McHenry County Blog

Getting as much money out of taxpayers is pretty much the goal of every tax district official, from school board member to township trustee.

To do that, boards need to ask for more than the increase in the Cost of Living allowed by the Illinois Department of Revenue under the Tax Cap law.

Virtually every tax district will ask for the maximum increase allowed.

That’s 3% this coming year.

103% is multiplied by what is called the “tax extension,” the amount of taxes each district is allow to collect from local property owners, to determine how much the tax district can collect in 2013.

But there’s more.

If there has been new construction, as there has been on Crystal Lake’s Route 14 shopping corridor, local park districts, schools, McHenry County College, the Mental Health Board, townships, county government, etc., have to ask for more than 103% of last year’s tax take IN ORDER TO capture the new growth.

I have suggested that legislators could amend the PTELL (the technocrats’ acronym for the Real Estate Tax Cap) law by allowing each government under it to pass a resolution authorizing county officials to tax all of the new growth, rather than using the current practice of balloon levying.

So far, I haven’t noticed such legislation has been introduced.

Last week, the McHenry County Board approved a multi-year contract with the McHenry County Economic Development Commission that uses the same formula for increases contained in the Tax Cap formula used to maximize the Tax Take.

Might the roll call on that question be a good indication of which County Board members will vote in favor of maximizing the County’s Tax Take?

I think it will, so I present it below:

EDC related Resolution vote count is as follows:   19 yes    5 no

AYES:       Merkel, Miller, Munaretto, Nowak, Peschke, Provenzano, Salgado, Schmidt, Wheeler, Bless, Breeden, Donner, Draffkorn, Heisler, Hill, Jung, Kurtz, McCann and Koehler

NAYS:     Schuster, Yensen, Donley, Evertsen and Hammerand

My prediction is that most of those who will vote to maximize your County tax bill voted “Yes” on the EDC subsidy resolution.

I will further predict that the vote on the tax levy will not occur until after the election, so the above roll call, plus last year’s “Tax to the Max” roll call will be the best you are going to get before you have to cast your vote.

If you think the County Board is not moving in the direction of maximum taxation, please read this May 13, 2012 article.

Those voting against cutting the budget (read the story here) were

• Bob Bless (D1)
• Scott Breeden (D2)
• Mary Donner (D3)
• Jim Heisler (D2)
• John Jung (D5)
• Donna Kurtz (D2)
• Mary McCann (D6)
• Peter Merkel (D4)
• Marc Muneratto (D1)
• Kathy Schmidt (D3)
• Ken Koehler (D2)

On a second roll call the following voted for the “Tax to the Max” levy (again, see this article):

15 members voted in favor:

• Robert Bless
• Scott Breeden
• Sue Draftcorn (a switch)
• Mary Donner
• Jim Heisler
• Tina Hill (a switch)
• John Jung
• Donna Kurtz
• Mary McCann
• Pete Merkel
• Anna May Miller (a switch)
• Marc Munaretto
• Robert Novak (a switch)
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ken Koehler

Maybe the League of Women question screeners at the last week in September County Board candidates’night will allow a question that will pin down the incumbents running for re-election on the question of whether they will vote to increase the County levy so much that our County taxes will increase as much as the law allows.

Wonder Lake activist-barber Bob Anderson got a referendum on the November without having to go door-to-door.

The question was on an issue upon which Governor Pat Quinn built his political career.

Until he had to depend upon double-dippers to advance his public career, every year Coalition for Political Honesty’s Quinn published a list of those with two public jobs.

Anderson’s question is more narrow.

The question that approved by the County Board on an 11-9 vote reads like this:

Should Illinois Law permit an individual to hold two or more public elected offices simultaneously?

It doesn’t address, for instance, County Board members who have a pay check coming from another unit of government which is appointed, rather than elected.

In his comments to the County Board, Anderson cited seven public officials, most present or former state legislators.

The debate was interesting.

One, State Senator Bill Peterson, used to represent part of McHenry County.  He earned $83,804 as a State Senator and $90,000 as Vernon Township Supervisor.

Currently, I am only aware of Algonquin’s Marc Munaretto’s being personally affected.  Besides being on the County Board, he is Algonquin Township Clerk.  Because of McHenry County’s population he is prohibited by law from holding both posts after the next election.  Munaretto did not run for re-election to the County Board and has not announced his intentions with regard to a Township Clerk candidacy.

Jim Heisler introduced the question, outlining the options–putting the question on the ballot, putting it on the County’s legislative wish list (my term) next year, plus a third option I didn’t catch.

“I will be voting for it,” Sandy Salgado said.  “I’m in favor of asking voters whenever we can.”

Reflecting on the votes of those whose re-election chances might be affected if an opponent charged they had not been willing to trust the people, I think her comment might have had more effect than might have been apparent at the beginning of the debate.

Virginia Peschke agreed with Salgado.

She related how she had been a Bull Valley Village Trustee when first elected and, although she didn’t see then and hasn’t seen a conflict since, state law prohibited her from holding both elected offices simultaneously.

“In general, I think it’s a good idea.  There’s much too much opportunity for conflict.”

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmidt disagreed.

“I will be voting against this.  The Legislative Committee (on which she serves) gave it a good thorough discussion.  We decided to include it as part of next year’s legislative program.”

Her basic pitch seemed to be that the Board should not contradict the Committee’s recommendation.

Nick Provenzano spoke in opposition, too.

He argued that Anderson should have gathered enough signatures, the same way Jack Franks did for his County Executive referendum, that County Board-initiated referendums should deal with questions on which Board members seek advice.

Donna Kurtz said that the democratic process benefits from involvement of more people.  Anderson’s reading of the double-dipping salaries “must have made your stomach crawl.”

Having people hold two offices at the same time “shut(s) down the opportunity for involvement of other people in the process to prevent the concentration of power.”

Diane Evertsen pointed out that people don’t step up to the plate as far as running for office goes…”except in District 6.”

Mary Donner rose to the defense of former Senator Peterson.

“To think that someone would run for State Senator and Township Supervisor to line their pockets, I find offensive.”

[Hold that thought because Kurtz found Donner's characterization of her remarks offensive and said so later.]

The second Democrat on the County Board, Paula Yensen, whose husband Mike Bissett is Chairman of the McHenry County Democratic Party, disagreed with Schmidt.

She related how she had resigned as a Trustee in the Village of Lake in the Hills when she was elected to the County Board.

Ersel Schuster, who was Seneca Township Supervisor while serving on the County Board, also opposed the ballot question.

“Transparency is out there.  In so many cases, the individual served the people well.”

[It should be noted that until a U.S. Supreme Court case in the early 1970's Township Supervisors were automatically on the County Board--all 17 of them.  In addition, the larger townships, Algonquin, McHenry, Nunda and Dorr elected misnamed "Assistant Supervisors," whose sole duties were to serve on the County Board.]

“Much of what I see I just can’t stand,” Randy Donley said.

“So many things are wrong…just not illegal.”

Salgado rebutted Munaretto argument that resolutions put on the ballot should reflect issues for which the County Board sought guidance.

“I also represent the people. Let them choose, not us.”

“What impact will it have on McHenry County. It’s purely advisory. It expresses a public opinion,” Munaretto opined.

“I was not aware that Senator Peterson had another job,” Peshke added.

“I just think a man can’t serve two masters.”

Then it was Kurtz’ turn again.

“I don’t think there’s anything more distasteful than taking comments {out of context] and then turning them around and personalizing them.”

She said she did not use the term “lining pockets.”

Provenzano pointed out that being on a Township Board and the County Board is already prohibited by law.

Regarding prohibiting people from holding two elected offices, “It should be up to the voters. Senator Peterson got voted in over and over.”

Next, Donner apologized to Kurtz. “That’s what I heard.”

Absent from the 11-9 vote to put Anderson’s question on the ballot were Bob Bless, Pete Merkel, Bob Nowak and Barb Wheeler.

There was a long debate over whether the County Board should put a referendum on the fall ballot asking voters is they wanted to elect the County Board Chairman in an at-large election.

Before that several citizens provided input.

District 5 Republican candidate Michale Rein was asking, “Where’s the money going to be coming from?” as I arrived a bit late.

“Outside interests” was his answer to the rhetorical question.

“We’re going to end up with a career political [running McHenry County],” he added.

Earlier I posted the comments that Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore offered.

By putting such a powerful official over McHenry County government, she sees the possibility of conflict similar to that in Grafton Township.

And that’s what Jack Franks’ County Executive form of government seems to be all about.

The alternative of having a competing referendum asking,

“Shall the Chairman of the McHenry County Board be elected at-large by the voters?”

on the ballot was rejected by a 16-3 vote. Only Randy Donley, Virginia Peschke and Paula Yensen voted to place it on the ballot.

The majority seemed to think that they stood a better chance to defeat the Franks’ proposal to shift from a Parliamentary form of government to a very strong Executive form of government if a somewhat similar sounding question were not on the ballot to muddy the waters.

And the majority clearly did not want to lose the power they now have.

Even Bob Anderson, in the room to promote his own anti-double-dipping advisory referendum, took a shot at Franks:

“If Jack Franks were doing his job, he would be addressing like this.”

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmidt opposed Franks’ proposal,  calling it “a Trojan Horse.”

“We can deal with this question on our own.”

A former candidate for County Board Chairman, Virginia Peschke said, “I don’t support Mr. Franks form of government,” while expressing her support for electing the Chairman in an at-large election.

It was suggested that if both referendum passed, the County Executive one would have precedence.

Later, Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly stated that the Statute “does not address the situation when you have dueling referendums.”

Marc Munaretto wanted to know if the Franks’ question could be withdrawn if the at-large election of the County Board question were put on the ballot.

“This is not Jack Franks’ petition.  He has not control over it after he handed it in…Why are we taking any time discussing it?”Kathy Bergan Schmidt asked.

[There is some disagreement with regard to Schmidt's opinion.]

“I do not support the County Executive form of government,” the man who twice ran unsuccessfully against Ken Koehler for County Board Chairman, said.

Sandy Salgado told of taking to some folks in her precinct.

“I have a feeling it’s going to pass.”

Later Virginia Peschke agree.

“We’re going to have a hard time defeating it. ”

She told of talking over a twelve-month period with Winnebago’s at-large County Board Chairman Chris Cohen.

“I didn’t find many objections.  I think many of these things are bogeymen.”

“I’m in concurrence with Kathy Bergan Schmidt’s opposition to the County Executive form of government…It gives unlimited power to that position…I do not support Mr. Franks’ referendum.”

Yensen indicated what was needed was term limits for the McHenry County Board Chairman, as did the head of the Management Services Committee, Ersel Schuster.

She also pointed out that a “countywide race for that position would be very expensive.”

She estimated candidates spent $100,000 on the campaign to become the at-large elected Chairman of the Kane County Board.

Mary Donner was suspicious about Rep. Franks’ timing, she indicated while expressing agreement with Schmidt view that putting a second referendum on the ballot would be confusing.

“I certainly do not support the Executive form of government,” Randy Donley said when he gained the floor.  He made it clear, however, he supported electing the County Board Chairman at-large.

Donley expressed the opinion that Franks would be willing to take his question off the ballot, if the County Board put the at-large referendum on the ballot.

Donley asked how many had called him.

Jim Heisler, Paula Yensen, and Mary Donner said they had, although Yensen later said she had talked to him in person with others being present.

“I do not know at this time the motivation of Mr. Franks.”

“We’ve sent numerous letters to him saying we’ll set a Special Meeting when he wants to come,” County Board Chairman Ken Koehler interjected.

Announcing her intent to push for Term Limits again, Schuster said, “I find it mind boggling that a State Representative would act in this manner.”

Scott Breeden said his opposition to at-large elections was based on how the expense of the campaign wold limit “the number of qualified people.”

He pointed out that currently the Chairman “owes responsibility to the County Board members.”

Donna Kurtz said she supported Term Limits, as well as an at-large elected Chairman.

“A County Executive is so onerous,” she continued, “such a huge threat to the democratic process [because it puts] such an unprecedented amount of power and control down to the [lowest] employee.”

She pointed out a County Executive would have the power to hire its own attorney and “that will wreck havoc with legal fees.”

Kurtz said she thought having two referendums on the ballot would “confuse the issue.”

“If anyone doesn’t think there isn’t political influence in the way we now select the County Board Chairman, [he's wrong],” Peschke said.

“I’d like to know why this discussion didn’t occur prior to his getting the signatures,” Yensen said, pointing out that those petitions had set “a fire under us.”

John Hammerand probed as to whether the County Executive form of government, once approved, could be changed by putting another referendum on the ballot.

The answer seemed to be that a repeal referendum could be put on the ballot in 2014, but that would be the first election for a County Executive, so he or she would have at least one term in office.

John Jung and Tina Hill, two of three Republican incumbents are positioned to be re-nominated in today’s primary election, but the third is in fifth place with 44% of the vote counted.

Newcomer Mike Skala holds first place.

Long-time member Virginia Peschke ran first the last primary election, even though she waited until less than two weeks before the election to put out signs.

I didn’t see any signs this year, but didn’t foray far into District 5 at the end of the campaign.

In any event newcomer, Michael Rein is leading her by 8 votes, so this is going to be a nail-biter.

= = = = =

With all of the precinct of McHenry County Board District 5 reporting, but early and absentee votes not having been folded in, newcomer Michael Rein is edging out veteran Virginia Peschke by a mere 26 votes.

The answers filled out below were filed by District 5 McHenry County Board member Virginia Peschke. They are to the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water’s Questionnaire.

ALAW County Board Candidates Survey: 2012 Primary Election

A. Land Use

1. Do you agree that new development should be located where infrastructure exists, to minimize the extension of new roads, utilities and services, and protect farmland and water recharge areas?  Yes

2. If elected, will you support permanent protection of agricultural land and the agricultural industry in the County?  Yes

3. Do you agree or disagree that new rural development costs more for the extension of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer and services) than it brings to the County in taxes and that those extra costs are passed on to the existing taxpayers?  Yes

B. Water Resources

1. Would you oppose any land use change that would exceed a locally recharged aquifer’s capacity? Yes

2. If elected will you enforce use of the SARA – Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map developed by the County Water Resources Department, as a determining factor in every land use change decision? Yes

3. Do you support redistributing groundwater from water-rich areas to areas that have over drawn their groundwater?  No

4. In your opinion, will McHenry County be able to get Lake Michigan water? No

C. The Role of County Government

1. Should the county provide support services to municipal governments, for example issuing and enforcing municipal building permits, administering and enforcing the Storm Water ordinance?  No

2. Do you support a county housing program where the county purchases, constructs, remodels, rents, sells homes throughout the county and in municipalities? No

3. Do you support a county bus program, where the county takes over responsibility for established service between select cities and townships?  No

4. Should the county health department report to the county board as opposed to an independent board of directors? ?

5. Do you think county government should increase expenditures and the scope of its activities, which will increase taxes to its residents?  No

D. Transparency and Commitment

1. County board records indicate that the average number of meetings necessary for attendance by a County Board Member is 8. This includes two full board meetings a month and two meetings a month for each committee (generally three) the member is
assigned. Are you able and willing to make the commitment to represent your constituents to this extent?

2. During the last primary election 32 candidates for county offices voluntarily filled out the ALAW initiated Statement of Economic Interests BEFORE the election. This form is now required once you are elected, but we need to know before we elect you. Will you follow suit and file yours with us now? (Form attached with mailing instructions.)  Yes

3. Do you agree that all scheduled county meeting agendas and minutes, including committee and sub-committees, should be posted on the County web site? Yes

4. Would you have voted to raise the county board members salaries?  Yes

5. Would you have voted to increase the real estate tax levy by 1.5% thus increasing the amount of real estate tax collected by the county by $1.1 ml.?  No

E. Short Answer. Only the number of words indicated will be published in the response report. (please add a page if you need more room, but remember that we can only print the number of words indicated and reserve the right to edit your response for that reason. Thank you.)

1. If you are elected to serve the residents of McHenry County, what external state and local
agencies do you think are important for the county to liaison with and how would you make sure that information is flowing both ways with that agency? If you are currently serving and are an appointed liaison, please tell us what agency you are assigned and how you accomplish effective two-way communication. (50 words)

I am the voting representative on the Board of Health and report back to the Health and Human Services Committee. Likewise I report on activities of the Agriculture Presentation Committee (ACE) to the Health Committee. I serve on the Housing Commission, which is a County entity. Sue Draffkorn reports to CDBG and P&D on Housing Commission matters.

2. By protecting agricultural lands and soil resources, groundwater and its natural recharge can also be protected. What will you do to provide that protection? (50 words)

I serve on the Agriculture Preservation Committee and am working with municipalities to contract for transfer of development rights until we can get state authorization to initiate TDR or and permission to set a referendum on funding to purchase development rights from farmers. As a Board Member of the Land Conservancy I work to promote easement donations from farmers to preserve agriculture in perpetuity.

3. Most municipalities in the county have their own economic development commissions or committees. Economic development has to occur where there is existing infrastructure. The county funds the private McHenry County Economic Development Corporation ($635,985. for the 2009-2012 term) to create development in the county outside of municipalities. Is this a good investment of taxpayer money? (50 words)

No. Our Comprehensive Plan should prohibit this. As a member of the 2020 Land Use Plan Commission, I voted to prohibit this.

4. Do you think Fleming Road, Alden Road and other county roads that do not serve highly developed commercial areas, need to be widened and “improved” at this time? (50 words)

Both Alden and Fleming Roads need to be rebuilt, but the decision to widen them is dependent on whether the widening is necessary for safety or to protect groundwater pollution by controlling runoff.

5. What weight should you as a county board member give the opinions of citizens affected by zoning decisions, special use permits and road projects? (50 words)

Protection of the rights of neighbors to the peaceful enjoyment of their property is a primary consideration in zoning matters.

6. What in your background qualifies you to serve the public as a county board representative and what do you intend to accomplish if elected to the County Board. You may also use this space to provide additional information regarding any of the “yes / no” answers given above. (100 words)

I have served on the County Board for almost 20 years, which has given me an excellent historical background to support my analysis of the issues. Prior to being elected in 1990, I served as a municipal ZBA member and Village Trustee, giving me an understanding of municipal considerations.

Maybe it’s not tea leaves.

Maybe it’s newspaper clippings to which I should allude.

In any event, the first two McHenry County Board endorsement editorials got me thinking.

McHenry County’s paper of record has suggested dumping

• Board Chairman Ken Koehler in District 2 and
• incumbent Nick Provenzano in District 3.

There is one commonality and that is their having taken part in the secret meeting about district lines that the Illinois Attorney General rules violated the Open Meetings Act.

The two were on opposing sides on the tax hike issue with Koehler leading the majority, while Provenzano vote against levying the maximum amount possible.

That brings me to my first thought.

Five members took part in that secret remap meeting.

One, Marc Munaretto, is not running for re-election.

The other two are on the ballot, however:

• Tina Hill
• John Jung

Both are in District 5.

There are five people running in District 5′s Republican primary election.

Listed in ballot order, they are:

• John Jung, Jr.
• Tina R. Hill
• Virginia D. Peschke
• Michael Rein
• Michael Skala

Will the Northwest Herald refuse to endorse both Jung and Hill?

No more reason to endorse four people for the four spots than there is to vote for four candidates, if only one, two or three turn you on.

Both Hill and Jung also voted to raise tax bills as much as the law allows, as you can see in the article linked to below.  Hill switched her vote to help  break a tie vote on a motion to keep taxes constant.

Will its editorial board say, “We can only recommend three”?

And that brings me to my second reading of the tea leaves.

By not endorsing strong incumbents in District 2 (Koehler) and District 3 (Provenzano) and, maybe only three Republicans in District 5, could the folks at the NWH be setting the stage for endorsing at least one Democrat in Districts 2, 3 and 5?

There are, of course, already Democrats in District 3 and 5,

• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Paul Yensen

Yensen was on the side of the taxpayers on the levy vote.   Schmidt wasn’t.

In District 2, there are two Democrats running.  The first is Jim Kennedy, who was defeated by John Jung in District 5 two years after Yensen defeated Jung.

The second is Ridgefield businessman (The Framery) and almost lifetime resident Jim Roden, who seems poised to run as the “anti-Koehler.”

I’m leaving out District 4, the one that has northern McHenry Township, plus Richmond and Burton Townships in the northeast corner of McHenry County.

A hard-charging Democrat has filed, Mary Margaret Maule.

There are GOP six candidates running there.  None were involved in the secret meeting.

The only one who voted for the tax hike who is running for re-election is Sue Draftcorn.

= = = = =

See “Who Voted to Raise Your County Taxes?“

Driving to the Marengo Business Expo on Saturday my political eyes could hardly avoid the two large political signs on the stretch of Route 47 where it shares space with Route 176.

First was one for District 5 incumbent Tina Hill.

Next was one for District 5 incumbent John Jung.

That night, I attended the McHenry County Young Republicans candidates’ forum for District 52′s three aspirants for office.

And, there I saw something out-of-context.

Although it was to be a debate among Kent Gaffney, Danielle Rowe and David McSweeney, there was this face I recognized as I walked into the MCC auditorium, I couldn’t place him.

Then, he helped me out by handing me the palm card you see below:

It’s clean, crisp and with a four-letter last name easy to comprehend. I note that one both sides of the card, Rein gives his web site address: www.VOTE FOR REIN.com.

Good marketing.

Something that I guess I should not be surprised to see coming from a chiropractor.

There are five people running for four slots on the Republican ballot:

• Tina Hill
• John Jung
• Michael Rein]
• Michael Skala
• Virginia Peschke

The incumbents are Hill, Jung and Peschke.

The four winners to challenge Paula Yensen in her first bid for re-election. Yensen beat Jung in the general election four years ago.

Saturday night’s crowd of candidates also gave opening statements.

And, as on Friday, some targeted like a laser beam on the tax hike issue. (See also Part 1 and Part 2.)

But before beginning, let me remind you of those incumbents who voted to increase the tax levy so much that the tax take from property owners will be as high as allowed by state law.

Those running for re-election are in boldface type.

• Robert Bless
• Scott Breeden
• Sue Draftcorn (a switch)
• Mary Donner
• Jim Heisler
• Tina Hill (a switch)
• John Jung
• Donna Kurtz
• Mary McCann
• Pete Merkel
• Anna May Miller (a switch)
• Marc Munaretto
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ken Koehler

Michael Stanard, running for a spot on the GOP primary ballot drew the first slot to speak and said, “I would [have]voted against an increase in the tax levy.”

District 6 incumbent Diane Evertsen of Hartland Township said, “I voted against an increase in the tax levy. This is exactly the wrong time.”

Coral Township’s Shawn Green, also running in District 6, gave the same message: “I did not support the Board’s decision to increase the tax levy.” While he suggested the levy will have to be increased from time to time, “now is not the time to do it. With no new construction, the slightest increase will lead to an increase in taxes.”

Rachel Smith of Wonder Lake, another District 6 challenger, pointed out she knew the estimates of the average homes tax increase was $8, but

“$8 can help feed my family for a week if I go to Aldi’s.

“The government needs to live within its means.”

Marengo Alderman Corey Brackmann, also running for a District 6 Republican slot, said he didn’t think raising the levy at this time was a good idea.

He pointed out that he had “voted against the proposed increase in the City of Marengo.”

District 5 aspirant Michael Rein of Woodstock added this thought [remember all of this is in the opening statements]:

I also think the tax levy should not have [been] raises. ”

He urged voters to look at how his opponents had voted the last two years, not just this year.

“People who voted against the tax levy also voted to increase their [own] salaries,” he added.

[See

McHenry County Board Votes on Salary Hikes

Voting "No" were

• Virginia Peschke
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ersel Schuster
• Paula Yensen]

“I was opposed to the increase in the tax levy,”  said David LaGue, the only farmer on the ballot in District 6.

“Workable alternatives [exist].”

He added that it wasn’t a good idea when when the economy was doing poorly.

Huntley School District 158 Board President Mike Skala agreed with everyone up to that point.

“I would not have supported the tax increase,” he said. “I led the effort to keep our levy flat.:

[Afterwards, I asked what that meant. Skala explained that his Board was abating taxes that were levied in order to keep the tax bill flat.

When I asked if that meant the school district could take a 4.5% increase for 2013, he admitted that was the case. (The 4.5% would consist of the 1% CPI increase allowed this year by the Property Tax Cap, plus the 3% allowed next year.)]

Michael Stanard, challenger in District 6, explained,

“I’m in favor actually of reducing the levy.

“The only way for the government to get smaller is to take the money away.

District 6 incumbent Ersel Schuster voted against hiking the tax levy as well. She said that there “should be an outside audit” to identify items that could be cut.

McHenry County Board incumbent Ersel Schuster voted against the tax hike.

She said there “should be an outside audit” to identify unneeded expenditures.

Missing from their forum were

• District 5 incumbent Tina Hill
• District 5 incumbent John Jung, Jr.
• District 5 incumbent Virginia Peschke
• District 6 aspirant Michele R. Aavang
• District 6 incumbent Mary McCann
• District 6 non-incumbent J. Vincent Ranzino

Those who voted for the levy hiking taxes on this year’s bills are in boldface type. The others who did so are mentioned in the articles.

Until the end there was no primary election in the Republican Party for District 6.

But toward the end of filing, previously announced candidate Huntley School Board member Mike Skala was standing in the McHenry County Clerk’s Office near the counter where business is transacted.

And, almost at the last minute, he filed his petitions so he could be last on the ballot.

That position is definitely worth extra votes when there are a lot of people on the ballot.

Whether it makes much difference where there four people to be elected from a list of five is debatable.

In any event, here is the order that the GOP candidates will be on the ballot:

• John Jung, Jr.
• Tina Hill
• Virginia Peschke
• Michael Rein
• Michael Skala

The four who make the cut will face incumbent Democrat Paula Yensen.

A friend of mine got the fundraising invitation for November 9th for a newcomer to McHenry County politics–Michael Rein.

The Doctor of Chiropractic invites supporters to join him Wednesday night at Stage Door Left next to the Opera House in Woodstock.  If you are a Republican Precinct Committeeman, you can come free of charge.

He has a web site reserved–VoteforRein.com–but it has not been launched.

Others running in District 5 include incumbents

• Tina Hill (R-Woodstock)
• John Jung (R-Bull Valley)
• Virginia Peschke (R-Bull Valley)
• Paula Yensen (D-Lake in the Hills)

and challengers

• Mike Skala (R-Huntley)
• Michael Rein (R-Woodstock)
• Jim Kennedy (D-Lake in Hills)

All have picked up petitions at the McHenry County Clerk’s Office.

Kennedy beat Perry Moy in strenuous campaign in 2006. Yensen beat Jung in 2008. Jung beat Kennedy in 2010.