Appeal Filed to “Rogue” Algonquin Township Electoral Board’s Rejection of Consolidation Referendum Petition

Actually, it’s not called an appeal.

It called “administrative review.”

Judge Kevin Costello will decide if the evidence provided by petition objector Algonquin Township Republican Township Supervisor candidate Randy Funk to the Algonquin Township Electoral Board was sufficient to prevent an April referendum to consolidate township government with McHenry County government.

Below is the decision from the three incumbent Algonquin Township officials

  • Supervisor Chuck Lutzow
  • Clerk Karen Lukasik
  • Trustee Dan Shea

On behalf of former Algonquin Township Trustee Melissa Sanchez-Fischer attorney Robert Hanlon has filed a petition to overturn that Electoral Board’s decision.

Hanlon basic argument is that Funks’ petition was “defective on its face” because, as he argued in the first hearing, it “failed to specify which of the signatures were being objected to, within his petition, causing a shift of the burden from Funk to” those signing the petition.

In addition, he points to objections made at the first hearing:

  • the Board members had demonstrated hostility toward Hanlon
  • they demonstrated “animus directed at the proposition previously on public comment”
  • the three Algonquin Township officials had a conflict of interest because the three earned income from the Township (citing a 1997 Appellate Court case which Wonder Lake’s Bob Anderson bought against McHenry Township)

The filing notes the Electoral Board gave Funk attorney Michael Cortina four days to respond after the first hearing, “even though [he] had answered ‘Ready’ at the time the hearing began.”

Hanlon claims a procedural error by Cortina because his email of the 22nd was not filed with the Electoral Board members, but sent to Algonquin Township Attorney Jim Kelly, as well as Hanlon.

The brief argues the Board accepted improper evidence, based on a 2012 Appellate Court decision.

It then charges the January 15th hearing failed to follow the Open Meetings Act requirement that agendas for meetings at which action is to be taken must say that.

A 3-0 oral decision against the referendum petition was followed by the January 19th written decision seen above.

That decision contains “no findings of fact, contains no analysis to ascertain how the Board made its decision and as such is arbitrary and capricious.”

The concluding arguments follow:

What will happen if the Electoral Board’s decision is not overturned is laid out:

In the administrative review count, election law and an appellate court decision is referenced:

Hanlon next points out that the Electoral Board did not follow the law and this ruling:

The remedy requested is that the consolidation referendum be allowed to be on the April ballot.


Appeal Filed to “Rogue” Algonquin Township Electoral Board’s Rejection of Consolidation Referendum Petition — 19 Comments

  1. I thought that they were more of a burnt sienna, but that’s just me.

  2. Rouge Roguer, rouge roguer, let Randy come over.

    C’mon Cal, it isn’t that hard to read before pushing “post” is it>

  3. Cal didn’t make the typo, Hanlon did.

    See point 45 in the screenshots.

  4. Cal can ya do a FOIA on how much Hanlon has made off of legal fees related to Alg Twh, and the AT RD?

    Robert’s contributions to Andy years ago seem to have paid off handsomely.

  5. Funk is funky all right.

    What a township stooge!

    Yeah, let’s keep township abolition off the ballot because we already know everybody loves townships so much!

    What a crock!

    Townships are are an extreme example of useless layers of government, patronage, nepotism, corruption, pensions, bloat and waste.

  6. I don’t see how anybody could defend against an ‘objection’ so vague.

    Was Melissa supposed to get all 500+ signatories to the hearing?

    Couldn’t the objector bother to say which signatures were bad according to him?

    And that Board of Township hacks.

    What a crazy system.

  7. You people are morons! The word used by Hanlon is correct!

    Definition of rogue (Entry 1 of 4)

    2 : a dishonest or worthless person : SCOUNDREL
    3 : a mischievous person : SCAMP
    4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
    5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation

  8. But the court case is scheduled to be heard on 4/23/21 17 days after scheduled election !

  9. I love when people who can’t read the original post/complaint then call us morons for being correct.

    Cool cool.

  10. This action by the board of fat pigs is just another variant of why your vote means nothing.

  11. So I am trying to figure out what happened here.

    It looks like a petition was filed with just a boiler plate allegation.

    Then it appears that some individual, who is not identified, claimed to have reviewed the signatures and somehow determined that a certain number were invalid for unspecified reasons.

    Then the Election Board accepted that person’s testimony without making their own independent evaluation.

    If that is what happened it should clearly be reveresed.

    The Election Board can’t delegate it’s function to someone else.

    They have to personally examine each contested signature and specify the reasons for rejection, ie Signature doesn’t match, voter not registered at that address, etc.

    Hopefully someone more familiar can clarify this because what I have seen so far boggles the mind.

  12. The only link I saw was to the “first hearing” and only discusses one signature

    Was each signature examined and argued at the later hearing or was the witness’s conclusion allowed to substitute for that?

    BTW: Objections that someone used an nickname or that the circulator or some other person filled in the addresses, or town or used abbreviations should not stand.

    Affidavits can be obtained from contested signatories but if one doesn’t have a list of which ones are being objected to one can’t do that.

  13. Also if the witness was someone who was running unopposed for election to the Board, she would have a pecuniary interest.

    The Election Board members would only have a pecuniary interest if the date of proposed dissolution of the township overlapped with their current terms as they are not running for re election.

  14. It is my understanding that the Board did not examine every signature. Rather just accepted the Trustee candidate’s word.

  15. There is also “rouge” which is like a sauce.

    There are many similar words and the spellings are confusing.

    When you see too many vowels in a word, there’s usually a Frenchman to blame.

  16. The Electoral Board would have the responsibility to examine every challenged signature and make a decision on it so if they didn’t do that and instead relied on the OPINION testimony of someone who had a pecuniary interest in defeating the referendum, that should clearly be reversed in court.

    In general, a lot of spurious objections are often raised to signatures.

    Names will sometimes be printed rather than signed, nicknames may be used, signatures may be illegible or different from when someone signed their voter registration 20 years ago, they may use a married name, etc.

    Other than the printed signature objection, these should be allowed if there is any similarity.

    Petitions are presumed to be valid and the objector has the burden of proof to show otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *