McHenry Citizen Says Annual Town Meeting Had No Authority to Order Township Board to Conduct a Cost-Benefit Study on Elimination of an Independent Road District

The following was written by Jon Gealow of McHenry and published in the Northwest Herald on Saturday.  It is re-published here with his permission.

Robert Beltran’s Protestations are Without Merit

If Mr. Beltran chooses to in his own mind call Mr. Anderson’s campaign “propaganda” rather than “education” he is free to do so.

Yes, the McHenry elector’s did vote at the annual meeting to conduct a cost-benefit study, but not all present voted for the study.

It just appeared so to Mr. Beltran since the electors present were predominantly road district employees and their supporters.

Mr. Beltran alleges that the Township Trustees may not legally refuse to conduct a “cost-benefit study”.

However, 60 IlCS 1/30-20 indicates that the electors have only the powers enumerated in Article 30.

Since the conduct of a “cost-benefit study” is not one of the powers enumerated, the electors exceeded their authority in voting on the “cost-benefit study.

The voting took place, even though to township attorney supervised the discussion of the motion, and ruled that the motion could not be amended.

The basis for that ruling appears to be in conflict with Robert’s Rules.

Instead of the supporters of the office of highway commissioner spending their money on an injunction and legal expenses, why not spend it on a “realistic cost-benefit study”.

That is a study that would include the few Illinois Townships without a highway commissioner, and township road costs in other states without a township highway commissioner.

Merely comparing township road costs in McHenry County as done by his wife is meaningless.

McHenry Township Highway Commissioner James Condon

While our current township highway commissioner may be as honest as the day is long, the need to eliminate township highway commissioners is made quite obvious by what is going on in Algonquin township.

Looking at expenditures made by the former Algonquin township highway commissioner, and the States Attorney stating that those expenditures do not warrant a grand
jury proceeding, elimination of the township highway commissioner is the only way to stop such abuse.

The majority of voters in McHenry Township were well aware of Mr. Anderson’s views on Township Government when they voted for him.

It is indeed unfortunate that currently, at all levels of government, the losers of an election immediately resort to lawsuits to overcome their election loss.


McHenry Citizen Says Annual Town Meeting Had No Authority to Order Township Board to Conduct a Cost-Benefit Study on Elimination of an Independent Road District — 20 Comments

  1. So if you support your township and like the work they do the fix is in?

    I didn’t know I couldn’t vote to have a cost study done so I know exactly what I am voting for.

    I for one like to see numbers before I vote on something like this.

  2. What’s your position on this issue Cal?

    Are you for doing a study, transparency, or not?

  3. Beltran is die-hard Hillaryite (even though he once supported Commissar Bernie the Red)and ‘reigns’ as the County’s No. 1 resident Cultural Marxist [although his wife disputes that designation claiming it it for her frightful self].

    He firmly believes ‘White racism’ is the only possible reason why Trump won.

    He has stated such crazy things at Democratic Party and other screwy meetings.

    Naturally he supports townships being run by the past and present crooks and frequently chides Bob Andersen and his taxfighters.

    He firmly believes we do not pay enough taxes.

    And he believes in the Marxian progressive income tax in order to redistribute earned wealth to able-bodied illegal aliens among others.

    He says we musn’t ever use the term ‘illegal aliens’ because it’s hurtful and uses PC Newspeak like ‘undocumented citizens’ and other lie-phrases.

    On principle. everything Beltran ever says or publicly opines must be considered false until actually proven otherwise.

  4. Didn’t Nunda Township (Lesperance) and McHenry Township (Condon) both hire disgraced Algonquin Townships’s Bob Miller?

    We have Millers to thank for the whole Township being ripe for abolishment thing, with all the terrible things they did to take advantage of the taxpayer dollars at their fingertips to enRICH themselves! And now Lesperance and Condon are defient to the taxpayers by ‘taking care of their own’ with taxdollars.

    I guess they deserve some credit for the aggressive desire to abolish townships too.

    If a study (a proper one, not the joke that Schofield failed at a few years ago) is being done, we should be able to see the findings before voting.

    If we find that it doesn’t save money, and the people decide to keep their townships, I hope it doesn’t stop there.

    The Road commissioners need more oversight.

  5. IMO, at this point, it is too late for (additional cost) studies, studies being “made to order”, designed by the government body to produce results desirable by that government body.

    The result of Miller Family use of public funds without any criminal (or as yet civil) consequences underscore the impossible position of taxpayers paying townships: no recourse for political bad actors’ misfeasance or malfeasance.

    The only logical hope for taxpayers is to eliminate townships AND FIRST, Road Districts.

    (Is it, if Road Districts are not first eliminated, then there is no way to do so going forward, and Miller Family type behavior will be the legacy result?).

    Then, when County Board committees begin to fulfill the role of Road Districts, and County Assessor begins to fulfill the role of Assessments within townships

    (THAT IS HUGE! THERE MAY BE BIG WINNERS–little homeowners who were not blessed with politically motivated under-assessment, and losers: big players whose properties may be under-assessed as a function of political connections—)
    the taxpayers may be educated in the law and mad enough to undertake civil action to fight bad actors in elected offices.

  6. The question, don’t you think, is whether the Town Meeting Electors had the authority under state law to pass such a resolution.

  7. Short Answer, Cal, no.

    Otherwise why elect a board at all, if the townships could just stack the annual meetings with township employees and other goons.

  8. Interesting that EyeWitness seems to know things about me that even I don’t know. Of course, ad hominum character assassination is first evidence of the weakness of one’s own argument. In this case, he doesn’t even address the argument.

    Does Eyewitness go to Democratic Party meetings? Does he know that I really don’t care for Hillary, whom I see as a corporatist, but supported her as the rational lesser of evils? Has he ever heard or seen me use the term, “White racism?” Doubtful, as I don’t believe I ever have done so, nor do I believe “White racism” has much to do with Trump’s victory. And why do you capitalize “White?”

    Yes I supported Sanders, but neither he nor I are Marxists for advocating democratic socialism (such as Social Security, Medicare, public transportation, public health and environmental protection) any more than the prime ministers of almost all democracies in the western world. Or, for that matter, every president since FDR except the one we have now. It would be easier to justify calling him Fascist than to call Sanders (or myself) Marxist. Perhaps Eyewitness just doesn’t know the difference.

    Most of us do pay too much tax, especially property tax. Property tax is a lousy way to fund schools and government and an excellent way to overtax the working class. I do support progressive income tax as the best way to shift the burden from property taxes paid disproportionately by homeowners of modest means to the higher income persons who bury their assets -instead of in their homes- in stocks and bonds, where they also derive most of their income. Lower and middle income families would benefit from this. If the state has a progressive income tax it could follow its Constitutional mandate to be the principal supporter of the schools -real property tax reform, not just shifting it around within the property tax structure.If that makes me Marxist, so was Eisenhower. You would see him as a radical leftie today.

    I have never said we should not use the term (not word), “illegal alien.” I use it myself, but I use it appropriately. I don’t use it as an epithet. It is the pejorative and dehumanizing implementation of the term that has sullied its appropriate use.

    I will be the first to admit I can be mistaken about something, but I challenge Eyewitness to find anyone who can credibly attest that I have knowingly lied or mislead. Given the number of clear falsehoods he has demonstrably made in a single post regarding me, I wonder which of us is more credible? What does that say about other things he has posted here? I suggest that Eyewitness ought think twice before slandering me.

    BTW, if he wants to malign my wife -the most sincere, honest and honorable person I know- we can meet alone in a parking lot and have a very personal conversation.

  9. @JustInFun, LOL, obviously -if someone a text graphic, what it says MUST be true.

  10. @NitrogenX, Anderson and friends did try to stack the meeting with its own goons from outside the township.

    Fortunately, the interlopers discovered they couldn’t vote.

    Admittedly there were a few township employees there -who were legal township electors and thereby entitled to vote, and dozens of people like myself and others I do know, who didn’t know any of them.

    Just because someone makes something up doesn’t make it true.

  11. Since the Mchenry Blog has elected to distribute Gealow’s NW Herald letter with his permission, I feel it’s only appropriate to distribute my NW Herald retort with my permission:
    Where to begin? Perhaps with a point of agreement: yes, I am free to contend Bob Anderson’s campaign is disseminating propaganda disguised as education. Typically politicians have enough honesty to portray their arguments as positions or opinions; in any case, I doubt Mr. Anderson is planning to present the opposing arguments. I would love to be surprised.

    While you are technically accurate saying not all present at the McHenry Township 2018 annual meeting voted for the resolution, it is also technically accurate that not all present were electors (registered township voters). And not all electors voted. But all those voting did vote for the resolution. Were you present? Did you vote? If you were not, you were not present to hear the arguments for and against and thereby forfeited your rights both to argue your case and to vote. I might mention that all the electors personally known to me in that room were not employees (though a few were present) and some of the noisiest were not even electors. And please don’t infer that if someone is a township employee, that diminishes his or her rights as a citizen.

    Surely you miss the point of the resolution. It was not for the electors to conduct the study; it was for the township Board to do so. Of course the electors have the right to demand it, per 60 ILCS 1/30-20 Sec. 30-25: “Exercise of corporate powers. The electors may take all necessary measures and give directions for the exercise of their corporate powers.”

    You may be correct that township counsel erred, with respect to “Roberts Rules,” in ruling that no amendments to the resolution could be offered. If you were there, you could have raised that as a point of order; by not doing so you acquiesced to the ruling. I wish you had; I could have offered an amendment to make the resolution stronger. But your point in no way invalidates the vote for the resolution.

    Conducting a cost-benefit study is not my responsibility, and even if I did, I would expect it to be challenged as biased as I am not seen as neutral. And if I did pay for such a study to be done, would the township Board delay the referendum pending the final report? That’s the real issue.

    The study should NOT be done using the approach you suggest unless the townships compared have similar attributes in terms of population and its distribution, township v. municipality highway system mileage and fragmentation, topography and climate, for starters. The comparison my wife made was not an attempt to conduct any such study but simply an informational exercise demonstrating that McHenry Township was not out of line in its costs per mile. That is entirely different than a cost-benefit study of whether property owners will see a net increase or decrease in property taxes if the township road district is dissolved.

    Ironic that the group wishing to eliminate township road districts has taken the tack of taking over one (Algonquin) to mismanage it as proof road districts should be eliminated. That’s like proving horses are more reliable transportation than automobiles by entering a race between them and pouring sugar into your own gas tank. Perhaps people who don’t like government, don’t understand how it works and want to break it ought not be running it.

    Looking at the reasons the State’s Attorney -following a long, expensive grand jury probe- found the former Algonquin Highway Commissioner’s expenditures (which were far less than those so far of his successor) were considered by to be inconsequential would suggest it’s the anti-township crew that is wasting our money.

    Finally, no -most voters voted for trustee candidates other than those elected, but the majority vote was split between two other, more rational slates. Even those who did vote for those who were elected were quite unaware that the slate planned to eliminate the township, beginning with its road district. The only slogan they openly expressed was, “Tax Revolt.” Then, as now, they failed to inform voters of their full agenda. And please note, too, that the point of an injunction would be to enforce a vote -not to overcome a loss, as your argument seeks to do.

    Nothing in your letter addresses the central point of mine: we need to conduct a study so we know what we are buying. Unless you want the taxpayers to buy a pig in a poke.

  12. One last comment in this flurry:

    Contrary to what may be public perception, I am not opposed to township consolidation.

    I am opposed to uninformed and probably counterproductive -even deliberate- ignorance in decision making. Make a convincing argument that an alternative offers equal services for less money, or better services for the same money, and I am for it.

    But if you want me to vote to blow something up, at least tell me what is supposed to replace it and make a case that it is better or cheaper.

    The McHenry Township Trustees have done neither and are utterly unresponsive to requests to do so.

    I simply don’t want to buy a pig in a poke and am incredulous that some seem to insist that’s the best way to buy pork.

  13. Hey Beltran, they tried all your ‘great’ ideas in Cuba, Venezuela Russia, etc. Almost always at gun/bayonet point.

    You want the Second Amendment ‘changed’ and you support the killing of pre-born people.

    People like you destroy good things ultimately. I hope you are just misguidedm and deep down don’t really think Hillary (who you voted for) or Communist Bernie (who you adore, along with Che and Trotsky)

    And, Lord, how you deplore the resistance and dissidence to your truly evil schemes.

    Move to Havana or Caracas, I’m sure the authorities will be most interested.

  14. @RickeyRicardo, Again, someone apparently knows me better than I know myself. Magic? Please tell me what evil schemes I have, as I don’t myself know of any.

    Once again we have an ad hominum attack, which means you have no substantive argument of your own. Under the rules of debate and argumentation that also would mean you automatically lose.

    Just so you stop embarrassing yourself, I would suggest looking up the distinctions between communism and socialism.

  15. Anyone that uses the progressive phrase ‘ad hominem attack’ is a moral nitwit. Just sayin’.

  16. **Anyone that uses the progressive phrase ‘ad hominem attack’ is a moral nitwit.**

    Good god, you are a very, very strange person.

  17. Alabama? In this day of the masses being completely moronic Satanists, progressives, and useful idiots, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much!

  18. Gee, I though “ad hominum” was latin, not progressive. Would “personal attack” work better for you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.