McHenry County Blog

The night before the big vote to allow Com Ed to raise electric rates, Jack Franks signaled his intention to vote for hiking electric rates.

After his last minute “conversion” to the electric rate hike side of the bill promoted by Com Ed and Ameren, it appears that Democrat Jack Franks is now playing water boy for the not-so-regulated-as-before utilities.

We have the Emily Berendt to thank for the following information on Franks’ House Bill 3884:

[Here] is a [link to] House Bill 3884, sponsored by Jack Franks.

It allows the utility company to remove any tree that has a mature height of over 25 feet and is within 20 feet of a utility pole or overhead conductor.

The ICC is instructed to set rules that give the electric utility the right to judge whether pruning is insufficient and removal is needed. It is unlawful for anyone to interfere with this vegetation management process. The electric utility can assess charges for the removal.

The amount of tree destruction this will permit is incomprehensible to me.

The utility company already has extensive pruning standards that create grotesquely disfigured trees along our roadsides.

If this passes they will be able to just take trees out instead.

House Bill 3884 would allow Com Ed to remove all the trees on the south (right in this photo) side of Lake Avenue, if they are within 20 feet of the power lines. Northern Illinois electric service would be safe from most falling trees, but denuded of nearby trees.

This would apply to any place on your property as well.

The only lines that would be exempt are those that run to individual homes and the high voltage lines that carry more than 100kV.

Please join me opposing passage of this bill.

Contact Jack Franks through one of the options below. Please contact our other legislators as well and ask them to oppose this.

And please pass this information on to your friends and colleagues.

Emily Berendt
Member, Fleming Road Alliance
Trustee, Village of Bull Valley
Director, Alliance for Land Agriculture and Water

The hearing on the language will be Tuesday, March 6th, even though it just popped up on February 28th.

= = = = =
This is truly an anti-conservation, anti-environmental bill. It gives license to Com Ed to chop down any tree within 20 feet of a power line.

Canopies on rural roads would be devastated.  One person used the word “Barren.”

Electric power would conquer quality of life.

Since opponents of McHenry County’s proposal to improve Fleming Road through Bull Valley have made it easy to post what they said in a public hearing this week, I’ll post some of their comments here.

This is a road that runs from Route 120 to Country Club Road. Some objectors believe that it is being improved to be an eastern by-pass of Woodstock, suitable for heavy trucks.

First, lets take a look at what Emily Berendt said:

The Fleming Road Alliance respectfully requests that the McHenry County Board review the policies and procedures of the McHenry County Division of Transportation.

Emily Berendt speaking at the Management Services Committee on ALAW's proposed conflict of interest ordinance,.

We should not be wasting funds by overdesigning and over constructing where simple, cost-effective solutions are available. Everything I read indicates that the philosophy today is to make the road fit the community. I refer you to this link for a federal publication that directs flexibility modifications to the Green Book.

The issue of right-of-way concerns me greatly. A MCDOT engineer at the recent Alden Road public meeting told me the ROW line on the Alden Road Map was drawn by the surveyors but that no one had yet checked the individual property owner’s plats and legal descriptions.

Comments were made on Post-It Notes during the rollout of the Fleming Road plans.

When the Fleming Road “clear zone” map was presented for Community Advisory Group (CAG) CAG#3, there was no legend for certain lines on the road that were identified when questioned as “estimated’ ROW. (And by the way, the Fleming Road surveyor’s contract, which has been billed and paid, called for “existing” ROW, not “estimated.”)

Now, the survey included with Fleming Road CAG#4 materials labels the same dashed line as “existing” ROW. What’s going on here?

It appears that, rather than confirm legal ROW by available proof, MCDOT simply claims ROW and requires the property owner to disprove it.

Conversations with residents near the Alden Road Bridge about their experiences indicate to me that is the case.

This amounts to an illegal taking if the homeowner is easily intimidated or does not have the resources and knowledge to adequately defend his property rights.

The simple fact is that if a property owner owns to the middle of the road and has not dedicated a ROW or granted MCDOT an easement, all MCDOT has is a prescriptive easement to the roadbed itself. A prescriptive easement gives MCDOT only the right to maintain the road as it currently is. It does not grant ROW. I am not sure MCDOT is working on the same premise.

Except to identify the “estimated” ROW line, Dave Block “deferred” my questions on ROW at the recent Fleming Rd. CAG#3.

Answers to several question, put to him at his invitation prior to the meeting also went unanswered, as has FRA’s year-long, repeated request for a cost/benefit analysis of rebuilding versus repaving, our request for a review of the definition of “exceptional trees”, our request for a review of design criteria, and other concerns that will be addressed by other speakers this morning.

CAG meetings feel like a one-way street.

If we were able to have meaningful discussions we might not be here today.

We do not feel we are being listened to or that our views are being considered.

A review of CAG #4 materials delivered to us by email on Friday fully supports our view that nothing has changed since the beginning.

And after being repeatedly assured for months that no design work was being done without our input, we suddenly have been presented with complex, detailed design options -that were designed in the last two weeks?

It is our observation that MCDOT and its engineering consultants are fixed on prescribed methods and standards that do not always fit the context of the project area and that they are unwilling to consider modifications to them.

Road building/maintenance in general needs to become more of a partnership between the taxpayers who foot the bill and the engineers employed by them to do the job.

We call upon you today to review the policies and procedures of the McHenry County Division of Transportation especially with respect to ROW determination, ROW acquisition, and communications with the taxpayers footing the bill.

Ersel Schuster listening to discussion of Conflict of Interest Ordinance.

Whether the ordinance that the McHenry County Board passed two days ago will make any difference in the way the board does business remains to be seen.

But it is a step toward the transparency that citizens need to begin to understand whether conflicts of interest drive County Board decisions.

It passed with only two dissenting votes, Lakewood’s Scott Breeden and Huntley’s Dan Ryan.  Ryan blamed his Republican primary defeat on his unwillingness to fill out the ALAW questionnaire upon which the ordinance is based.

Here is the way Emily Berandt, the one who led the charge before Ersel Schuster’s Management Services Committee reacted:

Emily Berendt (on the left) makes point in mark-up meeting of the Management Services Committee. Sitting to her left is Janet Trafelet, who serves on ALAS's Advisory Board.

The McHenry County Statement of Economic Interests Addendum Ordinance passed at the County Board meeting Tuesday night 22-2.Although much has been deleted or changed since we presented the original draft, much of what is really important remains.

This new addendum requires county officials to disclose all real estate holdings, business and professional relationships and larger indebtednesses to entities doing business with county or local governments.

When this ordinance was proposed, we said that this was McHenry County’s opportunity to be a leader in a nationwide movement toward greater transparency in government.

ALAW urged McHenry County to take a preemptive strike against accusations of self dealing and to restore the public trust in its elected officials.  We are pleased that the county has stepped up to the plate.

Thank you to all who were involved in this process.

Emily Berendt
Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water (ALAW )

Mnagement Services Committee Chairman Ersel Schuster

The Management Services Committee met Tuesday and reached consensus to ask the State’s Attorney’s Office to prepare an ordinance to implement what is left of the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water’s conflict of interest idea.

The committee, chaired by Ersel Schuster, reminded me of a legislative committee in Springfield.

They fine tuned an addendum to what politicians call the “None, None, None” form.

It’s official name is the “Statement of Economic Interests.”

People having to file the state-required form now would have to file the new form, too.

“I certainly hope they don’t take the position that it only includes the past year,” A-LAW’s Emily Berendt told McHenry County Blog.

“Our form now requires a simple blanket disclosure, which has to be updated within thirty days, if there is a change in condition. In the case of real estate, a new filing would be triggered by the buying or selling of real estate.”

The form asks for real estate owned in the county other than one’s primary residence.

It also asks if the person filing the form or their immediate families “own an interest in any business or professional entity doing business with the County “or any other public/local government agency with McHenry County.” If so, identification is asked.

Debts other than one’s home mortgage or business loan to any entity that does business with the county are to be listed. The committee set the amount at over $1,200, saying it mirrored the state requirement.

Forgiveness of debt above $1,200 during the last year from any entity doing business with the county would also be required. Excluded are student loans, installment loans (cars, household effects, etc.), medical and dental debts, credit card purchases, supporr or alimony, debts owed to a spouse or close relative and debts incurred in the maintenance of one’s household.

ALAW Spokeswoman Emily Berendt spoke at the Management Services Committee last week. While the subject matter was ALAW's proposed conflict of interest ordinance, there was byplay about the 2030 Plan and ALAW's haven't gotten what it wanted.

Something certainly is at stake in the 2030 County Land Use Plan to be voted upon at Tuesday night’s McHenry County Board meeting. The following press release from the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water might give you an idea what:

BE PROUD OF DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVES!
NOW THEY NEED OUR HELP TO GET THE AMENDMENTS PASSED

If you live in District 6, (or even if you don’t) you can be proud of your D-6 County Board Representatives: Mary McCann, Dan Ryan, Randy Donley and Ersel Schuster.

McHenry's District 4 County Board member Pete Merkel aggressively opposed ALAW's proposed ethics ordinance and took the opportunity also to note that ALAW had not gotten what the organization wanted in the 2030 Plan.

On Thursday at the Committee of the Whole Meeting for the County Board, the District 6 Representatives stood united and presented a MINORITY REPORT objecting to the proposed McHenry County Land Use Plan as is and introduced five amendments that effectively FIX most of the problems.  In an impressive show of representative unity, they jointly spoke for their constituents on the issues of farmland preservation, water recharge protection and compact, contiguous land use.

Among other things the amendments require that the Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map be used in future zoning decisions (Fourth Amendment) and that the productivity of farmland be determined by use of the entire LESA assessment tool rather than just by the LE score of the soils (Third Amendment). The Fifth Amendment offers a much more reasonable map for Future Land Use than the currently recommended one in the Plan.

Even if you don’t live in District 6, THESE PEOPLE NEED OUR SUPPORT NOW. These amendments will FIX the Plan.

Not all other members of the County Board were thrilled with these amendments.

In fact, some are downright opposed and will certainly be working to prevent them from even reaching the floor.

IT IS TIME TO CALL ALL COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS AND TELL THEM YOU WANT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO PASS! Call District 6 members to thank them.

Call the others to tell them you support District 6 amendments.  Read them AND CALL FOR their passage! (list attached).  FIX that Plan or NIX that Plan!

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR OTHER GROUPS AND ANY OTHER PERSON YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED. The attached Minority Report is in pdf format. If you can’t open it, you can find it on the County Board agendafor April 20 or email us and we will get it to you.

Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water, Inc.
PO Box 1021, Woodstock, IL

One of ALAW's leaders, Emily Berendt defends the group's revised conflict of interest proposal before a county board committee.

The following press release has been received from the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water:

The 2030 Plan will be up for a vote at the County Board Meeting on April 20 at 7 PM.

At their March 18 meeting, Planning and Development committee showed the ultimate disrespect for their constituents (you) when they did NOT review any public comments, indicating that they had heard it all before, and weren’t interested.

Chair, Tina Hill, told one of our members that she planned to revisit some technical comments at the next meeting on April 1, 2010, including a list of discrepancies in the definition of “infrastructure” that she had requested.

McHenry County Board member Tina Hill criticizes ALAW ethics ordinance at the same meeting of the Management Services Committee.

NO discussion of any comments took place at that meeting either. Makes you wonder how much TAX $$ went into those wasted public meetings that we all diligently attended.

NOW WHAT?

1. Please, take that comment/letter you wasted on the P&D Committee and send it to the media as a letter to the editor. Copy to all county Board Members. Contact information is attached.

2. If you didn’t write a public comment, now is your second chance.

3. Attend the County Board Voting meeting April 20 at 7 pm and demand that they FIX THIS PLAN OR NIX THIS PLAN. HOW?

a. Go back to Ag (Green!) for everything outside of municipal boundaries.
b. Overlay the SARA (Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map) on every new development as part of the approval process,
c. Require that all new development be contiguous to water, sewer and municipal services, not just roads and rails,
d. Reduce the population projection to the official US Census projection of 443,398 an increase of 125,398 people.

If you are not able to speak at these meetings, that’s all right. Your presence will add to the numbers and say that you care about the future of your county.

4. Call your County Board members. Tell them that this Plan is not acceptable as is and they must fix it.  If you need to brush up on why, see the attached info or go to www.mchenrycountygreenalliance.blogspot.com

WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE SHOWN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND HOPE WE HAVE MANAGED TO MAKE SOME DIFFERENCE. THIS BATTLE HAS BEEN A LONG ONE.  WE HOPE YOU ARE STILL ENERGIZED ENOUGH TO HELP.  IT IS STILL IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN STILL HAVE AN IMPACT. THANKS FOR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO IN THIS LAST ROUND FOR THE 2030 PLAN.

Your ALAW Board of Directors

One of the roles McHenry County Blog plays is alerting daily newspapers of stories they otherwise might not think of.

This might be one of those articles.

The Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water came up with an idea to help remove the suspicion that many members of the public have that county board members use their office for personal gain.

If you tell me people you have talked to haven’t brought this up, I’d suggest you are not very deeply into local citizenship.

The questionnaire idea was presented at the committee level of the McHenry County Board, received a chilly reception, and sent to the State’s Attorney’s Office for reviews, that is, to see if any or all of it would be legal for a non-Home Rule unit of local government to impose upon its officials.

Then, District 3 challenger Craig Steagall decided to fill out the form and submit it to ALAW.

District 2 challenger Donna Kurtz followed suit.

As of now, seven challengers and three incumbents have submitted such information about their personal financial situation.

Ten in all.

Considering Steagall is in District 2 and has demonstrated deep enough pockets to buy full page ads in the Northwest Herald, perhaps it is not surprising that two of his opponents—former County Board member Nick Provenzano and incumbent Barb Wheeler– have decided to make voluntary disclosure.

In District 5, incumbent Tina Hill has filed. In District 6, Mary McCann is among three candidates who have made disclosure.

So, three incumbents running for re-election are willing to stand up for reform.

Barb Wheeler

Tina Hill

Mary McCann

And, they are all women.  Does that tend to re-enforce my analysis that voters think women are less likely to be crooks than men?

Only three, it should be noted. They deserve to have their photos here, don’t you think?

And no one not up for reelection has yet to file a form.

Below is ALAW’s press release:

CANDIDATES DISCLOSURES KEEP COMING

Ten candidates for County Board in the upcoming primary have now voluntarily sent ALAW statements pursuant to the ALAW conflicts disclosure ordinance. Disclosure have been received from

• Donna Kurtz (R), District 2;
• Craig Steagall (R), District 3;
• Nick Provenzano (R), District 3;
• Barb Wheeler (R), District 3;
• Jeff Thirtyacre (D), District 4;
• Tina Hill (R), District 5;
• Frank Wedig (Green Party), District 5;
• Diane Evertsen (R), District 6;
• Mary McCann (R), District 6;
• Richard Draper (R), District 6.

(Incumbents are shown in bold face type; party identification has been added.)

The disclosures and the ordinance are both posted on the ALAW web site here.

ALAW expects to receive more disclosures over the next few days and challenges all candidates file statements.

There is no deadline for filing statements, but it is hoped that all candidates will file prior to the February 2 primary election.

ALAW presented the draft ordinance to the County Board on December 1, 2009.

It is currently under review by the McHenry County States Attorney’s office. If passed, the ordinance will require up front disclosure of elected and appointed county official’s real estate holdings and business relationships with the county.

“Our intent is to dispel the perception that our county officials sometimes place personal interest over their duty to their constituents. That idea has been an undercurrent in our county for a long time, and has recently become more widely expressed by the general public,”

said ALAW Director Emily Berendt. “With “transparency in government’ being such a key issue statewide right now, and the primary election approaching, the timing was right to present this ordinance.”

ALAW President Patricia Kennedy said,

“This was certainly unexpected but is a wonderful affirmation of our belief that full disclosure is as welcome by these candidates as it is by the public.”

Alliance for Land Agriculture and Water
PO Box 1021, Woodstock
Contact: Patricia Kennedy
815-943-7223

= = = = =
Come to think of it, this voluntary disclosure idea probably has as it precedent the voluntary release of income tax forms by Illinois Democratic Party politician Paul Simon.  I remember reading his Atlantic Monthly article in my Aunt Louise Stevens copy while visiting my grandparents in Maryland several years before moving to Illinois in 1958.  His article about the blatant crookedness in Springfield was my introduction to Illinois politics.

Emily Berendt has this to say about how her comments were summarized in the October 4, 2007, McHenry County College Board minutes:

“Ha! Not even close.

“I stated first that I didn’t care if Dr. Packard answered my question on the spot or added it to the list of answers that he was going to send to Ms. Collins. This was following the discussion about how to respond to questions, topped off by Attorney Kerrick’s advice that nothing be given in writing to Ms. Collins as Ms. Collins had threatened to sue several times.

“I then stated that I was one of the people who had been denied the feasibility study under a FOIA request and that I had appealed, and I expected to hear about the response to my appeal within the next day or two.

I recalled a statement by Dr. Packard earlier in the meeting where he said that ‘some people who understood these things had looked at the feasibility study and thought it was a good project.’

“I clarified that I was not quoting him as I remembered the content but not the exact language. He nodded in what I took to be agreement that I had captured the essence of the statement he made.

“I then asked that, while I waited for the reply to my appeal, perhaps he could tell us who these people were and maybe alleviate my concerns about the study that way.

”So, how much else of the last two year’s worth of minuted is skewed? This meeting has been taped. If we were to listen to the tape, I’m sure my memory of what I said is pretty close. Oh, and I’ll take credit for the transparency quote if they want me to, but I think that was Ms. Kurtz.”

Here is how the minutes summarized her comments:

“Ms. Berendt stated that she made a FOIA request for the Feasibility Study, and was denied. She stated that the Board needs to look at how we can improve its transparency.”

Emily Berendt has this to say about how her comments were summarized in the October 4, 2007, McHenry County College Board minutes:

“Ha! Not even close.

“I stated first that I didn’t care if Dr. Packard answered my question on the spot or added it to the list of answers that he was going to send to Ms. Collins. This was following the discussion about how to respond to questions, topped off by Attorney Kerrick’s advice that nothing be given in writing to Ms. Collins as Ms. Collins had threatened to sue several times.

“I then stated that I was one of the people who had been denied the feasibility study under a FOIA request and that I had appealed, and I expected to hear about the response to my appeal within the next day or two.

I recalled a statement by Dr. Packard earlier in the meeting where he said that ‘some people who understood these things had looked at the feasibility study and thought it was a good project.’

“I clarified that I was not quoting him as I remembered the content but not the exact language. He nodded in what I took to be agreement that I had captured the essence of the statement he made.

“I then asked that, while I waited for the reply to my appeal, perhaps he could tell us who these people were and maybe alleviate my concerns about the study that way.

”So, how much else of the last two year’s worth of minuted is skewed? This meeting has been taped. If we were to listen to the tape, I’m sure my memory of what I said is pretty close. Oh, and I’ll take credit for the transparency quote if they want me to, but I think that was Ms. Kurtz.”

Here is how the minutes summarized her comments:

“Ms. Berendt stated that she made a FOIA request for the Feasibility Study, and was denied. She stated that the Board needs to look at how we can improve its transparency.”