Algonquin Township Consolidation Referendum Petitioners Ask Judge to Place Question on the Ballot

Attorney Robert Hanlon, representing Melissa Sanchez-Fischer and other signers of the petition to put a referendum on the April ballot to consolidate Algonquin Township into McHenry County government, has filed an amended motion.

It asks Judge Kevin Costello to

1) Issue a Temporary Restraining Order restraining Defendant Joseph Tirio from relying upon the decision of the Defendant THE TOWNSHIP OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD OF ALGONQUIN TOWNSHIP SUSTAINING THE Objection of Randolph Funk and ordering the removal of the Public Question from the April 6, 2021 General Election Ballot.

2) That THE TOWNSHIP OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD OF ALGONQUIN
TOWNSHIP is ordered to certify the question presented in the petition that is the subject of this proceeding to the County Clerk, Joseph Tirio. That in the absence of the certification by the TOWNSHIP OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD OF ALGONQUIN TOWNSHIP, Joseph Tirio is ordered to place upon the ballot for Algonquin Township that question set forth on the people’s petition.

GOP candidae for Township Supervisor Randy Funk filed the objection to putting the question on the ballot. His main witness was GOP Trustee candidate Teresa Decker.

The brief points out the following:

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this case based on overwhelming precedent from the Appellate court, and various electoral boards in conjunction with the fact that the FUNK OBJECTION failed to specify which of the hundreds of signatures was purportedly defective. As such, an examination by this Court of the FUNK OBJECTION when applying the law commands the relief sought herein.

Plaintiff is further likely to prevail based upon the failure of the Electoral Board to conform its acceptance of the case with the law which required
three copies to be filed with the Electoral Board, the County Board and the Clerk of the County.

Plaintiff is further likely to prevail based upon the Electoral Boards failure to make findings of fact.

Plaintiff is further likely to prevail because the Electoral Board failed to include reasoning in its decision.

Plaintiff is further likely to prevail because the Electoral Bord fashioned a remedy that was not included in the Objection.

Attorney Hanlon argues the Electoral Board failled at “every turn.”

First, the Electoral Board erroneously accepted an Objection without the required three copies.

Second, the Electoral Board erroneously refuse to excuse the members of the Electoral Board even though each was a paid member of the Algonquin Township Board and the question presented was to eliminate Algonquin Township.

Third the Electoral Board erroneously refused to require the written objection to specify what signatures were invalid.

Fourth, the Electoral Board erred by shifting the burden on the objection to the proponents of the ballot measure.

Fifth, the Electoral Board sought to receive testimony and evidence on matters that were outside the specifics of the Objection.

Sixth, the Electoral Board failed to make findings when ruling on the Motion to Excuse and the Motion to Strike FUNK’s OBJECTION.

Seventh, the Electoral Board unlawfully failed to make any findings of fact as required by statute when sustaining the Objection and eliminating the question from appearing on the Ballot.

Eighth, the Electoral Board failed to comply with the Open Meetings Act by failing to list any action that it might take on the Agenda for the January 15 meeting.

Nineth, The Electoral Board erroneously issued a written decision without having an open meeting in accord with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

And Finally, tenth, the Board fashioned a remedy not specifically requested in the Objection. That is the Objector asked that the “Petition” not be placed on the Ballot when the Board issued a ruling prohibiting the “question” from being placed on the Ballot.

Scrollin down the document, the following leaps out:

Importantly, the Prayer for Relief in the FUNK OBJECTION does not ask that the question presented by the voters not be placed on the ballot. Rather, the Objection asks that the Petition itself not be placed upon the ballot…

The Board made no findings, and yet it went beyond the Objection to fashion a remedy of eliminating a question form the ballot, when the Prayer for relief did not actually ask for the question not to be placed on the ballot.

Considering a number of the petitions werr passed by multi-decade township government opponent Bob Anderson, it seems more than a little ironic that one of the Appeallate Court cases cited is Anderson v. McHenry Twp., 289 Ill. App. 3d 830, 832, 682 N.E.2d 1133, 1135, 1997 Ill. App. LEXIS 380, *5, 225 Ill. Dec. 56, 58, 1997 WL 314906 (2nd Dist.).

It says that “paid members of the Township Board are conflicted when sitting as an Electoral Board considering a ballot proposition seeking to dissolve the same township.”

All members of the Algonquin Township Electoral Board–Supervisor Chuck Lutzow, Clerk Karen Lukasik and Trustee Dan Shea–fit that category.

Attorney Hanlon emphasizes that point by writing, “

This is exactly what is at play in this case, and despite being directed to the precedent of the Appellate Court 2nd District, it was full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes.

He continues that the Board

…had to have ignored the entire body of law with respect to the specifics required of an objection. The failure to grant that motion is grounds by this Court to issue the TRO and the preliminary relief sought…


Comments

Algonquin Township Consolidation Referendum Petitioners Ask Judge to Place Question on the Ballot — 16 Comments

  1. “It was all (townships Atty) Jim Kelly’s fault”…. Trustee Shea

    “I don’t care, I will do anything to save township (mis)government!” Clerk Lukasik.

    “Am I still gonna get my paycheck and pension?,” Supervisor and Township Clown Chucky ‘Cheese Brain” Lutzow

  2. Actually, there was only one motion for a TRO.

    The other motion was for a “Stay” on the enforcement of the order until the court could complete the administrative review.

    Both motions make highly analogous arguments.

  3. Reading the motion the quote to the seventh circuit option referencing an “ipse dixit” a true reflection on Algonquin Township.

  4. Will Costello follow the law and trash the Board’s corrupt practices and law breaking, or will the Appellate Court do so when it reverses Costello’s ruling in the Board’s favor?

  5. The Appellate Court did not overrule Judge Costello’s decision when Joe Tirio sued the Illnois Integrity Fund and Jack Franks.

  6. so the suit to keep it on the Ballot was tossed out today for want of subject matter, status says the proposition will not be on the Ballot.

  7. Who benefits the most from all this Algonquin Township litigation?

  8. Future Algonquin Township officials, if Dave Chapman is correct that the petitioners lost yesterday.

    Not having been in the courtroom, I don’t know what happened.

  9. According to the Circuit Clerk’s website, the matter was continued until February 3rd.

  10. Wiley, the answer is simple, the lawyers, they still get paid.

Leave a Reply

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