McHenry County Blog

While in Galena this past week, I noticed a sign like none other I have seen.

Actually, there were two of them.

Two candidates each for the local school board.

Above was the slogan,

No Means NO

The candidates on this sign are Laura Edmonds and Tom Long, two of four”No means NO” candidates.

Asking what it meant at the antique mall near Galena Territory, I learned that last November a large bond issue had been defeated. The man said it was for $36 million and the alternative to building a new high school was $9 million to repair it.

Not a tough choice, he indicated.

Looking into it before writing this, I found that the referendum was for $24 million. (You can find what was on the ballot here.)

Two other candidates. Katie Wienen and Milan Blaho are the other two candidates saying, “No Means NO.” They promise “a NEW Galena School Board.”

And now four candidates seem to be running on the platform on not putting that bond referendum on the ballot again.

In Southeastern Illinois lies the County of Lawrence. I subscribe to the Sumner Press and saw the ad you see below:

The required referendum passed 1,557 to 1,385, according to Daily Record.

Money collected from the new tax will be distributed to all local school districts in proportion to the number of students in each district.

Once bonds are issued, the tax cannot be abolished until the bonds are paid off.

That, of course, means never.

Two Thursdays before the election (January 21, 2010), one of the local school superintendents wrote this letter to the Sumner Press:

Dear Editor:

Our elected school board members are obligated to assure our community the best possible school systems and facilities, all without excessive burdens on taxpayers. To balance our educational needs and costs is a difficult task.

On February 2, voters of Lawrence County will decide whether a 1% hike in sales tax on certain items (not the most essential) is the best solution to provide much needed improvements and upgrades to our school buildings and facilities.

The referendum on a County School Facility Sales Tax is the result of legislation sponsored by State Representative Roger Eddy and passed by our Legislature which, if approved by our voters, gives us a chance to assure needed improvements to our school facilities (including Lawrenceville High School) and for retiring bonds for Unit 10 construction, without raising taxes on essential items such as groceries, medical drugs and appliances, licensed vehicles, agricultural supplies and machinery, and without raising property taxes.

As taxpayers, we have created a Capital Development Fund which will pay 60% to 70% of the cost of such needed improvements and construction. But if we do not have the necessary “matching funds” (30 or 40% of the costs), our tax money is left on the table for other communities to obtain the facilities we need. The proposed sales tax on other items will provide the needed matching funds.Please attend the Public Forum at the Lawrenceville Central Christian Church this Thursday, January 21, at 5:00 p.m., to hear Rep. Eddy and school officials explain the effect of your vote. Please be an informed voter.

Our community needs, and cannot afford to lose, the educational upgrading and facilities this proposal will provide. I urge a “Yes” vote.

Sincerely,

Philip B. Benefiel

Can you see why I wrote my former legislative colleague, now Publisher Roscoe Cunningham and told him the superintendent was “math impaired.”

I wrote,

“He apparently thinks a one percentage point increase in the local sales tax is the same as a ’1% hike in sales tax.’ (See letter posted online: ‘On February 2, voters of Lawrence County will decide whether a 1% hike in sales tax on certain items (not the most essential) is the best solution to provide much needed improvements and upgrades to our school buildings and facilities.’)

“Really!

“Let’s assume the local sales tax is 6.25%. If so, dividing one percentage point by and a quarter percentage points would yield a 15% sales tax hike.

“Politicians lie all the time about political issues, but wouldn’t you think a school superintendent would tell the truth?

“Or, doesn’t he really know the difference?

“I don’t know which is worse, deliberate deception or not knowing enough about percentages to get out of junior high school.

“Wishing we lived closer together and enjoying your now self-identifed weekly views of the world.”

And he published it with this reply,

“Cal, you are too hard on Supts. Seaton and Steagall. Each is a straight arrow. Antecedent on the numbers isn’t clear.

“We yet remember and appreciate the skill with which you skewered the ‘bad guys,’ across the aisle, in the General Assembly.

“Local GOP, to use Paul Powell’s line, ‘smell the meat a cookin’,’ are confident that either McKenna, Dillard or Ryan will win November 2.

“See you in Springfield for victory celebration.

“Best to you and family,

“roscoe”

I can’t wait for school districts to try this in McHenry County. Rest assured that every county board member who votes to put such a referendum on the ballot will think my McHenry County Republican Cat Tax campaign was mild.

Citizens Caring For Kids, the Harvard School District tax hike committee, didn’t fold its tent after the last failed referendum.

Julie Lehmann is now its chairwoman and Karen Kruckenberg is treasurer.

How much money does the committee, formed in 2004 have?

We really don’t know, because Illinois campaign disclosure laws don’t require timely reporting.

But, as of July 1st, there was $1,765.67 in the bank.

One thing is for sure.

This is no grass roots movement…at least as far as campaign contributions that showed up in the first half of the year.

No $20 checks.

Two bankers made contributions:

• $1,000 from Roger Lehman, President of the Harvard State Bank and
• $500 from Vern Sisson of the Harvard Castle Bank.

Two citizens contributed:

• Deb Szczap – $150
• Lee Meyers – $100

I imagine there has been fund raising since the beginning of July.

About $6,000 was spent in the 2004 campaign counting in-kind contributions.

Northwest Herald reporter Tim Kane wrote an article about other aspects of the tax hike effort.

= = = = =
The photo is of Harvard Junior High School, which was rented to the Mexican Consulate.

Citizens Caring For Kids, the Harvard School District tax hike committee, didn’t fold its tent after the last failed referendum.

Julie Lehmann is now its chairwoman and Karen Kruckenberg is treasurer.

How much money does the committee, formed in 2004 have?

We really don’t know, because Illinois campaign disclosure laws don’t require timely reporting.

But, as of July 1st, there was $1,765.67 in the bank.

One thing is for sure.

This is no grass roots movement…at least as far as campaign contributions that showed up in the first half of the year.

No $20 checks.

Two bankers made contributions:

• $1,000 from Roger Lehman, President of the Harvard State Bank and
• $500 from Vern Sisson of the Harvard Castle Bank.

Two citizens contributed:

• Deb Szczap – $150
• Lee Meyers – $100

I imagine there has been fund raising since the beginning of July.

About $6,000 was spent in the 2004 campaign counting in-kind contributions.

Northwest Herald reporter Tim Kane wrote an article about other aspects of the tax hike effort.

= = = = =
The photo is of Harvard Junior High School, which was rented to the Mexican Consulate.

I really have divorced myself too much from what’s going on in Springfield.

Recently, I suggested that what Springfield did didn’t matter.

Reading a bill that State Senator Pam Althoff introduced on February 7th has changed my mind.

The title of the bill is “An act concerning referenda” and, boy, does it.

It pretty much guts the already too weak Election Interference Act, sponsored by State Rep. John Matijevich (D-North Chicago) back in the 1970’s when a local school district spend taxpayers’ money to pass a referendum. That law is intended to keep public money from being spent to promote or oppose (fat chance) tax rate hikes or bond referendums.

The law is already too weak because most state’s attorney’s won’t prosecute unless the (usually) school district communication (usually direct mail) says, “Vote Yes.” School districts have learned not to be that blatant when they spend tax dollars to get you to vote yes.

Althoff wants to gut the Election Interference Law.

I have never inflicted legislative language on readers of McHenry County Blog, but, in this instance I am making an exception. Below are the changes in state law Althoff proposed in her Senate Bill 227, introduced on February 7th.

Here’s the new language she wants put in the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act:

Nothing in a governmental entity’s regulation of political activities shall prohibit the governmental entity’s corporate authorities from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities’ decision to place a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the referendum question or otherwise may constitute a prohibited political activity, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that question was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise constitute a prohibited political activity.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the referendum question directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the governmental entity or otherwise pertains to the governmental entity’s government and affairs.

The exemptions from prohibited political activities provided by this subsection shall apply only to communications with respect to referendum questions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Then, to make sure everyone knows that the intention is to gut the Elections Interference Act, there’s this change in that law:

Nothing in this Section prohibits the corporate authorities of a unit of local government or a school district from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities’ decision to place a proposition on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the proposition or otherwise may violate this Section, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a proposition on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that proposition was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise violate this Section.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the proposition directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the unit or district or otherwise pertains to the unit’s or district’s government and affairs.

This subsection applies only to communications with respect to propositions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Co-sponsors are Dan Rutherford, the 2006 Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and Democrats Mike Jacobs and Sue Garrett.

Should we be thankful for the small favor that Althoff doesn’t want local governments to spend money re-electing their officials…just to raise our taxes?

It appears that tax hikers like Huntley School District 158’s B.E.S.T. and Carpentersville District 300’s Advance 300 would not have to get huge contributions from developers and school vendors if Althoff’s bill were passed. Tax hike committees in districts like McHenry’s Grade School District 15 would not have to go to teachers’ unions for money to pass referendums to give teachers and administrators raises.

They could just take the money out of what they have already received from taxpayers in real estate taxes.

Don’t believe me?

Check it out for yourself.

Althoff was asked via email for her motivation for introducing the bill early last week, but has not yet replied. If she does, I shall be happy to publish her reason.

I really have divorced myself too much from what’s going on in Springfield.

Recently, I suggested that what Springfield did didn’t matter.

Reading a bill that State Senator Pam Althoff introduced on February 7th has changed my mind.

The title of the bill is “An act concerning referenda” and, boy, does it.

It pretty much guts the already too weak Election Interference Act, sponsored by State Rep. John Matijevich (D-North Chicago) back in the 1970’s when a local school district spend taxpayers’ money to pass a referendum. That law is intended to keep public money from being spent to promote or oppose (fat chance) tax rate hikes or bond referendums.

The law is already too weak because most state’s attorney’s won’t prosecute unless the (usually) school district communication (usually direct mail) says, “Vote Yes.” School districts have learned not to be that blatant when they spend tax dollars to get you to vote yes.

Althoff wants to gut the Election Interference Law.

I have never inflicted legislative language on readers of McHenry County Blog, but, in this instance I am making an exception. Below are the changes in state law Althoff proposed in her Senate Bill 227, introduced on February 7th.

Here’s the new language she wants put in the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act:

Nothing in a governmental entity’s regulation of political activities shall prohibit the governmental entity’s corporate authorities from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities’ decision to place a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the referendum question or otherwise may constitute a prohibited political activity, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that question was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise constitute a prohibited political activity.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the referendum question directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the governmental entity or otherwise pertains to the governmental entity’s government and affairs.

The exemptions from prohibited political activities provided by this subsection shall apply only to communications with respect to referendum questions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Then, to make sure everyone knows that the intention is to gut the Elections Interference Act, there’s this change in that law:

Nothing in this Section prohibits the corporate authorities of a unit of local government or a school district from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities’ decision to place a proposition on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the proposition or otherwise may violate this Section, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a proposition on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that proposition was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise violate this Section.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the proposition directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the unit or district or otherwise pertains to the unit’s or district’s government and affairs.

This subsection applies only to communications with respect to propositions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Co-sponsors are Dan Rutherford, the 2006 Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and Democrats Mike Jacobs and Sue Garrett.

Should we be thankful for the small favor that Althoff doesn’t want local governments to spend money re-electing their officials…just to raise our taxes?

It appears that tax hikers like Huntley School District 158’s B.E.S.T. and Carpentersville District 300’s Advance 300 would not have to get huge contributions from developers and school vendors if Althoff’s bill were passed. Tax hike committees in districts like McHenry’s Grade School District 15 would not have to go to teachers’ unions for money to pass referendums to give teachers and administrators raises.

They could just take the money out of what they have already received from taxpayers in real estate taxes.

Don’t believe me?

Check it out for yourself.

Althoff was asked via email for her motivation for introducing the bill early last week, but has not yet replied. If she does, I shall be happy to publish her reason.