McHenry County Blog

I can’t tell you how I found this series of photos to WBEZ-FM interviewees, but they surely are interesting.

Advance 300’s Nancy Zettler is one of those interviewed. This is what is under her picture:

Nancy Zettler, co-chair of Advance 300, a group that organized support for a recent funding referendum, believes that the anti-tax lobbying has gotten too strong and that a pro-tax lobby needs to strike back. She spoke to us in northwest Dundee.

Besides Zettler, the following people were interviewed:

• Nate Roth
• John Near
• Jerry Jacobs
• Teresa Stupa
• Matt Bishop

If I could find the links again, I’d make it easy for you to listen to them, but I can’t. (I can’t even tell you what year the interviews are from, but I found others from Maywood, Waukegan and Harvey.)

You can click on each image and read what WBEZ has put under their pictures, however.

With all the state level Illinois corruption that can be linked to “pay-to-play” politics, you would think that Carpentersville School District 300’s board would leap to pass legislation that would eliminate that issue from future referendum campaigns.

McHenry County Blog and the Northwest Herald ran numerous articles (1st NW Herald article) about school district vendors contributing to Advance 300, District 300’s tax hike committee.

Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the NW Herald’s first article:

“Charles Burnidge of the Elgin-based Burnidge Cassell Architects, would be designing the new schools that a successful $185 million bond issue would allow. Burnidge said his campaign donation was not a conflict of interest.

“’If the developers who are benefiting from the schools, and myself, are not philanthropic, then that’s wrong,’ he said. ‘We all benefit from providing the best quality public education we can.’”

Everyone, of course, sees his role from his own vantage point.

When Algonquin’s John Ryan beat school board President Mary Fioretti, one of his issues was following in the footsteps of Cary Grade School District 26. In this neighboring school district, board member Chris Jenner led the way for school districts statewide with a similar ordinance.

Tonight, Ryan’s proposal is scheduled to come up for a vote.

And Sunday, attorney Nancy Zettler, proud liberal and the only public spokesman I have seen from the aforementioned tax hike committee and now “chair”sent an email opposing the idea. That email made it to my inbox. You can read it below:

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing in opposition to the so-called “Conflict of Interest” policy. As you know the policy is on the agenda for Monday night’s meeting.

This policy is not only unnecessary, it is offensive and an affront to those of us who worked and continue to work for the betterment of the district.

As we all know, a large portion of the responses gathered through the community survey reflect the perception of community members. Much of this perception does not reflect reality and much of this perception has been formed through the efforts of Jack Roeser who we all know has spent large amounts of money and time on mis-information campaigns falsely maligning the district. This so-called “conflict of interest” policy is just one more piece of mis-information sponsored and promoted by Mr. Roeser.

Recently John Ryan was quoted in the papers as claiming that during the ‘06 referendum campaign that “pay-to-play” became “obvious”. Yet, he has not defined what he means by “pay-to-play” nor brought forth even one example of what he claims became “obvious” during the referenda campaign.

I have spoken to some who feel that this issue is silly; that in reality Mr. Ryan’s proposed policy will make no difference – so why not put it in place? They are right, the policy will make no real difference – to Advance 300. We will continue to be successful because of the people behind us – not because of a few thousand dollars. But they could not be more wrong with regard to the effect that approving this policy would have on the district itself.

As I mentioned above, there is no “pay-to-play” problem here in D300. Neither Ryan nor anyone else from Jack Roeser’s camp can define “pay-to-play” let alone put forth even one example of a vendor or contractor being awarded a contract simply because of donations to Advance 300 or any other entity covered by Ryan’s proposed policy. He can’t because it simply has not happened.

If you approve Ryan’s proposed policy you will in essence be agreeing that there is a problem with “pay-to-play” here where none exists. You will be feeding into Ryan’s baseless claims and will aid Jack Roeser in his campaign to discredit our district.

What actually did become “obvious” during the referenda campaign was that our district has suffered at the hands of Jack Roeser and his ilk for a very long time. We can no longer sit by and ignore Roeser’s baseless claims. We have come a long way in the past several years but to continue to progress to the excellent district that we can be, we need to take ownership of every aspect of the district, including our reputation. We must fight back when false accusations are made against us and make sure that the facts (good and bad) are publicly discussed every chance we get. We can no longer take the easy way out and ignore the false attacks. Mr. Roeser and his cronies have an agenda and its not a positive one. We must also have an agenda – to defend the district.

If there is a “pay-to-play” problem here in D300, by all means institute the policy. And if there is a problem let’s drag it out into the open and expose it. But, if there is no problem – don’t enact the policy. If you do, it will be thrown in your faces and our faces as proof that there is a problem when there is not.

It is time to start actively defending the reputation of this district.

If you won’t do that then who will?

Nancy Zettler
Chair, Advance 300

One does not have to Robert Novak to point out that Zettler’s committee has a conflict of interest in the issue.

After all, it and immediate successor committees accepted thousands upon thousands of dollars of contributions from District 300 vendors and more vendors and another vendor and at least one more vendor.

And, it’s a tried and true strategy for tax hikers.

It’s not that vendors contribute a large proportion of the money they get paid from District. It’s peanuts really. That’s because the vendors’ contracts are so large.

Here’s Zettler was quoted in that first NW. Herald article:

“We really need everybody to step up to the plate with big money so we can really drive our message home.”

With all the state level Illinois corruption that can be linked to “pay-to-play” politics, you would think that Carpentersville School District 300’s board would leap to pass legislation that would eliminate that issue from future referendum campaigns.

McHenry County Blog and the Northwest Herald ran numerous articles (1st NW Herald article) about school district vendors contributing to Advance 300, District 300’s tax hike committee.

Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the NW Herald’s first article:

“Charles Burnidge of the Elgin-based Burnidge Cassell Architects, would be designing the new schools that a successful $185 million bond issue would allow. Burnidge said his campaign donation was not a conflict of interest.

“’If the developers who are benefiting from the schools, and myself, are not philanthropic, then that’s wrong,’ he said. ‘We all benefit from providing the best quality public education we can.’”

Everyone, of course, sees his role from his own vantage point.

When Algonquin’s John Ryan beat school board President Mary Fioretti, one of his issues was following in the footsteps of Cary Grade School District 26. In this neighboring school district, board member Chris Jenner led the way for school districts statewide with a similar ordinance.

Tonight, Ryan’s proposal is scheduled to come up for a vote.

And Sunday, attorney Nancy Zettler, proud liberal and the only public spokesman I have seen from the aforementioned tax hike committee and now “chair”sent an email opposing the idea. That email made it to my inbox. You can read it below:

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing in opposition to the so-called “Conflict of Interest” policy. As you know the policy is on the agenda for Monday night’s meeting.

This policy is not only unnecessary, it is offensive and an affront to those of us who worked and continue to work for the betterment of the district.

As we all know, a large portion of the responses gathered through the community survey reflect the perception of community members. Much of this perception does not reflect reality and much of this perception has been formed through the efforts of Jack Roeser who we all know has spent large amounts of money and time on mis-information campaigns falsely maligning the district. This so-called “conflict of interest” policy is just one more piece of mis-information sponsored and promoted by Mr. Roeser.

Recently John Ryan was quoted in the papers as claiming that during the ‘06 referendum campaign that “pay-to-play” became “obvious”. Yet, he has not defined what he means by “pay-to-play” nor brought forth even one example of what he claims became “obvious” during the referenda campaign.

I have spoken to some who feel that this issue is silly; that in reality Mr. Ryan’s proposed policy will make no difference – so why not put it in place? They are right, the policy will make no real difference – to Advance 300. We will continue to be successful because of the people behind us – not because of a few thousand dollars. But they could not be more wrong with regard to the effect that approving this policy would have on the district itself.

As I mentioned above, there is no “pay-to-play” problem here in D300. Neither Ryan nor anyone else from Jack Roeser’s camp can define “pay-to-play” let alone put forth even one example of a vendor or contractor being awarded a contract simply because of donations to Advance 300 or any other entity covered by Ryan’s proposed policy. He can’t because it simply has not happened.

If you approve Ryan’s proposed policy you will in essence be agreeing that there is a problem with “pay-to-play” here where none exists. You will be feeding into Ryan’s baseless claims and will aid Jack Roeser in his campaign to discredit our district.

What actually did become “obvious” during the referenda campaign was that our district has suffered at the hands of Jack Roeser and his ilk for a very long time. We can no longer sit by and ignore Roeser’s baseless claims. We have come a long way in the past several years but to continue to progress to the excellent district that we can be, we need to take ownership of every aspect of the district, including our reputation. We must fight back when false accusations are made against us and make sure that the facts (good and bad) are publicly discussed every chance we get. We can no longer take the easy way out and ignore the false attacks. Mr. Roeser and his cronies have an agenda and its not a positive one. We must also have an agenda – to defend the district.

If there is a “pay-to-play” problem here in D300, by all means institute the policy. And if there is a problem let’s drag it out into the open and expose it. But, if there is no problem – don’t enact the policy. If you do, it will be thrown in your faces and our faces as proof that there is a problem when there is not.

It is time to start actively defending the reputation of this district.

If you won’t do that then who will?

Nancy Zettler
Chair, Advance 300

One does not have to Robert Novak to point out that Zettler’s committee has a conflict of interest in the issue.

After all, it and immediate successor committees accepted thousands upon thousands of dollars of contributions from District 300 vendors and more vendors and another vendor and at least one more vendor.

And, it’s a tried and true strategy for tax hikers.

It’s not that vendors contribute a large proportion of the money they get paid from District. It’s peanuts really. That’s because the vendors’ contracts are so large.

Here’s Zettler was quoted in that first NW. Herald article:

“We really need everybody to step up to the plate with big money so we can really drive our message home.”

Ever wonder if folks who are “liberal” in one area of public policy are “liberal” in others?

There was a letter about abortion in the Northwest Herald on July 19th with all kinds of comments underneath.

Crystal Lake’s Susan Mickle may have come too close to the truth for comfort in this paragraph:

” The majority of feminists today have forgotten their roots. The original feminists were pro-life.”

District 300 resident Nancy Zettler has fully established credentials as a tax hiker.

I don’t know many tax hikers who are conservatives.

In her comments under Mickle’s letter, Zettler shows her pro-abortion colors.

Zettler complains that more men would favor abortion if they had to take care of the babies.

She should talk to some upper class women and men in high school, as I did when I was running for state representative.

It is the guys who are most favorably inclined toward abortion.

Does that surprise anyone?

The guys know they will be stuck with child support, if the child is born.

Zettler relates passing a petition at a pro-life rally asking people to sign-up “to volunteer to adopt an unwanted child.”

Anyone who has adopted a child would recognize this as a disingenuous stunt.

And, yes, my 10-year old on is adopted.

Ever wonder if folks who are “liberal” in one area of public policy are “liberal” in others?

There was a letter about abortion in the Northwest Herald on July 19th with all kinds of comments underneath.

Crystal Lake’s Susan Mickle may have come too close to the truth for comfort in this paragraph:

” The majority of feminists today have forgotten their roots. The original feminists were pro-life.”

District 300 resident Nancy Zettler has fully established credentials as a tax hiker.

I don’t know many tax hikers who are conservatives.

In her comments under Mickle’s letter, Zettler shows her pro-abortion colors.

Zettler complains that more men would favor abortion if they had to take care of the babies.

She should talk to some upper class women and men in high school, as I did when I was running for state representative.

It is the guys who are most favorably inclined toward abortion.

Does that surprise anyone?

The guys know they will be stuck with child support, if the child is born.

Zettler relates passing a petition at a pro-life rally asking people to sign-up “to volunteer to adopt an unwanted child.”

Anyone who has adopted a child would recognize this as a disingenuous stunt.

And, yes, my 10-year old on is adopted.

While my email was in limbo last weekend I guess I missed this clearance of newly elected District 300 school board members John Ryan and Monica Clark.

Hearing Officer Tony Morgando wrote two long paragraphs about Nancy Zetter’s complaint, which you can see here. I shall break them up to make them easier to read on this screen.

“A review of the documents and statements in this matter clearly establishes the Family Taxpayers Network, as a major funding source in the campaigns of Mr. John Ryan and Ms. Monica Clark.

“Both candidates indicate acceptance of yard signs from the Family Taxpayers Network promoting their campaign in mid-March, 2007, at a cost of $1,320. The parties to the complaint were in agreement that the campaign mailer/postcard produced by the Family Taxpayers Network was received by residents in the district on April 10th, or 11th, 2007, at a combined cost of $2,539.32.

“The respondents state that the notification of the in-kind contributions was received on April 27th (Ms. Clark) and April 30th (Mr. Ryan).

“Based upon these dates, it appears the candidates were liable to file a Statement of Organization (From D-1 ) ‘within 10 business days of the creation of such committee’, 10/ILCS 5/9-3. It is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner, that both candidates filed their Statement of Organization within the statutory time limit.

“Also, based on the dates presented above, it appears the candidates were not liable to file a Pre-Election Report for the April 17th, 2007, election, as such reporting period, January 1st, – March 18th, 2007, was prior to the creation of date of the political committees: April 30th, 2007 (Mr. Ryan) and April 15th (Ms. Clark).

“The Hearing Examiner feels the Complainant had reasons to believe violations of the Disclosure Act had occurred, therefore it is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner that the complaint was filed on justifiable grounds, but recommends no further action on the Board be taken on this matter.

“The Hearing Officer further recommends that the Board in its Final Order, serve notice upon the Respondents that as candidates they ‘have the responsibility to report such in-kind contributions or expenditures from the donor if it actually knows or reasonably should have known from the facts available to it that an in-kind contribution had been made in its behalf’, Adm. R&R 100.120.”

So, it turns out pretty much as predicted on McHenry County Blog right after Zettler filed her complaint.

Let me repeat what I said then:

I can understand Zettler’s frustration.

During the three Republican primary elections I was under siege by Personal PAC, their mailings and phone calls did not show up in campaign disclosure forms until after the primary election.

I think they should show up ahead of the election, but that, apparently, would require a change in state law.

Maybe Zettler’s lobbying can be expanded from trying to raise our income taxes to changing the campaign disclosure laws.

I’d be happy to join her in such an effort.

In this case, however, one would have to be blind not to figure out that the Family Taxpayers Network was helping Clark and Ryan.

Take a look at the return address on the literature.

I’d add that learning who is paying for a campaign is the purpose of the Campaign Disclosure Act and Zettler and anyone who could read knew it as well.

= = = = =
You can click on the recommendations to make it large enough to read.

While my email was in limbo last weekend I guess I missed this clearance of newly elected District 300 school board members John Ryan and Monica Clark.

Hearing Officer Tony Morgando wrote two long paragraphs about Nancy Zetter’s complaint, which you can see here. I shall break them up to make them easier to read on this screen.

“A review of the documents and statements in this matter clearly establishes the Family Taxpayers Network, as a major funding source in the campaigns of Mr. John Ryan and Ms. Monica Clark.

“Both candidates indicate acceptance of yard signs from the Family Taxpayers Network promoting their campaign in mid-March, 2007, at a cost of $1,320. The parties to the complaint were in agreement that the campaign mailer/postcard produced by the Family Taxpayers Network was received by residents in the district on April 10th, or 11th, 2007, at a combined cost of $2,539.32.

“The respondents state that the notification of the in-kind contributions was received on April 27th (Ms. Clark) and April 30th (Mr. Ryan).

“Based upon these dates, it appears the candidates were liable to file a Statement of Organization (From D-1 ) ‘within 10 business days of the creation of such committee’, 10/ILCS 5/9-3. It is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner, that both candidates filed their Statement of Organization within the statutory time limit.

“Also, based on the dates presented above, it appears the candidates were not liable to file a Pre-Election Report for the April 17th, 2007, election, as such reporting period, January 1st, – March 18th, 2007, was prior to the creation of date of the political committees: April 30th, 2007 (Mr. Ryan) and April 15th (Ms. Clark).

“The Hearing Examiner feels the Complainant had reasons to believe violations of the Disclosure Act had occurred, therefore it is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner that the complaint was filed on justifiable grounds, but recommends no further action on the Board be taken on this matter.

“The Hearing Officer further recommends that the Board in its Final Order, serve notice upon the Respondents that as candidates they ‘have the responsibility to report such in-kind contributions or expenditures from the donor if it actually knows or reasonably should have known from the facts available to it that an in-kind contribution had been made in its behalf’, Adm. R&R 100.120.”

So, it turns out pretty much as predicted on McHenry County Blog right after Zettler filed her complaint.

Let me repeat what I said then:

I can understand Zettler’s frustration.

During the three Republican primary elections I was under siege by Personal PAC, their mailings and phone calls did not show up in campaign disclosure forms until after the primary election.

I think they should show up ahead of the election, but that, apparently, would require a change in state law.

Maybe Zettler’s lobbying can be expanded from trying to raise our income taxes to changing the campaign disclosure laws.

I’d be happy to join her in such an effort.

In this case, however, one would have to be blind not to figure out that the Family Taxpayers Network was helping Clark and Ryan.

Take a look at the return address on the literature.

I’d add that learning who is paying for a campaign is the purpose of the Campaign Disclosure Act and Zettler and anyone who could read knew it as well.

= = = = =
You can click on the recommendations to make it large enough to read.

I received this email yesterday after John Ryan returned from his Chicago hearing before the State Board of Elections hearing officer Tony Morgando:

Both Monica & I were completely exonerated. Or to put it in the parlance of the Hearing Officer, “No grounds exist that this matter be referred for public hearing”.

It was unfortunate that we had to be drawn into an unnecessary game of sour grapes.

We knew we acted appropriately and are gratified that the Board of Elections agreed.

What’s done is done.

We can now move forward with the tasks we were elected to perform.

I called Morgando to ask the results and, as I expected, he said that his recommendation on the complaints by attorney Nancy Zettler against the Family Taxpayers Network, plus District 300 board candidates John Ryan and Monica Clark, would be made to the Elections Board at its next meeting.

No details until then.

But, what Ryan writes sounds reasonable, as I wrote when I first heard of Zettler’s complaint.

Let me repeat what I said:

I can understand Zettler’s frustration.

During the three Republican primary elections I was under siege by Personal PAC, their mailings and phone calls did not show up in campaign disclosure forms until after the primary election.

I think they should show up ahead of the election, but that, apparently, would require a change in state law.

Maybe Zettler’s lobbying can be expanded from trying to raise our income taxes to changing the campaign disclosure laws.

I’d be happy to join her in such an effort.

Here is the detailed article about Zettler’s complaint.

I received this email yesterday after John Ryan returned from his Chicago hearing before the State Board of Elections hearing officer Tony Morgando:

Both Monica & I were completely exonerated. Or to put it in the parlance of the Hearing Officer, “No grounds exist that this matter be referred for public hearing”.

It was unfortunate that we had to be drawn into an unnecessary game of sour grapes.

We knew we acted appropriately and are gratified that the Board of Elections agreed.

What’s done is done.

We can now move forward with the tasks we were elected to perform.

I called Morgando to ask the results and, as I expected, he said that his recommendation on the complaints by attorney Nancy Zettler against the Family Taxpayers Network, plus District 300 board candidates John Ryan and Monica Clark, would be made to the Elections Board at its next meeting.

No details until then.

But, what Ryan writes sounds reasonable, as I wrote when I first heard of Zettler’s complaint.

Let me repeat what I said:

I can understand Zettler’s frustration.

During the three Republican primary elections I was under siege by Personal PAC, their mailings and phone calls did not show up in campaign disclosure forms until after the primary election.

I think they should show up ahead of the election, but that, apparently, would require a change in state law.

Maybe Zettler’s lobbying can be expanded from trying to raise our income taxes to changing the campaign disclosure laws.

I’d be happy to join her in such an effort.

Here is the detailed article about Zettler’s complaint.

McHenry County Blog tried to play the role archivist for the District 300 School Board campaign, but did such an inadequate job compared to tax hike proponent Nancy Zettler.

This only spokesman I’ve seen this year for the tax hiking group Advance 300 said John Ryan and Monica Clark “ran a very expensive, professionally run campaign with

• a professionally produced web site at citizensforjohnryan.org,
• two automated phone calls,
• professionally produced oversized yard signs,
• a professionally produced mailer which apparently went out to all District 300 residents, and
• two door hangers, one of which was personalized by voting area.

Wow!

Sounds a lot like the professionally produced “Vote Yes! Vote Yes!” campaign that hiked District 300 tax rates and put homeowners into debt for decades, doesn’t it?

The one that cost $150,000 or so.

Zettler reports asking Ryan after the League of Women Voters candidates’ forum whether Jack Roeser was backing him.

In her complaint, she says he replied that

“yes, Roeser was paying for his signs, his phone calls, his mailers and his door hangers. He denied Roeser paid for his website.”

Zettler then reports she asked how much Roeser had spent on Ryan’s campaign and Ryan reported he did not know because Roeser hadn’t told him.

Then comes this interesting sentence:

“It is important to note that Mr. Ryan boasts of running several other candidates’ campaigns so he must be familiar with the requirements of reporting and it is no excuse that a contributor of goods and services hasn’t told you what they’ve spent.”

Zettler then notes, incorrectly, I might add, that

“On April 17, 2007, Jack Roeser reported that he donated $30,000 to FTN, presumably to cover expenses or contribute to candidates. He did not disclose any in-kind donations he may have made.

“Two things are clear at this point. One, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Clark have gone way beyond the $3,000.00 minimum and two, that Jack Roeser and FTN are by far the largest contributors to their campaigns. Yet, no disclosures have been made.”

As I mentioned yesterday, I can empathize with Zettler’s frustration. The late reporting of in-kind contributions happened in, I think, all of my primary challengers’ campaigns during the 1990’s. The primary offender was the pro-abortion Personal PAC.

The problem is that state law provides no penalty for a candidate’s not reporting them until after he or she is informed of how much they cost.

I would note that Zettler is an attorney and I would expect a higher degree of precision from a lawyer making a complaint than from a layman.

Jack Roeser did not contribute $30,000 to FTN. It was from Otto Engineering.

At least that’s what the State Board of Elections web site says.

I do note a pre-election report amended May 1st that FTN reports March 13th $1,320 of in-kind expenditures to both Ryan and Clark

Previously, they did not show up and should have.

Ryan, by the way, filed a statement of organization of his committee, Citizens for John Ryan, on May 1st.

So did Monica Clark.

A candidate is required to file such a statement whenever it spends or raises $3,000.