The Dorr Township Republican Party will be meeting tonight and one of the agenda items to be discussed is an anti-nepotism resolution similar to what Algonquin Township Republicans passed last month. As the political calendar moves into the summer season it will be interesting to see if other Republican organizations and governing bodies take up similar resolutions.
Below is a copy of the final anti-nepotism resolution that was passed by the Algonquin Township Republican Party:
ALGONQUIN TOWNSHIP
REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, public confidence in government is eroded when elected and appointed officials and public employees make decisions based on familial relationships rather than merit; and
WHEREAS, local government bodies are currently practicing nepotism; and
WHEREAS, the Algonquin Township Republican Central Committee recognizes that nepotism exists in all levels government; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that “nepotism” shall be defined as “patronage involving receiving a job, contracting, or monetary benefit of any sort bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics”.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of the Algonquin Township Republican Central Committee do hereby declare a formal objection to the practice of nepotism in government dealings; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nepotism undercuts the transparency of government; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nepotism shall be eliminated from the governmental hiring and contracting processes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of the Algonquin Township Republican Central Committee shall support candidates and officials dedicated to the elimination of nepotism;
DATED at Crystal Lake, Illinois by the Algonquin Township Republican Central Committee this 10th day of May, A.D., 2016.
What was the result of last nights meeting?
Was the resolution accepted?
I’m against nepotism too, but resolutions such as this one and the one in Algonquin Township are mostly symbolic gestures aimed at low hanging fruit. The far more pervasive problem is the awarding of jobs to friends and friends of friends, and that can’t be stopped without wholesale changes in the entire hiring process.
Now that makes sense, Billy Bob. Don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds about right according to the good ol’ boys rules.
Hey everybody.
Here’s what happened: The resolution passed BUT there are two concerns that may invalidate the results.
1. Is quorum 6 or 7? We had 6 and believed that to be quorum. We were told to use McHenry County Republican Central Committee’s standards which states quorum is 40 percent. We have 13 PC, so 6 would be necessary for quorum. HOWEVER, it’s been brought to my attention that Robert’s Rules of Order states quorum would be 7. Which rules do we default to?
2. We do not have bylaws, so potentially any action we take before we have bylaws in place could be null.
Legal advice would be greatly appreciated.
I have no problem retaking this vote.
It passed before, and other people who could not attend have indicated they would support it.
And as for it being symbolic, I tend to agree with that assessment, although I think symbolic votes do have importance.
The idea is that if enough of us do this, then an organization that DOES have teeth will feel pressure to do something about nepotism.
I really don’t understand the opposition to this.
It is not just symbolic.
As Precinct Committeemen, we will not support, nor will we walk for any candidate that supports or practices nepotism.
In fact, we will inform voters of those candidates who support or practice nepotism. Most voters are tired of that kind of political garbage.
I will definitely make a big negative issue of anyone supporting or practicing nepotism.
Part of our mission as PCs is to vette candidates to be sure we are putting up the best candidates.
That resolution says those that paractice nepotism, by definition, are NOT the best candidates.
You may think that is symbolic.
I assure you those who practice it will be met with strong, and very verbal opposition.
You don’t actually need this nepotism resolution to oppose anybody as an individual.
You were free to knock on doors and camapign against people who practiced nepotism before ATRCC got their resolution passed.
This sets a higher standard for the group as a whole, and there’s something positive to be said about that, but I’m not going to sit here and admit a great victory.
What about people who aren’t elected officials who get their family members hired?
So I view this more as an awareness issue — it’s fine if you don’t.
We have plenty of PC who would be willing to volunteer for a better candidate but I don’t view that as an endgame.
The endgame should be to have stricter hiring practices in place for government jobs.
Joe,
Nobody is saying this is the endgame.
This falls under constant improvement through the theory of the small win.
We need to see the some of the big offenders either make the necessary changes by removing their family members from taxpayer funded payroll, or we need to remove the offenders from office.
But this resolution puts candidates on notice, that as a group, we will not tolerate mor support those who practice nepotism.
We all certainly all understand that, as individuals, we could have taken this stance at any time.
This says, as a party, we are taking the stand.
THAT gives strength in numbers.
It raises the standard.
There is still much work to do. This only focuses on nepotism.
Once we change that behavior, one way or another, we can begin to focus on the broader issue of all other forms of patronism.
We will eat that elephant one bite at a time.
^Well I’m on board!
Thanks for your dedication to ending corruption.
Patronage hiring practice by public officials is vastly more damaging than in private sector.
If the danger to society presented by elected officials practicing nepotism isn’t obvious to a PC, don’t quit your day job.
Rather than kvetching, spend your time crafting more productive solutions to the problem.
Such as,
Bird dog whether elected officials have followed official protocols of hiring.
If they have not , interview rejected qualified job applicants to determine if they have a case against the offending officials who hired relatives.
If these officials discriminated against non-related applicants, they may be personally liable.
Susan,
Can you let us know where we can find the official protocols of hiring?
https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm
Starting at the top, you have federal prohibition of hiring discrimination based upon, among other things, genetic information.
At local level, there should be hiring practice section in charter or procedure manual.