McHenry County Blog

At the McHenry County Board meeting Tuesday, a couple of folks commented on allowing video slot machines in local taverns and restaurants. Below is what Harvard’s Pat Kennedy contributed to the discussion:

Good Morning,

I am Patricia Kennedy, 20712 Streit Road, rural Harvard.

I understand your desire for money to do work on our roads.   I really understand the need for the jobs that work would create.   However. . .

Addressing the issues of rules for video gambling. . .

• How well do you think those rules can be enforced?
• Who will be enforcing those rules?

Doubtless that will be the employees of the establishments where these machines would be installed.

So the business which would be receiving the financial benefit of the machines would also be expected to police the system.   A pretty strong conflict of interest.

Add to that the strong track record that indicates that video gambling is truly a different animal.   It is vastly more addictive than other forms of gambling.

I understand that this can be difficult decision for you, however
I hope that you will look at the long range view on this and realize the true cost in dollars and destroyed families.

Please vote to ban video gambling.

As to the 2030 Plan, being mindful of your long agenda this morning, I look forward to talking to you about the current draft in the near future.

Thank You.

This is the fourth article on Tuesday’s gambling debate at the McHenry County Board. Click to find who voted how and for Part 1 and Part 2.

Having failed to alter the agenda to allow a Tuesday up or down county board vote on video gambling, Nunda Township’s gambling opponent Barb Wheeler next sought to table the referendum resolution.

This motion was seconded by Ersel Schuster.

As it sat on the agenda, the outright ban was to be considered for 30 days and voted upon the first Tuesday in December.

But that rule can be waived.

Tina Hill asked if the committee was “going to ask to waive the 30-day review (for the gambling ban resolution).”

License and Liquor Committee Chairman John Hammerand related the history of the committee discussion. It started with talk of a ban, then “we decided it would be nice to have the people involved in the decision.”

He said he wanted the county board to have the opportunity to be a leader in the communities, so that municipalities could put similar referendums on the ballot on Feb. 2nd.

“I certainly support the referendum,” he said.

“It’s not my goal to waive the rules,” Hammerand continued.

Cary’s Anna May Miller took the delegate approach:

“I would like to move forward to allowing people with the county weigh in.”

Woodstock’s Hill wondered why there was all the fuss. She listed the number of people in each county board district who would be eligible to vote, 47,923 in all, while there are 200,228 registered voters in McHenry County. That’s not quite 25% of the total living outside of municipalities.

• District 1 – 4,034
• District 2 – 2,340
• District 3 – 11,214
• District 4 – 12,448
• District 5 – 3,254
• District 6 – 14,633

Huntley’s Dan Ryan pointed toward the moral aspect of the issue. He said there was no question from the fiscal point of view:

“Yes, we want the money.”

Ryan voted for a referendum, assuming I would guess that people know what their moral stand on the issue is.

The cost of the referendum also came up. Just under $18,000.

Yvonne Barnes of Cary came down on the trustee side of representation:

“I’m opposed to postponing the vote (on the gambling ban).”

Hammerand re-entered the debate:

“All I’m asking is to have status quo until we have a referendum and let them speak.”

Hill attempted to clarify what would be voted upon. Hammerand seemed to say that a vote on both Tuesday would be acceptable.

Pete Merkel, up for re-election in an unopposed McHenry-Richmond-Burton Township primary, took the trustee approach. He told of two advisory referendums on hot issues which a park board and city council decided to put on the ballot in an attempt to reach consensus.

The votes were 54-46 and 49-51.

No consensus resulted, he noted, supporting the “no advisory referendum” side of the issue.

“That’s why we get paid to make the tough decisions,” Merkel added.

“I’ll bet we’re going to be back here at the end of February with a whole roomful again and we’ll be having the same discussion.

“I think it is a cop out.

“Do we want to do that (have a referendum) with the 2030 Plan, with the public safety building?”

Merkel then pointed out that it was a social issue and questioned whether a “low turnout” primary election would yield a valid reading of public opinion.

Hedging his bet a bit, Merkel concluded,

“I don’t want to say, ‘We don’t want to listen to the people.’”

His vote, nevertheless, was against holding the advisory referendum.

“I totally agree with Mr. Merkel’s position,” Seneca Township board member Ersel Schuster added.

She remembered an advisory referendum that received 80% approval, but was ignored. The subject was whether the county board should require a three-quarters vote to approve conditional use permits.

Bull Valley’s Virginia Peschke agreed.

“I think the referendums should be reserved for asking people if (they want higher taxes).

“This is just government cowardice.”

Sandra Salgado, who like Merkel has not primary opponent, also took the “we can make the decision without voter input.”

“I can’t tell you how aggravated I was when legislators stood up here and said, ‘(You’re) going to make the hard decision.’”

“Obviously, I’m ready to make the tough decision,” Wheeler added.

“You don’t want the people to say you don’t want to hear them. (Let’s) not put the burden on our voters. We are elected to make these tough decisions.”

Also speaking in opposition to a referendum was Yvonne Barnes of Cary.

“I believe as elected officials it is our responsibility to make these decisions.

“This issue affects people throughout the area (county). An advisory referendum does not include (those in incorporated areas) in making the decision.”

Merkel then referred to the provision in the legislation that allows 25% of the voters to petition for a binding referendum.

Hammerand pointed out how extraordinary high that 25% signature requirement is.

“If it is (for) the board to wash out this referendum, I have no objection.”

He then attempted to amend the resolution motion to require a county board vote after the February 2nd primary election.

Tina Hill seconded the motion, “even though we’re probably on different sides of the issue.”

The attempt failed on a voice vote.

Yesterday, McHenry County Blog published a little of the unfocused situation surrounding the county board’s debate on gambling, as well as the roll call showing who was up for election this time around.

Today, I’m going to tell you what I saw from a civics classroom point of view.

From the beginning District 3 county board member Barb Wheeler has been ready to vote to ban video gambling in the unincorporated part of McHenry County.

She made that very clear in the License and Liquor Committee.

British Member of Parliament Edmund Burke took a position similar to Wheeler’s and several of her colleagues. He epitomizes the “trustee model” of representation. Some might refer to the role as a “statesman.”

Burke’s most famous quote of justification was to the electors of Bristol in 1774:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

My quick research indicates he lost the Bristol seat six years later.

Here’s how Wikipedia explains the different concepts of representation:

“The trustee model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. Constituents elect their representatives as ‘trustees’ (or ‘entrust’ them) for their constituency. These ‘trustees’ have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies. The model provides a solution to the problem uninformed constituents who lack the necessary knowledge on issues to take an educated position.“This model parallels the delegate model of representation, which is a model in which the representative is a tribune of the people.”

I have to admit on issues that I did not campaign on I tended toward the delegate model in my representation in the Illinois House of Representatives.

If the people of McHenry County wanted something, I would more likely than not be presenting that viewpoint in the General Assembly during my sixteen years there. I conducted mailed polls to gain a sense of the electorate in addition to putting out my listening post in public places.

On financial issues, I tended toward the trustee model, especially for those from the educational community hell bent on having me vote for a high income tax, most of the proceeds of which would end up in Chicago and Downstate. I cut my teeth doing cost-benefit analysis at the United States Budget Bureau right after grad school in public administration (probably called “policy analysis” now).

The debate on whether there should be an advisory referendum on gambling brought the various concepts of representation into focus like I have not seen them previously on the county board.

Part 3 tomorrow.

The McHenry County Board meeting debate Tuesday was extraordinary in its lack of focus on the gambling issue.

Algonquin’s Marc Munaretto put it best, asking why two resolutions, one to hold an advisory referendum on the issue and the other to ban video slot machines in unincorporated areas had gotten out of the License and Liquor Committee.

I wasn’t at the committee meeting when that happened, but someone who was told me that Barb Wheeler had made a motion to recommend a resolution banning video gambling and it almost failed for lack of a second.

The majority of the committee pretty obviously wanted a vote on the referendum resolution first, although Mary McCann may have changed her mind, because she voted against holding an advisory referendum.

The committee being a collegial group, however, both resolutions were forwarded to the county board.

A vote on the referendum question was scheduled for Tuesday; the one on the outright ban at a later meeting.

This did not please Wheeler, who tried to change the agenda so the ban could be voted upon Tuesday.

Clearly Wheeler is against this extension of gambling and was satisfied that her vote would represent her constituency.

It is much less clear how her colleagues would have voted today or will vote in a month.

If any of the opponents have taken the kind of tallies I used to take on the House floor in Springfield before one of my important bills, they have not shared that with me.

With many of the members up for re-election, going to a referendum could be considered a cop-out, that is, a way to avoid making a potentially dangerous political decision before the Feb. 2nd primary election.

Others believe with Mary Donner:

“I truly believe in my heart this belongs on a referendum first.

“I want to know what the voters in McHenry County feel about this.”

More tomorrow.

The effort to allow voters in unincorporated McHenry County the opportunity to weigh in on whether they want five video slot machines in their local bars and restaurants lost in a county board vote of 13-11-1.

The headline reflects the fact that a two-vote switch would have meant an advisory referendum on the euphemistically entitled “video poker” would have been put on the primary election ballot on February 2nd.

The thirteen board members who voted against allowing their constituents to vote on the issue follow:

• Yvonne Barnes (R-Cary)
• Sue Draffkorn (R-Wonder Lake)
• Paula Yensen (D-Lake in the Hills)
• Ed Dvorak (R-Crystal Lake)
• Jim Heisler (R-Crystal Lake)
• Ken Koehler (R-Crystal Lake)
• Mary McCann (R-Woodstock)
• Pete Merkel (R-McHenry)
• Virginia Peschke (R-Bull Valley)
• Sandy Salgado (R-McHenry)
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt (D-Crystal Lake)
• Barb Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake)

Six incumbents up for election voted against holdng a referendum and are shown in bold face. The two from McHenry—Merkel and Salgado—have no primary opponents.  Dvorak, whose term is up, is retiring.

Barnes, Koehler McCann and Wheeler do have Republican primary opposition.

The two Democratic Party women on the board–Yensen and Schmidt–split with their male colleague Jim Kennedy on the vote. Kennedy is up for election; the other two are not.

Voting in favor of an advisory referendum were

• Bob Bless (R-Fox River Grove)
• Scott Breeden (R-Lakewood)
• Mary Donner (R-Crystal Lake)
• John Hammerand (R-Wonder Lake)
• Tina Hill (R-Woodstock)
• Jim Kennedy (D-Lake in the Hills)
• Anna May Miller (R-Cary)
• Marc Munaretto (R-Algonquin)
• Lyn Orphal (R-Crystal Lake)
• Dan Ryan (R-Huntley)

The five up for re-election are shown in boldface type.

Randy Donnelly was advised by Ken Koehler not to vote because he has a relative holding a liquor license. He reluctantly abstained.

A vote will be held on whether or not to ban video gambling in the unincorporated areas of McHenry County after a 30-day waiting period. An attempt to hold an immediate vote was defeated in voice vote.

Outside of lottery outlets, church bingo, not-for-profit casino nights and the off-track betting parlor in McHenry, there is little legal gambling in McHenry County.

The passage of the non-threateningly named “video poker” will put video slot machines most taverns and restaurants in the State of Illinois.

Forty-some will be located in rural McHenry County, unless the McHenry County Board votes to ban them.

At Tuesday morning’s meeting of the McHenry County Board a resolution asking that citizens be given a chance to vote on a video poker referendum is on the agenda.

The last time there was an airing of the issue, lots of unemployed construction workers attended. They contended, incorrectly, according to State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Chicago) that construction projects would be endangered should the county ban five machines apiece for the forty-some bars and restaurants in unincorporated McHenry County.

If you are free to attend the Tuesday meeting, which begins at 9:00. The resolution featured here is way down on the agenda, so, goodness knows, when it will be voted upon.

= = = = =
Crystal Lake “Heck of a Guy” blogger Allan Showalter altered this cover of Time Magazine to fit McHenry County.

John Hammerand, Chairman of the McHenry County Board’s Liquor and License Committee has informed McHenry County Blog that the question of whether an advisory referendum will be put on the February 2nd primary election ballot will be voted upon November 3rd.

About a month later, the question of whether to ban video poker, as it is euphemistically called by proponents, will be discussed December 1st.

= = = = =
From left to right are McHenry County Board members Bob Bless, Mary McCann, License and Liquor Committee Chairman John Hammerand, Assistant State’s Attorney’s Sara Jansen and Cynthia Schaupp and County Board member Barb Wheeler.

That was the editorial message from the Chicago Sun-Times to the Cook County Board for a committee’s having recommended that 53 restaurants and taverns in unincorporated Cook County not be allowed to have electronic slot machines.

Of course, most of the media label them “video poker machines,” a description that makes them so much less threatening.

After all, people watch poker games on TV.

Nobody would watch people playing slot machines.

The McHenry County Board’s License and Liquor Committee will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 7th, at the Administrative Center, which is on Ware Road north of the McHenry County Jail.

It’s too boring.

So far, I have seen no position from either of the daily Heralds. 

Too potentially addictive.

Seeing the above editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday was the first I knew that there was a movement to ban video slot machines in unincorporated Cook County.

The editorial pointed out,

“The Chicago Outfit is on record as embracing the idea.  It isn’t every day you hear what the head of the Chicago mob thinks about a public policy change…in 2003, Outfit leader James Marcello was secretly recorded by the FBI as saying he was all for legalizing video poker.  The Outfit, long tied into video gaming, can’t wait for the windfall.

That is precisely the issue that is being considered by the McHenry County Board next Wednesday night at the Administrative Center north of the county jail. (The meeting starts at 6, but, if you come later, you still be able to testify.)  Besides banning the machines, the county board could put an advisory question on the subject on the ballot, as was suggested by McHenry County Board member Bob Bless.

Watching the news, I saw the Rev. and State Senator James Meeks (D-Chicago) leading the fight against this expansion of gambling in Illinois.  I wonder if any righteous preachers will show up in Woodstock.

Opponents to what is euphemistically called “video poker” won 11-1 in committee yesterday.

Besides Meeks, the Better Government Association’s Executive Director, Andy Shaw, appeared, describing video gambling as “the crack cocaine of gaming.” Police spokesman were in opposition as well.

How many bars and restaurants would be affected if the Cook County Board goes along with its committee’s recommendation?

Fifty-three.

That’s about the same number that would be banned, if the McHenry County Board followed in Cook County’s footsteps.

On October 7th, next Wednesday, the McHenry County License and Liquor Committee will hold a hearing starting at 6 PM.  It will be at the administrative center north of the county jail.

Input will be sought on whether the county should bar video gambling–electronic shot machines, if you want the truth–to be installed in places serving liquor in unincorporated areas.  Bars and restaurants.

No need to be on time. Politicians justifying having voted for this source of revenue to finance a state capital program–roads, schools, a $40 million new campus for the failing Chicago State University–will speak first.

Come late and you’ll still get a chance to speak.

There has been some effort to alert traditional opponents to gambling, as I mentioned yesterday, but not much.

And, if you oppose this matter and don’t attend, don’t be surprised to see something like the front page seen above from the Elgin Courier-News on the front page of one of the daily Heralds.