, and more corruption.

    That is why I think it’s a bad idea.

    I’ll keep checking in to see if people think I’m wrong on this and why they think it’s a good idea.

    I’m all ears on this one.

    Thanks.

  6. If we did not already have townships, would we create them now?

    Justify your answers.

  7. Herb Willis

    if Algonquin township was consolidated, do we really think the “consolidated” voters would vote for this 3rd generation road commissioner who, in addition to his blatant nepotism (and hundreds of thousands of dollars over-qualifies as blatant nepotism) and spends $50,000 per mile for his 50 miles of road…to say nothing of his more than 6 million dollars of equipment …enough to service all the township roads in mchenry county.?

    Voters are not quite as stupid as the township officials assume.

  8. Truckin561:

    I do not need to justify my actions as a Supervisor for many reasons, not the least is that Hartland Township and most lesser populated townships do not charge the GA account for any expenses incurred in the administration of GA.

    Unlike other government agencies who charge anywhere up to 20 percent and more for administration.

    That said, where did you get your info from?

    How could I have spent $10 for every dollar in aid when every penny spent from the GA account was for actual assistance?

    Here is what I told the Consolidation Task Force on Tuesday:

    There are those who are critical of how McHenry Townships administer General Assistance.

    No Township Supervisor is frivolous with tax dollars collected from the taxpayers.

    Before someone receives GA, all alternative avenues are investigated to assist people in need.

    No one receives GA unless they are legal residents of the Township.

    Anyone receiving GA is frequently monitored.”

    Compare that to an article in today’s Northwest Herald with the title “No Reason to move out” .

    I quote: “A blistering U.S. Inspector general’s report found more than 25,000 “over-income” families that once had qualified for public housing but stayed on even after greatly improving their circumstances.

    Astonishingly, they weren’t show the door to make room for 25,000 truly needy families on-far longer waiting lists.”

    Now, let’s look at today’s NWH. A column by Mark Kirk contains the following statement: “Combined, Medicare and Medicaid made about $65 billion in improper payments for faudulent claims in fiscal 2011.”

    This is what happens with LARGER government units.

    Your post makes it obvious you really need to ask your board members for a copy of my reports.

    For Mr. Walkup: If we did not have County governments, would we create one now? That question is as absurd as yours.

    Herb Willis: Ask one of your Board members for a copy of my reports.

  9. Mr. Evertsen, if I can make sense from your answer about General Assistance…are we to assume you didn’t have a salary as supervisor?

    Enough said.

    I heard exactly what you said at the meeting…more “township speak.”

  10. Walkup’s comment inspires genius.

    Let’s divide each township into eight, and give each tiny little kingdom its own bureaucracy, a fleet of trucks, some cans of corn to give away, a van to drive some old folks, and, of course, pensions funded by us.

    Townshiplets.

  11. Martin…that’s the kind of creative thinking we need!!!

    Wish I’d thought of it!

    After all, if township government is so perfect, we should be seeking more of it.

  12. Truckin561: Still waiting for the source for your comment:

    “He is the same township supervisor who cost the taxpayer $10 for every $1 given in aid. “

  13. Ev: To answer your question, I raised the point about county governments at a meeting a few weeks ago.

    The reason we have counties the size that they are is the same reason we established townships: the horse.

    You can get to the county seat and back on your horse in one day if you don’t make any stops.

    Each county is the size it is for that reason.

    I then questioned why we con’t consider consolidating some of the counties.

    Boone, for example, is way too small.

    Townships were established because the Road Commissioner and Assessor needed to be able to have smaller territories to cover to get Bessie back to the barn at night and get home themselves.

    That’s why there is a square mileage limit on the size of the townships.

    We can’t, for example, combine four of them as that would go over the limit.

    Supervisors were created mostly because someone came up with the idea of no longer burying the dearly departed in the back yard and establishing cemeteries, so someone needed to oversee that.

    Again, these needed to be close enough so people could visit.

    My family is buried at Ridgefield township cemetery where there is a whole row of Walkups.

    It was near the Presbyterian church in Ridgefield that most of the Scots-Irish families attended so they could visit the graves after services every Sunday if they wished and get back on their buckboards and buggies.

    The last Walkup buried there was my great, great uncle Leonidas, in 1924. (He ran unsuccessfully for County Clerk in 1908 on the Prohibition Party label. A bit ahead of his time).

    After that, people started using private cemeteries and the township ones became obsolete.

    Can you give us a recitation of the number of burials over the last ten years in the township cemeteries in your township?

    Since you gave us a quote from Adolf Hitler in our Board packets, here is another one:

    “What good fortune for governments that men do not think”.

  14. Someone suggested looking at all gov in the county and making changes that make sense and actually save $$$$.
    Sounds logical!
    Mike W, who should maintain cemetery’s is Twh’s don’t?

  15. Most of the cemeteries are not receiving active burials so it is just a question of mowing the grass. AL Township hires that out to a private landscaping company.

    Any new burials could be done at Valley High Cemetery, which, is so named not because it is connected to the nursing home but because it is on the property that was formerly that of Valley High when it was a farm. It is right near the McDOT building.

    I am on that Cemetery Board. No one has been buried there since 2010 and there is a ton of room.

    We have just reduced our meetings from two per year to one as there is no activity. We could use the business.

  16. My brother in law bought a plot at McMillian cemetery, so to say new burials will not continue is wrong.
    So with gov agency will pay the landscaping dudes if Twhs are eliminated?

  17. does anyone know how many township cemeteries are existing and how many private ones have been taken over by twps as favors?

  18. The County has a landscaping contract with a company now.

    They could do the township cemeteries as well.

    I would like to see a record of all burials done in all township cemeteries in the county for the past couple of decades.

    Also, while we are at it, a record of all ‘interim public aid’ distributions by all townships in the past year along with an estimate of the time it took to do each one, whether it was done by a staff person or the Supervisor or both.

    If both, how much was staff time and how much time did the Supervisor spend?

    Did they use their own forms where the people had already applied for Public Aid with the state or use the state forms?

    Are the forms between the various townships uniform?

    Do they have a way of downloading the state forms that the same people filled out if they didn’t bring a copy with them?

    How is it determined that a person applying for aid is a ‘township resident’ given that I don’t expect that many farmers are coming in with those requests.

    What are the criteria for distributing the interim aid, is that written down anywhere, and are all townships using the same criteria?

    Is there a minimum length of time that they had to live in the township?

    What is that and how is it verified?

    Why are we distributing ‘interim public aid’ at all given the myriad of other programs that are available?

    Do any of the township Supervisors keep time records?

    Why do the Supervisors write all the checks for the Road District?

    Can’t those folks read? and write?

    (I realize it is in the statute, but that needs to be changed).

    If we eliminated the “interim public aid”, or had it done centrally by someone at the county; had the Road District do their own check writing subject to review of their books by the Township Board; had the County employ a landscaper to mow the cemeteries, and bury any new people at the mostly unused county cemetery (which can be mowed by the equipment kept at the adjacent McDOT headquarters),

    what would be left for the Supervisor to do besides prepare for and chair the monthly Board meetings, and how much should they be paid to do that?

    Oh yea, and do we need 17 different locations for all of that which are not even distributed in accordance with current population, and have two of them in Harvard which are only 4 blocks from each other?

  19. If the Supervisor was not the treasurer for the Road Commissioner, there would be no checks or balances.

  20. A Modest Proposal

    So here is my proposal on the “interim public aid”:

    Instead of sending people to one of 17 different locations and having them have to prove that they lived within a particular 36 to 48 square mile area for whatever the requisite period of time is, how about if we have ONE PERSON, hired by the county, who is given an office in the SAME BUILDING as IDPA, and who can use the IDPA forms that the applicant has just filled out down the hall, apply UNIFORM WRITTEN CRITERIA to determine if the assistance is justified, which can be reviewed later by the Public Health and Human Services Committee of the County Board at one of their monthly meetings?

    Also, the Road Commissioner writes his/her own checks subject to review by the Township Board at their monthly meeting.

    The cemeteries are maintained by the County’s landscaping service.

    New pauper burials are done at the county cemetery which is maintained by either the county’s landscaping service or the adjacent McDOT which has the equipment sitting there.

    We get rid of the Supervisor’s office and staff and he/she just does the agendas for the meetings from home.

    We reduce the salary of the Supervisor accordingly.

    We eliminate the office of Township Clerk other than to take minutes of the meetings.

    How much will this save?

  21. Truckin561: Sharing with you and others what I posted in one of the newsletters transmitted to the property owners in Hartland Township in 2008:

    “The Supervisor position consists primarily of the following functions:

    – Paying all the bills for the Assessor,
    Road Commissioner and the Township Hall
    – Maintaining the general ledger,
    reconciling bank accounts,
    preparing budgets,
    tracking performance against budgets,
    annual submissions to a third party auditor,
    filing required State and Federal reports,
    submitting monthly income tax,
    social security and medicare payments,
    quarterly unemployment reports,
    preparing payroll etc.

    In short fulfilling all the financial requirements to run the equivalent of a small company.

    – Preparing for and conducting the monthly meeting which is always open to the public (2nd Wed. of each month)..
    – Attend County Board meetings when possible and provide input to various county groups as time permits.
    – Attend monthly County Supervisors meetings (taxpayers do NOT fund meals).
    – Stay current with requirements for General Assistance.
    – Remain current with legislation in Springfield if it will affect Townships.
    – Serve as secretary to the Township Planning Committee.
    – Administration of the General Assistance program for the Township.

    For the preceding, the taxpayers of Hartland Township pay $13,000 per year.

    You may want to note that this salary has not changed in more then 16 years.

  22. Cal:

    There is a Township Board.

    When I was on the Park District Board we got a print out every month of every voucher that was written.

    The School District Boards get the same thing, I am told.

    There could be review of the vouchers and checks by the Supervisor prior to the meeting but he/she doesn’t need to physically write them out every day.

    Why doesn’t the Assessor need the same function performed by the Supervisor?

    There is also a lot of independence that the Road Commissioners have and they can tell the Supervisor to take a hike.

    They can, for example, buy their own vehicles.

    In Nunda there was a war about that, which, indirectly at least, led to the Supervisor taking a retirement before his term was completed with one of the Board members having to be appointed as temporary Supervisor.

    One judge here once remarked

    “The only difference between a Township Road Commissioner and God is that one of them has a truck.”

    Someone can correct me if I am wrong about any of the above.

  23. If someone knocks on the door of a Township hall to request assistance and he / she has no permanent address (place to live – they live in their car or a tent) he / she is considered a resident of that Township.

    If you do not think this happens, just talk to GA administrators.

    Insofar as most of Mr. Walkup’s other suggestions, they all require legislation from Springfield.

  24. For that matter, why do we need township road districts?

    Couldn’t McDOT take over that function?

    They could then situate the regional garages in logical locations based on the current road mileage and needs of each area instead of having them randomly sited in 17 different spots based on 150 year old, rural, horse and buggy considerations when the population was more evenly distributed, the roads were all gravel, and there was no snowplowing.

    Then the check writing is all done through the County Treasurer and supervised by the County finance officer subject to review by the County Transportation Committee, the Finance Committee , and the County Board.

    If you are going to say that the Township Road Commissioners are elected, and therefore more accountable, I would remind you that at the last AL township primary election, which was determinative of the final result, no one ran against the incumbent Road Commissioner, and the turnout generally was under 5% despite highly visible campaigns for Supervisor and other offices with well known local names. (In AL 59, a precinct with over 1200 eligible voters, only ONE person voted!).

    We could also elect a County Road Commissioner if desired (and they could be a Miller).

  25. mr. Everetson…

    you have turned resume padding into an art…

    I stand in awe…

    you didn’t mention cleaning the bathroom.

  26. This year, in total, all McHenry County Township Road Districts will spend $14,623,663 of property tax on between 700 and 800 centerline road miles.

    The budget for MCDOT for this year:

    $20,139,200 MCDOT Highway Fund
    $11,822,855 MCDOT Motor Fuel tax fund
    $6,440,000 MCDOT Matching Fund
    $4,255,000 MCDOT Bridge Fund
    $9,780,000 MCDOT County Motor Fuel Tax

    This info was obtained from County Budget book.

    MCDOT has about the same number of road miles.

    However, some of that mileage is more than two lanes and Townships do not fund bridge construction.

    Township Road Districts received about $995,000 in Motor Fuel tax.

    Maybe Mr. Walkup can share more detail.

  27. Alden Township Supervisor Preston Rea mentioned that he cleans the bathroom

  28. There could be a review of the Road Commissioner’s expenditures by the Township Board, but I don’t think that is required by law now.

  29. Hartland Township Trustees review each and every invoice presented by the Road Commissioner.

    They cannot stop payment but they can ask questions to get a better understanding of how the Road District functions.

    And, yes, I cleaned the bathrooms, mopped the floor, dusted and ‘swept’ for cob webs.

    I was also the tech support for on site computers and internet access.

    One facet of General Assistance that goes mostly untold is that most Supervisors will spend money out of their own pocket to help people get over an unanticipated financial crisis such as not having money for gas to go for a job interview etc.

    Most Townships provide emergency assistance to cover a temporary crisis such as when someone cannot afford to wait for their LIHEAP application to be processed and they have children at home with no heat or power.

    No administrator of GA ever gets credit for the number of times they get someone a job instead of having them depend on government assistance.

    Why?

    For the most part, Supervisors run for office for the ‘right’ reason.

    They do not run for the money or the status.

    They run to actually ‘serve’.

    Are there exceptions?

    Absolutely.

    How many County Board members or other County elected officials run to ‘serve’?

  30. Thanks Ev.

    What I would like to know, however, are the answers to my questions about Supervisors.

    How many aid applications, time required for each, forms, standards, staff time, total money distributed.

    I would agree that the officials in the more rural townships tend to earn their paychecks.

    I don’t begrudge you the $13K for what you do.

    However, there is not that much additional work for Supervisors in even the most densely populated townships.

    A lot of the things you listed involve the same amount of time regardless of the population.

    The duties of Supervisor do not correlate one to one with population.

    They have to do with how many indigents will be coming in for aid applications, how many checks have to be written for the Road District, etc., which may or may not go up with population.

    Yet those supervisors in the Eastern townships are making upwards of $60, $70K per year.

    Similarly, the Road Commissioner in AL township makes $95K per and his wife/office manager makes $82.5K, yet the total number of road mileage there is not much different from in the rural townships, and most of it is subdivision streets, which aren’t having large combines rolling up and down them.

    What has happened is that the township officials have had their salaries pegged to the tax base of their townships, not the workload.

    I was at a Nunda meeting in around 2000 where they based their salary increases on the increase in population and not on any increase in road mileages, aid applications, or cemetery usages.

    The Supervisor there at that time spent a large amount of time shifting funds around to various banks to improve on the interest rates.

    He did this every day and then bragged about it at the meetings.

    That may have saved the township some money but it also cost in terms of his salary, office overhead, and staff time, so I don’t know that there was any actual savings.

    He didn’t advocate that the Supervisor’s salary be slashed for the coming term either (feel free to weigh in on this Charlie).

    Obviously, the Assessor’s salary and office expenses do go up proportionately but not necessarily everyone else’s.

    This is what needs to be looked at if the consolidations are approved by the voters, and there are meetings to set the new salaries for the now expanded townships.

    We shouldn’t just be adding the two former sets of salaries together, but looking at what the salaries should really be given the work that really needs to be done.

    btw: Diane is one of our very best County Board members and I hope she runs for re-election.

    She and I don’t agree on everything, however, as this discussion illustrates. .

  31. Mr. Walkup: Your comment:

    “We shouldn’t just be adding the two former sets of salaries together, but looking at what the salaries should really be given the work that really needs to be done. “

    If any consolidation occurs you can be guaranteed that salaries will increase for both the elected officials and the employees but the group proposing the consolidations is making the assumption there will be zero increases and in fact they predict reductions in the number of employees.

    I am quite familiar with many of the employees who work for Townships.

    The majority consists of part timers who do the work for very minimal pay because they live in the area.

    Consolidate Townships and that low paid part time workforce disappears to be replaced by full time employees who will demand higher pay and benefits currently not provided for.

    There is currently no mechanism in place to stop three out of five Township officials from increasing all of their salaries.

    There is no mechanism in place to stop a Road Commissioner from having his employees join a union or for the Commissioner to increase the compensation for said employees.

    As was stated several times by some Consolidation Task Force members, there is a lot of ‘hope’ that there will be a savings but no one can predict, much less guarantee the actual outcome.

    We have all seen what happened the last time the voters bought a ‘hope and change’ agenda.

    BTW Once a compensation package is approved for the Road Commissioner, current law prevents you from reducing it.

    The residents and voters in the more populated townships have chosen to support Township administration after Township administration when additional services were offered to the residents, (senior services, buses, recycling, parks, etc.) which indicates to me that the residents must want it.

    If the residents of a Township want to reduce those services, people should run for office to effect those changes.

    Consolidation will EXPAND the number of Township services and increase the taxpayer burden with increased participation in IMRF.

    Neither was factored in with my projected increases.

    In other words, you could say my projections for tax increases could be on the low side.

    If people in your Township want a service, it is not for me to say if it is right or wrong, that is for the local residents / voters.

    As you can probably tell by my handout, this whole Township Consolidation process was not well thought through imho.

    If we had laws on the books to prevent salary increases, that would make a difference but we don’t.

    As I stated in my handout, the problem with governments in Illinois is not that we have too many units of government.

    We have a lot of other problems as I illustrated in the handout which I hope you will share with others.

  32. This is a great exchange, necessary and much appreciated. As a 30 year resident of McHenry County and Riley Township I can only say I’m tired of being taxed and taxed and taxed. Formerly a resident of Michigan, with township government there, I’ve had a lifetime of experience with townships. My experience is that the majority of those who serve do it to the best of their ability. But there is a tendency for “fiefdoms” to arise and often because no one else wants to run for election. Sad, isn’t it? I personally think township government is unnecessary, especially in today’s connected world and society. Mr. Walkup, I appreciate your comments–instead of joining small townships into bigger ones, let’s look at realistic means to eliminate them altogether and have county government. Mr. Skinner, I’ve enjoyed your blog, too. But, I add the following: we’re in the midst of buying acreage in Kentucky and will list our home for sale shortly. IL is no longer affordable, we cannot justify spending more than $1000 per month on our property taxes. It’s more than a mortgage for cripes sake!! My property taxes for 40+ acres, nice home and barns in KY will be less than $1500 ANNUALLY. Anyone with any math sense can see the folly of staying in IL-its a poor investment. (It’s also become an embarrassment…) The local governments need to wake up because the solid citizens like us are leaving–we’ve never had a child in school supported by our tax dollars, never used any aid, voted in every election, took part in local events and community. And by the way, our new KY home is county government–no townships and I find that a fine idea.

  33. As I recall, many of the township “expanded” services (eg., senior transportation) go back to the days of “revenue sharing” from the federal government from 1972-86. Townships were seen as a local government that covered ALL residents within its boundaries. That still holds true and is an important consideration in deciding what a township should or should not be doing. And one’s opinion about that is colored by where they live — in incorporated or unincorporated McHenry County.

    Most, if not all, of the people speaking up for consolidation of townships, are, in fact, residents of a municipality in McHenry County. Mr. Walkup is in an unique position. His land is unincorporated but surrounded by Crystal Lake so he gets the benefits of both worlds.

  34. Mr evertsen speaks in absolutes as if he has some special knowledge from running his “small business” as he calls his stint as supervisor. He keeps referring to his handout as if we should all be knocking the doors down to get a copy. Frankly, mr evertsen, you protest too much and would be the last “public servant” anybody should pay attention to. When you have to work so hard for credibility on this blog…that speaks for itself.

  35. Ev: I agree. That is where the rubber meets the road.

    You would have to have people run as some type of slate in the new township that would pledge to hold the salaries down and perhaps set some type of cap.

    The voters are going to have to ride herd on this.

  36. Mr. Walkup: Re: “that would pledge to hold the salaries down and perhaps set some type of cap.” Even then there is no guarantee. Township offices are four year terms and salaries for the next administration elected are set during the fourth year of the term served. Once those elected find out what the job really entails after having performed the duties for over three years, their attitudes tend to change.

  37. Trucken561: No need to knock down doors, just send me an email at [email protected] and I will gladly send you the contents of what I distributed to the Board members.

  38. In the case of a consolidation, there would be the ability to set the salaries even though it is at the beginning of a term as it is a new form of government. 60 ILCS 1/65-20(b)

    Therefore, the Board would be setting the salaries of the other officials. The Board gets a per diem so they might be precluded from increasing that, as they would be voting on their own compensation, but there would be no reason to do so as the nature and number of meetings doesn’t change.

    It helps in the rural townships that the elections are non partisan affairs that coincide with the municipal elections so there is higher turnout.

    Consolidation would not immediately cause townships that are currently non partisan to be able to switch to partisan as it looks to me like the smaller ones would still be under 15,000 even if combined, depending on the scenario used.

    I do worry about what happens in the GOP primaries which are poorly attended.

    People are going to have to start paying attention to government.

    So long as the Board remains resolute, it doesn’t matter how much the officials whine and complain, they can just stick to their guns.

    If they don’t, the voters could throw them out at the next election, as they have to set the salaries for the next term at least 180 days before the beginning of the next term, hence, before the elections.

    Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything else we’ve got.

    “It is the good fortune of governments that men do not think.” Adolf Hitler

  39. Here are the 24 McHenry County Board Members who have not bothered collectively to make township consolidation spreadsheets available to the public on the county website, and have not bothered to create a Township Consolidation page on its website, even though they are holding township consolidation meetings:

    Michele Aavang (District 6)
    Yvonne Barnes (District 1)
    Sue Draffkorn (District 4)
    Diane Evertsen (District 6)
    Andrew Gasser (District 1)
    Chairman Joseph Gottemoller (District 3)
    John Hammerand (District 4)
    Jim Heisler (District 2)
    Tina Hill (District 5)
    John Jung Jr. (District 5)
    Ken Koehler (District 2)
    Donald Kopsell (District 3)
    Donna Kurtz (District 2)
    Bob Martens (District 4)
    Mary McCann (District 6)
    Anna May Miller (District 1)
    Bob Nowak (District 1)
    Nick Provenzano (District 3).
    Michael Rein (District 5)
    Carolyn Schofield (District 2)
    Michael Skala (District 5)
    Larry Smith (District 6)
    Michael Walkup (District 3)
    Chuck Wheeler (District 4)

    The top reasons elected officials typically give when not being as transparent as they could be:

    1. The law does not require it.

    2. That’s not my particular area of responsibility.

    3. We are discussing that and there’s not yet agreement.

    4. We haven’t hard many requests (or any requests) to do so.

    5. We just have not had the time to do that yet.

    6. I have made that request but haven’t heard back yet.

    7. The information technology department has a backlog, it’s on their list of things to do.

    8. We haven’t had a chance to discuss that in a meeting yet.

    9. It hasn’t been put on the agenda to discuss yet.

  40. Michelle:

    Welcome to the discussion. Good to hear from you.

    It would be up to the Chairman to place that on the agenda. We can’t vote on something if is not on the agenda. It’s illegal. Open Meetings Act.

    There are a number of spreadsheets on the website under ‘agenda’ for the last task force consolidation meeting. To which spreadsheets do you refer?

  41. You are correct Mr. Walkup, facts are stubborn things and those who are promoting this consolidation of townships have not presented any.
    I frequently think about the following Supreme Court ruling: SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST ET AL . v . DRIEHAUS ET AL
    The distance between the Dunham garage and the Chemung garage is 1.7 miles according to Google.
    It appears Mr. Walkup and a few others in the more populated Townships think they have a problem with the people who were elected to their Township offices. So, why do they not run different candidates for those offices and get the changes they desire? Why are they attempting to impose their will on other Townships? Why are they not attacking the real problems in the State as is being pointed out quite well on this blog by Mark and others?
    Should the County Board approve any referendum to be placed on the ballot, the wording must include what the current levy is for each Township and what the proposed levy would be. As Mr. Walkup states: What is the harm in that? Example: Any referendum involving Burton Township should include language covering the fact that the levy for 2014 was .25 per $100 eav. The new levy would be .352. or .398 per $100 eav or an increase of 40 % or 60 % increase in Township taxes based on current numbers.
    To repeat: Consolidation will result in higher taxes.
    The problem is not the number of units of government, it is what we pay public sector employees and the Constitutional guarantee of public sector pensions which is causing citizens to flee the State

  42. Evert:

    As of this writing it is not at all clear exactly what happens with the EAV’s.

    We have gotten differing opinions from different people and the SA may be needed to provide clarification.

    That, however, is a worthwhile discussion as is the question of what is done with township debt.

    btw: Consolidation was not my idea, I am for abolition on a township by township basis by referendum in each township as initiated by the voters via petition drives.

    However, if consolidation is the best we can do for now, it’s better than doing nothing.

    I would just as soon limit the consolidation to the larger population townships if it were up to me.

    I don’t think any of the rural townships will vote for it, but that’s just my opinion.

    The distance between the Dunham and Chumung township offices was indicated on the maps that were provided to the task force and was stated at the meeting to be roughly 4 blocks.

    The garages may be in different locations.

    You would know that better than I.

    I just go out that way to buy chicken feed.

    I am still waiting for answers from you or someone with comparable experience on how many public aid applications, etc. etc. per township, and the times involved in preparation thereof.

    Copies of the forms that are filled out in each township would be nice as well.

    Also, how many checks were written for the Road District in Hartland per month, how many cemeteries do they have, how many new burials while you were Supervisor, and how often were they mowed in a season and by whom?

    If we can have that type of data for a small township like Hartland, then we can extrapolate to how much time those tasks should be taking elsewhere.

    Can you help us out with that?

  43. Get it on the ballot and let the people decide.

    I think it would be very healthy (and telling) to run the consolidation on the ballot and let the people decide who they want to be left standing.

    The worst offenders of nepotism and other missteps may be revealed on a more grand public scale and the voters will actually be educated to this cronyism and vote as more educated voters.

    (in other words, BYE BYE MILLER CLAN!)

    Now THATS something I can get behind!

    Carolyn Schofield did a terrible job with her presentation on this.

    It wasn’t well prepared and showed no cost savings.

    I believe there WILL be cost savings, but her case was so weak and ill prepared.

    We’ve been talking about this for some time.

    Please don’t even think about sending this air head to Springfield in 2016.

    I’m sure she’s a nice enough neighbor and her dog loves her, but she has proven to be a waste of space in her politically professional career.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *