Actually, it’s not called an appeal.
It called “administrative review.”
Judge Kevin Costello will decide if the evidence provided by petition objector Algonquin Township Republican Township Supervisor candidate Randy Funk to the Algonquin Township Electoral Board was sufficient to prevent an April referendum to consolidate township government with McHenry County government.
Below is the decision from the three incumbent Algonquin Township officials
- Supervisor Chuck Lutzow
- Clerk Karen Lukasik
- Trustee Dan Shea
On behalf of former Algonquin Township Trustee Melissa Sanchez-Fischer attorney Robert Hanlon has filed a petition to overturn that Electoral Board’s decision.
Hanlon basic argument is that Funks’ petition was “defective on its face” because, as he argued in the first hearing, it “failed to specify which of the signatures were being objected to, within his petition, causing a shift of the burden from Funk to” those signing the petition.
In addition, he points to objections made at the first hearing:
- the Board members had demonstrated hostility toward Hanlon
- they demonstrated “animus directed at the proposition previously on public comment”
- the three Algonquin Township officials had a conflict of interest because the three earned income from the Township (citing a 1997 Appellate Court case which Wonder Lake’s Bob Anderson bought against McHenry Township)
The filing notes the Electoral Board gave Funk attorney Michael Cortina four days to respond after the first hearing, “even though [he] had answered ‘Ready’ at the time the hearing began.”
Hanlon claims a procedural error by Cortina because his email of the 22nd was not filed with the Electoral Board members, but sent to Algonquin Township Attorney Jim Kelly, as well as Hanlon.
The brief argues the Board accepted improper evidence, based on a 2012 Appellate Court decision.
It then charges the January 15th hearing failed to follow the Open Meetings Act requirement that agendas for meetings at which action is to be taken must say that.
A 3-0 oral decision against the referendum petition was followed by the January 19th written decision seen above.
That decision contains “no findings of fact, contains no analysis to ascertain how the Board made its decision and as such is arbitrary and capricious.”
The concluding arguments follow:
What will happen if the Electoral Board’s decision is not overturned is laid out:
In the administrative review count, election law and an appellate court decision is referenced:
Hanlon next points out that the Electoral Board did not follow the law and this ruling:
The remedy requested is that the consolidation referendum be allowed to be on the April ballot.