Jack Franks
His latest foray is telling the members that he is putting three advisory referendums on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting.
None has been considered in committee.
Donna Kurtz strongly advocated not bypassing committee.
Franks said he got the ideas on his drive home from Springfield and that the deadline was before another meeting could be held.
Craig Wilcox pointed out that a special meeting could be held.
One advisory referendum would ask voters if they want to cut the County Board in half, from 24 to 12 members, and make each candidate run from single member districts.
This is a typical thrust by a minority party who wants to gain seats it cannot obtain in a multi-member district.
The reason is that minority party members generally cannot marshal enough resources to win in a multi-member district.
Consider that the only Democrat winning a seat in the last election was Paula Yensen, even though candidates were running in every County Board district.
Personally, I see Franks effort to cut the Board side in half as a way to consolidate power.
The fewer members, the easier to obtain a majority.
The second would ask pretty much what State Rep. Allen Skillicorn tried to get on the ballot–an advisory referendum asking voters if they want a property tax levy freeze.
This is hypocritical considering Franks put an $80,000 tax levy hike on the agenda of the last ballot. It passed.
One of Joe Tirio’s web site. (The other is IWontHireMyWife.com.)
Thirdly, an advisory referendum asking whether voters agreed with Recorder of Deeds Joe Tirio’s idea of abolishing his job.
And, if this idea ever gets to committee, might I suggest a question as well:
Should Jack Franks hire patronage employees without following the county ordinan
We just had an advisory referendum on shrinking the County Board.
What’s the point of doing it again?
The Board needs to stick to its guns and force Jacko to put it before the proper committee.
He’ll keep pulling this garbage as long as the Board lets him get away with it.
Billy Bob: The referendum would be the result of the ‘advisory’ referendum.
The advisory referendum was put on last year’s ballot in preparation for the takeover of the County by the “little liar”.
Now that the voters have agreed to reducing the size of the Board, the “Little Liar” is taking the next step to actually reduce the Board.
A smaller Board will have three distinct ramifications:
1. As mentioned, the “little liar” can use his campaign funds to get more people who will be subservient to the “little liar” elected.
2. Each Board member will have a staff and an office at the County Building – costs will go UP!
3. The taxpayers will have less representation and County Staff will have more power.
The “little liar” has already reduced taxpayer influence by cutting the number of meetings and the number of committees.
You will be told that his actions will reduce costs but I ask you:
Who gained more power with those actions? Staff.
Who lost representation? The taxpayers.
If the size is reduced to 12, it would give the Chair a vote it does not currently have.
JACK FRANKS!
Say anything to get elected and do nothing afterwards other than cost the taxpayers more money
Why do you conclude that?
Lake County does it that way and the Board is still controlled by the GOP.
McHenry’s population is half of Lake County and has more County Board members.
You can’t talk about Consolidation and not want to look at change.
Let’s consolidate government as long as its not in my backyard seems to be a McHenry Battle Cry.
This isn’t rocket science for the board members just vote no
20,000 people per board member, single member districts, more if the county grows.
That would mean 16 now.
Computer programmed by outsiders to reshape the districts more like boxes with some consideration for other legal borders.
Jack and Dave already got a bill through the house to have a zero levy which can’t be raised without voter approval.
Pam and Karen should get that passed in the Senate, then there is no need for that type of advisory referendum.
Franks got his idea while driving home from Springfield? Now if he wants anyone to believe that one he is nuts.
Why would you think that in a Republican county that changing the configuration of the districts would change the outcome. T
hey had weak candidates with no campaign- that is why the Dems lost.
More like these slugs that suckle a the teat of the government will vote no to protect their paycheck.
Still betting that Tirio does nothing to eliminate that job until after he collects his 4 years of checks.
@Inish
So even if Joe does get it consolidated who and how much are you going to pay someone to run that division?
Even if Joe walks away from consolidation someone still has to run the dept.?
Where is your savings and how much is it going to cost you?
On the open market it could end up costing you more.
Look at other dept. heads HR, P/D, etc..
So is consolidation better or not?
Where is the savings?
“Jack and Dave already got a bill through the house to have a zero levy which can’t be raised without voter approval.
Pam and Karen should get that passed in the Senate…”
I choked on my lunch reading that one, Nob!.
I’m sure Pam and Karen are real concerned about helping taxpayers…
Fed Farmer, I forgot Dan, and I understand your point.
Still political pressure has it’s own way of molding even them.
What no one wants to consolidate the clerk and recorder not even Joe Tirio that is what he ran on.
He had no campaign other than that.
If they county board votes no that means that are not for helping save money same if Joe Tirio does not come out and support this it was all political pandering.
The House members knew when they voted for the bill in question that it would not be passed in the Senate.
It could not be, as I have explained before, because there were insufficient days in the session, which ended Tuesday) to meet Constitutional requirements.
Here’s a quote from you Cal,
Cal Skinner on 01/10/2017 at 9:44 am said:
You are correct.
The referendum is advisory, but even advisory referendums can put pressure on tax districts.
So there’s no difference here Cal!
It too puts pressure on tax districts!
Of course it will.
So when its democrats doing it, its not ok.
On the other hand republicans can get away with whatever they want?
Sounds to me like double standards.
The purpose of a Committee of the Whole is to allow members to discuss issues that will be on the County Board agenda.
Jack Franks did not allow such discussion on his referendum ideas.
Jack Franks is the Michael Madigan of McHenry County.
Cal, wouldn’t this be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?
I’m sure the new Recorder of the next 4 years doesn’t want to hand this Dept off to the current Clerk.
She can’t manage who & what she has as it is.
They don’t call her ‘Mary McClusterfluck’ for nothing!