Robert Beltran’s Views

In a comment under a reply to a letter that Robert Beltran sent to the Northwest Herald appears this appeal for Beltran’s views to be published…so they are.

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.


Robert Beltran’s Views — 10 Comments

  1. After reading that word salad.

    Now I know why people in Metropolis, couldn’t figure out Clark Kent was really Superman.

  2. Sorry, I forgot that some people can’t handle what I learned in 7th grade was a compound complex sentence.

  3. Word salad isn’t the word for it.

    It’s Kookery, plain and simple!

    It’s inherently illogical, and like Beltran himself, makes little sense.

    I suggest he go sit on the lap of the new Orson Welles statue in Woodstock for a long hard time

  4. Here’s song the Beatles once did for loons like MR. Beltran, township apologist and Ms. Hillary Clinton apologist:


    The Beatles

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know

    We all want to change the world
    You tell me that it’s evolution
    Well, you know

    We all want to change the world
    But when you talk about destruction
    Don’t you know that you can count me out
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right?

    All right, all right
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution

    Well, you know
    We’re all doing what we can
    But if you want money
    For people with minds that hate
    All I can tell is brother you have to wait

    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right?
    All right, all right
    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know

    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know

    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right?
    All right, all right
    All right, all right, all right
    All right, all right, all right
    All right, all right!

  5. Robert Beltran’s views are incoherent.

    that’s the kind of muddled thinking that got into the mess we’re in.

    So he doesn’t accuse me using ad hominem argument (even though the pompous hypocrite Beltran uses it against Anderson), look at his drivel about a ‘study’ to see if the township consolidation would be cheaper.

  6. I presume that Mr. Beltran will also agree that I can consider Ms. Tina Hill, Craig Adams, and James Condon’s aim to educate voters is merely the dissemination of propaganda.

    Yes, I was at the township annual meeting and sat next to your wife.

    Therefor, I did not forfeit my right to argue my case and vote.

    I did not vote in opposition, since I considered the motion not within the powers of the electors.

    That all present were not electors, does not say much for the Township Supervisor having check-in tables at the entrance to the meeting room.

    If 60 ILCS 1/30-20 permits the electors to take all necessary measures, then why are the specific powers set forth in 20-45, 50,53, 60, 65, 70, 75, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 117, 120, 125, 130, 135, 170, 180, 185, 190, and 195. A Cost /Benefit study is not set forth in specific powers.

    Mr. Beltran states that a study should not be done using my approach.

    The criterion he sets forth for a Cost/Benefit Study, would appear to limit it to McHenry Township.

    He also indicates that if he did the study, it would be considered bias.

    I submit that a study could not be done that would not be considered bias by some.

    Mr. Beltran appears to agree with our States Attorney that paying for trips to Disney Land and for personal items and food is not inappropriate use of taxpayers funds.

    Any such use of funds provided by taxpayers is not an appropriate use in my opinion.

    Finally, Mr. Beltans central point of the need to conduct a study, is without merit.

    Providing township services is a business. Businesses which become top heavy in management cut management levels without doing cost benefit studies.

  7. Thank you, Jon, for offering the only substantive criticism of my remarks. Even if I disagree with you, at least they are substantive. The rest only validate my argument.

  8. How about this Senor Beltran, for substantive comments:

    Hit the Road, Toad!

    People like you ruined Illinois. and now when the focus is on your vile thinking, you cry about it and can’t handle it.

    I can’t wait!

  9. Thank you for further validating my remarks. People like me? Care to be more specific? What is the use of “Senor” supposed to be saying?

    Actually it might be useful to debate my thoughts, if the comments addressed them instead of people who know nothing about me calling me names and assigning me attributes that have no basis in reality.

    I’m trying to make Illinois a better place and keep others from making it worse. How is that vile? We may have different visions, but that’s what the free marketplace of ideas is all about. Are you afraid your vision can’t compete with mine?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.