Schofield Shows $4,600 in the Bank

Schofield 4th of July beforeMcHenry County Board member and candidate for State Representative to replace Mike Tryon Carolyn Schofield has filed her campaign finance disclosure report and it shows that she raised $8,010 and spent $3,300.

That left her with $4,600 on hand at the beginning of October.

Contributions of more than $150 came from

  • $1,000 – Innovative Component Sales, Huntley
  • $450 – Committee to Elect Mike Tryon
  • $250 – Alliance Contractors, Woodstock
  • $250 – John Daly, Cumming, GA
  • $250 – Madsen, Sugden & Gottemoller, Crystal Lake
  • $200 – Johm & Carolyn Daly, Kildeer
  • $200 – Charles Ethredge, Richmond
  • $200 – Exemplar Financial Network, Crystal Lake
  • $200 – Charles Hesch, Crystal Lake
  • $200 – Committee to Elect Ken Koehler
  • $200 – Committee to Re-Elect Bob Miller
  • $200 – Nutri-Life Pet Products, Huntley
  • $200 – Chris & Karen Rogers, Crystal Lake
  • $200 – Daniel Shea, Fox River Grove
  • $200 – Trans Systems, Schaumburg

Reported expenditures follow:

  • $929 – 1776 Restaurant, Crystal Lake
  • $609 – Crager Press, Schaumburg
  • $300 – Friends of McHenry County NRA, McHenry

A loan of $1,036.14 from the candidate to her campaign fund was reported on September 30th:


Schofield Shows $4,600 in the Bank — 8 Comments

  1. Has anyone got to the bottom of how much and what quality of work experience she has?

  2. Rawdogger, apparently, that information is a well kept secret.

    Maybe she did the landscape (engineering) in her yard.

    I am voting for Wilbrandt.


  3. I can speak to all of Carol’s qualifications as I’ve never really talk to her or any of the other candidates for that matter.

    On the issue of how she handled the Consolidation issue as chair and her eventual vote against it at least at this time I am posting a comment and reply to that issue:

    The Case Wasn’t Made For Township Consolidation

    Posted on October 7, 2015 by Steve Reick

    Today’s vote by the McHenry County Board to deny the motion to put township consolidation on the March 2016 primary ballot came as a surprise to some, but was, in my opinion, the correct one.

    I’ve said all along that I don’t know if consolidation would lower taxes or raise them, but I could not support putting the measure on the ballot unless the proponents made their case. They didn’t.

    I couldn’t support a leap of faith to change things from what they are now on the strength of some vague promise that their claims would prove to be correct.

    Without hard numbers to back up their claims of cost savings, the proponents were left to say that they preferred leaving the issue to the voters, saying that between today and the primary, both sides would make their cases. They said that they didn’t want to stand in the way of the voters by denying them their voice on the matter.

    What they failed to understand was that the voters have spoken, they spoke when they elected the members of the County Board to do what governing bodies in a representative republic are supposed to do: they’re supposed to examine the issues and make decisions as to what is and is not in the best interest of the County. They are, in effect, the gatekeepers to the voters’ best interests.

    That’s where those who supported this measure failed. They were repeatedly asked to make their case, they had ample opportunity to examine the claims of cost savings and to show us that what they proposed would accomplish those savings. Those numbers were there before we got to today’s vote, and they’ll be there tomorrow. But today was the day that mattered, and they came up short.

    Having failed to prove their case, they were left with nothing more than an appeal to emotion. The people of this country are justifiably outraged at government at all levels. An appeal to the emotions of an outraged citizenry is certain to gather support.

    But again, it’s the job of our elected representatives to overlook emotion, and to do what is in our best interest without passion or prejudice.
    It’s the job of the members of the County Board to to represent us, it’s what we elected them to do. Today, those who voted “no” did their job.
    Responses to The Case Wasn’t Made For Township Consolidation

    1. Paul Serwatka says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:22 am

    I wholeheartedly agree!

    I’d like to add that candidate Wilbrandt was throwing rocks at Schofield when I doubt he could of handled that mess any better and was wrong on that issue.

    We don’t need more rock throwers as elected officials, rather people willing to disagree and work out issues instead.

    I’ve yet to read Sillicorn’s take/position on that issue, a smart move to just stay out of it for now?

    Summarizing, two candidate think the consolidation effort was proposed wrong and a need to have more info before a vote, one throwing rocks rushing a vote, and one on the sidelines.

  4. Serwatka cannot talk.

    He goes door to door bashing.

    Answers questions with questions.

    NOT an alter boy.

  5. @back at you

    FYI unless you’re alleging Serwatka’s pulling a Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, pay attention! It’s A-L-T-A-R boy.

    If he can’t talk, then you can’t write.

  6. Anon, that’s funny!

    Laughing my butt off, thanks.

    Some people, huh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.