Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
I'm never really surprised when the board of elections bounces a rookie candidate off the ballot. In fact, I work on the assumption that the board will always favor the well connected over the neophyte in these matters. It's sort of like taking out a champion in boxing. If the rookie wants a win, it better be a knockout.
That being said, it was Christmas comes early for state rep John Fritchey last week, when hearing officer Lynne Ostfeld booted Roger Romanelli, his wannabe opponent in the 32nd Ward Democratic committeeman's race. Her ruling was a stretch even by election board standards.
On November 16 Fritchey challenged Romanelli's petitions in part on the grounds that they contained "the names of persons who did not sign the papers in their own proper persons." "Such signatures," his challenge urged, "are not genuine and are forgeries."
After Fritchey filed, the case moved to what they call a record review. That's the mind-numbing process where representatives from both sides sit around a computer screen while a clerk from the board of elections compares signatures on the nominating petitions to the signatures on voter registration cards. If the clerk thinks the signatures don't match, or if the address isn't in the ward, she recommends that they be stricken.
Romanelli submitted 710 signatures. At the records review, 483 signature were ruled invalid, leaving Romanelli with 227 valid signatures, 20 below the 247 he needed to make the ballot.
So Romanelli retraced his steps. Accompanied by notary publics, he and his aides went back to the homes of voters, asking them to sign sworn affidavits affirming they had indeed signed his original petitions or that they lived in the 32nd Ward. All told, he gathered 49.
"I could have got more, but I didn't think I needed more," says Romanelli. "I didn't think they were going to rule against 49 personally sworn affidavits."
Almost. On December 13 Ostfeld issued a ruling dismissing 45 of the statements. According to Ostfeld, it's not enough that voters signed notarized affidavits swearing that they signed the original petitions. They also have to explain why the signature on the petition looks different from their signatures on the voter registration card.
As more than one lawyer has explained to me, it doesn't matter why the signatures are different so long as the voter swears that he signed the original nominating petitions. "A sworn, notarized affidavit is what we call prima facie evidence," says one election-law attorney, who'd rather not be named because he has friends on both sides of the debate. "It's evidence that's established as a fact unless it's rebutted. But the hearing officer isn't rebutting the evidence. She's changing the issue."
Ostfeld also removed seven voters who'd signed affidavits attesting to the addresses at which they were registered. In this case her finding was that Romanelli "presents nothing to show" that the voters were "registered there on or before" the day in November when they signed his nominating petitions. Well, I suppose it's possible that all seven of these voters moved between signing the petition in November and signing the affidavit one month later. But is there any reason to doubt them on their word?
On Sunday Romanelli held a press conference to announce that he would appeal Ostfeld's ruling to the Cook County circuit court. On hand were four residents whose affidavits Ostfeld had dismissed. They showed me their driver's licenses to prove that they lived at their addresses and all but raised their right hands and swore to God that they were telling the truth. "They accused us of fraud, and the only way to debunk that is to sign an affidavit. So I signed," said Craig Gould, a 32nd Ward resident. "And now they say my affidavit's not good enough? I shouldn't have to prove I'm me. If they don't believe I'm me, they should have to prove it's not me."
For his part, Fritchey says he thinks the hearing officer made the right ruling. But he can understand why Romanelli and his supporters would be disappointed. "If people feel these rules should be changed, I'd be happy to sit down when them," he says.
By the way, Fritchey was represented by Michael Kasper, go-to guy for house speaker Michael Madigan and many others. Kasper's made a name for himself convincing the board to bounce independent Democrats and third-party candidates from the ballot. Fritchey says that his statehouse alliance with Madigan has nothing to do with him hiring Kasper or with Kasper taking his case -- they're old friends from law school.
Fair enough. But if the board's going to keep on making rulings like this one, I suggest we do away with the time, money, and inconvenience of elections altogether. Let's just give the oath of office to any candidate Kasper represents.
I don't think that I agree with the ruling, but I give Fritchey credit for being a gentleman about it. He didn't write the ruling, the hearing officer did.
I'm sure that if Romanelli had won the case, he would have thought that the hearing officer was just fine.
It sounds like you're either saying that something improper went on or that you're knocking Kasper for being very good at what he does. If there's no grounds for the first part of it, the second part doesn't seem very fair.
Getting 250 valid signatures in the 3 months of time given for circulating petitions doesn't seem like it should be that hard to do.
without the fix he could not have succeeded.
Statements made by Romanelli, outlandish or not,
are irrelevent. Anyone would have been mad.
What matters is ordinary citizens got
mugged in broad daylight by a sworn official.
How many votes does it take to elect an insider
as Ward Committeeman? None. A tremendous
victory for State Representative John Fritchey.
That's just the type of thing I was talking about. If you are going to make serious claims like that, you need to be able to back them up with something other than 'I just know it was fixed'.
On the other hand, if you think that the wrong legal decision was reached, appeal it like 'that's life' said.
To simply rant without facts makes a person look desperate, bitter, and a little crazy.
It's an affidavit!
The way I see it, it turns out that Fritchey had a good reason to challenge the petitions; Romanelli fell short by virtue of an iffy ruling; and now Romanelli is trying to blame Fritchey for the decision of the hearing officer.
If Romanelli hadn't turned in so many bogus signatures, it wouldn't have turned on the affidavits. That's life.
Please don't cry Roger& friends, Fritchey will sit down and console you.
What about everything else I said?
To Affs-
Should Fritchey have flipped them off? You'd whine no matter what he said.
If there's an opponent someone is going to ask for a debate and Fritchey doesn't want to answer questions
Bought and paid for whores will do what they've been bought and paid to do.
In the grand scheme of things, both the Democratic party and the Republican party are obsolete creations of archaic minded control freaks.
No one need care about who gets 'elected' to 'lead' either of these stagnant pools of decayed mentalities.
Regardless of who either party chooses to run in the General Election, all the voters need to do is remember to:
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
When given the chance, vote for any independent candidate.
When only a Republican and a Democrat are running, vote for whoever is NOT the incumbent.
Successful criminal conspiracies, which accurately describes the activities of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, require as many co-conspirators in positions of influence and authority as possible.
Deny Republicans and Democrats these positions and you deny them the ability to successfully conspire.
Shake up their comfortable and cocky worlds and see them reveal themselves for who, and what, they truly are.
Just Do It.
and it would't have made a difference.
Romanelli could have needed 500 signatures or
250. The outcome would have been the same.
A sworn official tossed just the right number of legitimate documents, sprinkle in a few extra.
Romanelli deserved to be on. Forget the bad signatures -he got enough good ones and proved it.
Was there testimony from one or two of the 45?
Osterfeld must be a handwriting expert, right?
And she is on record requesting research on the affidavits, right? Because it took days for them to
come up with this and she took days to diligently
review the information. I know she did a super job because as an appointee she is probably being
carefully scrutinized by her squeakly clean
superiors. By the way, if Fritchey is not the
person who signed the complaint, who did?
He personally had to vouch that the signatures
were fake didn't he?
The fix was clearly in, or 45 people are lying.
Wrong. Take the time to read the ruling. She said that the affidavits were insufficient under the Supreme Court rules.
She didn't question the integrity of the signers, she said that the affidavits did contain the required facts and it was because Romanelli and his lawyer used 'form affidavits'.
You might not agree with her, but far far from a 'fix'.
Fritchey never once came out and
challenged Gabinski who begat Matlak. Then he
sat out the first real Aldermanic race in my entire lifetime. This is not honorable. I wanted a contest for the position of Committeemen.
As for how the judge ruled it is mumbo jumbo.
Romanelli got the proof he needed to get on
the ballot. She insults all of us by twisting
logic until it came out to cancell the signatures.
I would rather have a mistake made that will
let a candidate on the ballot than keep them off. It is the voters who should make these types of free
decisions in the election.
Romanelli's petitions were crap or he never would have had this problem. Only issue. End of story.
But when you can't argue facts, argue conspiracies and non sequiturs.
The chatroom posse rides again.
"...Fritchey and Tom Dart...are...the best of our party can produce."
That says it all.
This shows just how obsolete the Democratic machine is.
(Not that the Republicans are any better.)
"Can you guys do any better?"
Well, when Fritchey pulled the strings to knock his challenger(s) off the ballot, he made this statement, by a machine minion, clearly a ludicrous and dishonest attempt at deception.
As for the imbecilic "Read, the speak" knucklehead, even if there is any validity to your 'argument', it deceptively avoids addressing the issue, namely, if free, fair and open elections are what the Democratic party supports, why are so many challenges filed and granted, said challenges being made for the sole purpose of eliminating any competition for publicly elected offices?
Go ahead, asshole, tell us it's because the Democrats, and Republicans alike, all are just protecting the electorate's best interests.
Go ahead.
Say it.
You know you want to.
And how does 'Read, then speak''s argument avoid the issue? It goes to the heart of the issue.
Romanelli screwed up, and now he's crying foul.
Almost 490 bad signatures out of 710? There's your 'ludicrous and dishonest attempt at deception.'
(But you do come off as very macho when you swear and type real tough)
signed again. They stood up. They got a
a smirking manipulation of technicality. How many more signers/voters were cheated?
. "Petitions were crap." Really. Why, the
ink wasn't black?
What do you call a State Representative who
hasn't got the balls to go toe to toe against such
ineptness? Spend thousands on well known
machine lawyers to snake through the system
instead spending time and money speaking directly to voters.
"affidavits were insufficient under Supreme Court rules." Oh that is rich. We see the influence
of the High Court on the "brethren" of the 'committeemen , like Todd Stroger's
coronation. When Romanelli got those 45 affidavits he won. No matter what
happens in his career, John Fritchey is a loser.
I don't want to ever see the words integrity
and Fritchey in the same sentence.
And what about challengers that knock other challengers off the ballot? Are they part of the 'fix' too?
Roger can blame himself, he can blame the hearing officer, he can blame the Board, he can blame global warming, but he can't blame Fritchey for making sure that the same rules applied to everybody.
Even if Fritchey would have lost, there was a legitimate question as to the number of valid signatures. Romanelli had to resort to getting affidavits to even have a shot, and he screwed that up.
Takes a lot of 'balls' to talk crap from behind a keyboard. Whiny loser.
I wish 'your boy' would have survived, so we could hear what whiny crap you would spout once he got his creepy clock cleaned at the polls.
Whether it's today, February 5, or sometime after that, the only losers will be Romanelli and the two-faced hypocrites who helped him. And you know who you are.
Happy Holidays everybody!
You should have reported the rest of the "grounds," which included a lot of people who DON'T LIVE IN THE WARD.
The rules,if followed, supported Romanelli.
Fritchey resorted to avoiding a campaign.
Fritchey ducked a public airing of his record.
He chose to challenge not to run.
He spent considerable resources to shutdown the first election for committeeman in recent memory.
John Fritchey did not defend election law, he
got a friendly "interpretation" to stop an election.
These actions show voters who State Rep.
John Fritchey really is.
I bet that the majority of people who file petitions stay on the ballot. And that the ones who screw up and get challenged off, accept their mistakes and learn from them. EXCEPT this guy who thinks that the whole world has nothing better to do than gang up on him. Your 15 minutes are up. People don't care about you or a committeeman election.
The process is fraudulent? Gimme a break. By this guy's OWN math, a boatload of his signatures were bad. And if somebody attests that they're good when they're not, that's fraudulent in my book. Sorry.
Problem today is people always want to blame somebody else when they screw up. I screwed up my petitions? Not my fault. Must be the hearing officer's...or the Board's...or the guy who challenged me...or the flying spaghetti monster...or anybody but me.
The rules are the rules. You played fast and loose with them and got called on it. You tried to save your hide with affidavits. You got ruled against. Not that complicated.
She is dense, does not understand the law, has no sense of judicial economy.
MICHAEL KASPER is also the lawyer and does the election challenges for the Hispanic Democratic Organization (HDO) the group that has convicted drug dealers like major baller heroin dealer George Prado and the Hired Trucks program under TWO SIX (the same gang as Senator Tony TWO SIX Munoz) gang member Angelo Torres.
Kasper makes money from challenging people.
I wasn't going to bring this up, but I heard that the hearing officer is the daughter of Lee Harvey OSWALD (Oswald - Ostfeld, it's so obvious) and that somebody saw her writing her decision on some blue container that she got from Drew Peterson.
Are you guys trying to help or hurt public opinion on this thing with this Forrest Gumpian defense?
The boys get caught clouting their way into
a no-vote election. First -timer Romanelli messed up SOME petitions. Your problem is he didn't mess up ALL of them. He got enough.
There was nothing wrong with his numbers.
He followed proceedure. But that wasn't the plan.
Fritchey thought no one was watching or cared.
After days and days of goons looking to throw
a true independent off, they winked to Lynne
Ostfeld about affidavits not being "inadequate" or
"technically" correct. Nevermind they were
accurate representations of real voters in 32
expressing their desire for an honest election.
You can scream, threaten, laugh and probably you can continue to get the system to cover for you.
Doesn't matter.
John Fritchey put his efforts into snuffing out
the competiton in an election he would have
very likely easily won over an unknown.
How come Rep. Fritchey couldn't let 32nd ward
voters have the final say?
The only ones screaming and threatening is you. No wonder your coworkers don't like you.
Why all this effort over a partisan, political party position?
Is it because there is only one political party in Chicago?
So the only competition is between members of this one party?
And these members don't want any outsider competition?
Sort of an incredibly incestuous environment, don't ya think?
And we all know what happens when a species experiences excessive inbreeding, don't we?
Can we spell imbecilic offspring correctly?
I commented on this before and my
point seems to be lost in the back and forth.
The question we are asking Representative Fritchey is why did he not let the voters here have their choice for who should get the position.
I do not believe harm would have resulted if
we had an election for committeeman between these two people. I think that is a fair question
given the history of this Ward. Mr. Fritchey
should have been sensitive to that.
I am retired and have do not have co-workers any longer.
"How come Rep. Fritchey couldn't let 32nd ward voters have the final say?"
Nice question, the answer to which I'm sure you know.
I'll take the liberty of putting that answer into words, to wit:
Because members of a dictatorship have absolutely no interest in the opinions of those they dictate to.
Because the concept of candidates for elected offices 'letting' the voters have the opportunity to actually have more than one candidate to choose from, which is, by definition, what a contest is, is an alien concept to those who prefer dictatorship to Democracy.
Because, given this city's long standing history of one party rule, one party rule being the definition of dictatorship, it would be surprising if anyone in the Democratic party were to genuinely support 'allowing' the voting public to actually have a say in anything concerning their governments.
The only mildly encouraging thing we citizens have is the fact that these default dictators still find it necessary to pretend to care about what the 'voters' think, want or believe.
Why do they still find it necessary to pretend they care about our opinions?
We also know the answer to this question.
Because they still haven't figured out how to completely deny us our Right to Vote.
Because, so far, they haven't needed to deny us our Right to Vote.
Because, so far, they've been successful, at maintaining their default dictatorship, effectively using their skills at bullshitting us to keep 'electing' and 'reelecting' their sorry asses.
Don't think the Republicans are any different, though.
They just haven't had the right bullshit to sell, here in the city, though they've had some success, in the recent past, at selling their particular brand of bullshit on some state and federal levels.
What is left for the citizens to do, besides resign themselves to being the servants of rulers?
A good start would be to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, just to see if any light bulbs begin to illuminate within one's noggin.
If said readings fail to jump start one's thought processes, well, perhaps each individual citizen must then conclude that they are more suited to serving than to living their life as a free man or woman.
My guess is that, of course he would have, and nobody would have blamed him for doing so, and these same people would be talking about how easy it is to get on the ballot, and that Fritchey deserved to get challenged, and that the same rules apply to everybody.
Challenges get filed, some win, some lose.
Audit the last, say, 20 years worth of elections in Chicago.
Determine exactly how many candidates were challenged.
Determine exactly how many challenged candidates were successfully denied ballot access.
Determine how many Incumbents were denied ballot access.
Determine how many slated party candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, were denied ballot access.
Determine how many non-party-slated candidates were denied ballot access.
Compare the numbers, as in, do the math.
Then try to tell us that "...some win, some lose..." with a straight face, and, with that same face, that "...the same rules apply to everybody...".
(Nice try at selling the bullshit, though)
Democratic regulars for almost 100 years. Rep. Fritchey did a disservice to voters in my opinion. He should have understood Ward history and been willing to participate in a contest once Mr. Romanelli proved he had received support for
a candidacy. It is disheartening.
http://www.ostfeldlaw.com/
And my proposed questions weren't fair?
And the answers to my questions wouldn't answer your 'question'?
"If Fritchey's petitions were bad enough that he might get tossed off of the ballot, would Romanelli have challenged them?"
Now, why would Romanelli waste his efforts challenging the petitions of a slated, party hack?
Said party hack being assured of successfully withstanding any and all challenges, by having the hack-filled party machine backing his candidacy?
Since the very same, hack-filled party has had the power, to select the individuals who are empowered to determine the outcome of all challenges, for generations?
The only slim ray of hope here is for Romanelli to have the financial resources to challenge the denial of his candidacy in civil court, said court being populated by, you guessed it, individuals primarily selected by the very same political party hacks that selected those individuals who've denied him access to the ballot by upholding the party-slated hack's challenge in the first place.
Try as you might, you have no valid or fair question.
The only thing you have is the chutzpa to think that your agendas aren't showing.
Because the only honest question is the one posed by 'S', that question being:
"The question we are asking Representative Fritchey is why did he not let the voters here have their choice for who should get the position."
Any answer you may choose to give, other than, 'Because he could' "...not let the voters have a choice for who should get the position." will be you avoiding the question.
1. It isn't that hard to collect enough valid signatures for Committeeman -- if you can't do that, how can you effectively coordinante the Democratic party for the ward?
2. Perhaps, the Board of Elections really does have valid reasons to boot Roger -- to simply suggest that this is machine politics and the Board fixed this is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps the reason a lot of fringe candidates get booted is because they run goofy, unprofessional campaigns and can't do the bare minimum to secure a spot on the ballot.
I hope someone makes them disclose the proof in
open court. This will not take Fritchey off the hook
for deciding to avoid a campaign. He refused to submit his fate to the voters in the Ward
who have waited a generation to get their
voice back. Even if it was irritating to run against
a "greenie" Fritchey should have done it to prove
he supports a New 32. He decided to get power another way rather than energize the electorate
and enjoy a well-earned victory.
He has shown us he is not a reformer but part
of the old guard. Fritchey lost something in this debacle.
Oh, wait. The other debacle is that the Reader is falling for this whiny crap from a loser.
Illinois has long been one of the most corrupt political cultures of the 50 states. No news there. It's a one-party state where the Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable from one another. Too many of them play an inside game. There's not a lot of honor among this particular bloc of thieves.
The voters, of course, are complicit because they haven't held elected officials to a higher standard. If people know Chicagoans are going to vote Democratic regardless who the best candidate might be, then why should the Republican/Green/Independent candidates bother?
Voters haven't even begun demanding change until just recently. Maybe it's the convergence of scandal and technology (i.e., an official's corruption gets broader exposure via the Internet which, in turn, helps channel voters' discontent into action) but the election of an anti-machine guy like Mr. Waguespack and the anti-eminent domain rally against Mr. Schulter would have been impossible to even have imagined just a few years ago.
So, hooray for the Internet!
Now some of the people like Mayor Daley are beginning to lift their heads from the trough and thinking, "I could be the next to fall victim to this trend." Well, if voters get angry and mobilize, maybe, but probably not. Most voters have preferred the devil they know to the devil they don't. But if Mayor Daley keeps demanding more money from taxpayers, money that he gives away to his friends in scandals of $50 million increments, and he keeps giving half-answers to legitimate questions from reporters about what he knew and when did he know it, maybe they'll surprise everyone and vote for someone different, someone better, someone honest. But for that to happen, the majority of voters have to organize, have to demand better, have to recruit solid opposition candidates, and have to vote smarter.
Voters also need to get angry. See today's headline in the Chicago Tribune about the City's continued violation of the Shakman decree on political hiring? When voters start holding rallies downtown demanding that the Mayor and his administration comply with that law, then maybe something will change.
Right now it seems our only hope in Illinois is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. The more politically-connected crooks he catches and convicts, the better off everyone in Chicago and Illinois will be. Otherwise, it's just going to be more of the same.
As for Romanelli v Fritchey, there seem to be two semi-reasonable sides. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Romanelli could have/should have been a lot more careful collecting signatures for his petitions. Getting 70% of your signatures from outside the correct ward does not speak highly about his attention to detail. That same lack of attention to detail appears to have sunk the affadvits he submitted (I've only read Ms. Ostfeld's report once.) In either case, Mr. Romanelli should have been a lot more attentive, especially since he knew Mr. Fritchey was looking for a way to stop him.
At the same time Mr. Fritchey can be cited for poor sportsmanship for challenging Mr. Romanelli's petitions in the first place. But it was an easy shot to take (so many newcomers make careless mistakes)and you can't blame a man for taking a shot that the rules say he's entitled to take.
That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with the umpire's ruling. But Mr. Fritchey isn't responsible for that. If no one cares for the rules of the game, they can go ahead and work to change those rules. The Internet ought to be helpful in stirring up a crowd to agitate for change. It seemed pretty effective for Mr. Waguespack and against Mr. Schulter.
There's talk of holding a Constitutional Convention in Illinois. A ConCon may be just the thing to set right much of what the political system in this state has wrong with it.
It's the perfect opportunity for people who aren't happy with the way things are to start rolling up their shirtsleeves and make something good happen.
Will the 32nd Ward return to those who
have one agenda - keeping power for themselves?
Or do we prefer to be represented by people who
will take a stand against Boss Politics? Representative Fritchey missed chances to
demonstrate his is a reformer.
1-openly support the candidacy of Waguespack
and work to oust Matlak
2-participate in the first direct election of Ward
Committeeman in 100 years.
Fritchey hid during the Aldermanic race and sought to stop the second election from occurring.
3-Fritchey, by failing to acknowledge there is a
problem, misses another opportunity to be an agent of change.
I do disagree with "you can't blame a man for taking a shot." Rep. Fritchey should be above that.
He has received our trust and is currently
representing us in Springfield. It should not be
too much to expect restraint and consideration
from a public official who had the unique ability
to inspire participation in an historic moment.
I really wish he had let us have a say because it
would have been the greater good. I salute the 45 citizens who provided notarized statements,
and Mr. Romanelli for shedding light.
I would like to see Mr. Romanelli on the ballot.
We all win when elections are free and open.
1 - One that says that he wasn't in constant communication with Fritchey from before he ran and throughout his race.
2 - One that says that Fritchey wasn't intimately involved with his campaign design, strategy and execution.
3 - One that says Fritchey sat on the sidelines and hid.
4 - One that says that he didn't agree to endorse Fritchey for Committeeman over a year ago.
It should be a no-brainer based on everything that you've said.
But he could never sign that and you know why. So does he. Enough.
in a new era but is the one who never publicly took a stand against Gabinski/Matlak in ten years and
he wants Waguespack to rewrite history?
Waguespack faced the competition head-on.
Not so Fritchey - he "took his shot" to stop an
eleciton. At best it has been called, "poor
sportsmanship." It was worse: both arrogrant and cowardly.
Waguespack went out there solo except for a
small band of believers. Your boy watched.
He was not sure where this would go. He was too
scared to work against the machine and was not
about to start incase Matlak won. That's true.
Forget an affidavit Mr.Fritchey, just show us
a check, one fundraiser or a letter that went out
TO THE PUBLIC....SO SOMEONE WOULD KNOW....
WHERE YOU STOOD ...SO YOU COULD HAVE INFLUENCED OTHERS.
Ok, sorry.
It's just that those of us who worked to throw
out Matlak do know what "THE REFORMER'' DID.
Constant communication-well everyone called
once he won. Again, stop trying to raise Fritchey's
sinking image using a new alderman.
Talk about whining. Give it up-your boy is an
old boy.
Waguespack kept his word. He never denied he
backed Fritchey. He thought Matlak was running.
You didn't want it to come to this? It was always
coming to this. Fritchey is a lowlife trying to control the Ward.
Even easier than an affidavit, but Waguespack will still never do it. Six months in and he's already been caught trying to play both sides.
I'm sure you won't answer directly and instead will spout some nonsense. But you're on your own from here on out.
"Get Waguespack to ask Fritchey to publicly state his role in the campaign, and I'm guessing that at this point, Fritchey would be more than happy to oblige."
Sure.
So Fritchey can lie his ass off, rewriting history.
As for Fritchey signing an affidavit, what makes you, or anyone, think that a professional bullshitter, aka party hack politician, gives a shit about swearing to the truth of anything.
"I'm sure you won't answer directly and instead will spout some nonsense."
"My last post" & "But you're on your own from here on out."
Promise?
After ten years it is time for John Fritchey to
declare which side is he on?
W. campaigned against the machine. He kept a promise to support Fritchey when it was assumed Matlak was running. As a newly elected
Alderman he understandably refused to knock Romanelli's right to run. He did not go back
on a promise. But he is not going to kill debate
in the Ward. Now that is fair.
Ciao.
32ndNLA2(NewLeadershipAlliance)2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/32ndnla2008
Joe Lake Bucktown
what do you mean?
Said sound with which you are intimately familiar, no doubt.
Noonan, you familiar with defamation? You will be.
A. Phillip Randolph
If Team Kasper is the best in the business and they spent days scouring Romanelli's peitions, we
can assume assume they tossed only bad
signatures out. Why then was Romanelli able to
come back with affiidavits, directed by the rules,
and prove some signatures were valid? Was
Romanelli faking affidavits? Was his lawyer? The
notary? Did 45 people conspire to provide false
information? Representative Fritchey attempted to eliminate any challenge to his assuming the role
of Committeeman. The first round challenge was
contrary to the spirit of a fresh approach in the
Ward. But, Romanelli was able to in short order
bring back enough proof to stay on the ballot.
The affidavits cast doubt not on Mr. Romanelli
but on the relationship between Team Kasper
and the Board of Elections. Ms. Ostefeld displayed questionable judgement in disregarding the generally accepted standard of affidavits. It makes
one wonder if some of the hundreds signatures she tossed out earlier might have been valid.
Representative Fritchey should have graciously
accepted a challenger when the affidavits were
produced. If there is a way for that to still happen
it would be a diplomatic gesture on his part.
accepted a challenger when the affidavits were
produced. If there is a way for that to still happen
it would be a diplomatic gesture on his part."
Not diplomatic, but honest, ethical, respectful, (of the citizen's right to have choices), and humble, (as in being willing to submit his candidacy to competition).
But diplomatic, no.
And gracious, again, no.
Being a hack politico, Frithchey did what all politicos do, work the system and rules to his advantage.
Maybe some voters admire the ability to be dishonest, manipulative, conniving, deceptive and ambitious.
All qualities Fritchey has in abundance.
Congratulation, John, you got your way, thanks to whatever quid pro quo Ostfeld undoubtedly received.
All protestations to the contrary not withstanding.
criminalize political differences. It would be
a gracious gesture if State Representative Fritchey
withdrew his challenge to Romanelli. Fritchey,
the better known candidate, would most
probably win he could silence his critics charging
that he abused the system. He would then be
able to seek to improve the gliches in the process.
Just a thought.
Yes, and a good one.
Though 'new to this' surely must know that Fritchey is highly unlikely to be so gracious.
That would defeat the purpose of challenging the competition's right to compete in the first place.
Perhaps the purpose of challenging (and the
right of Rep. Fritchey) was altered by a questionable implementation of process.
The Representative may accomplish more by
letting Mr. Romanelli run.
Indeed he would.
The only question is, does he have the sense to realize just how much he would accomplish in doing so?
Even if he doesn't really believe in the citizen's right to have choices, he could really give the impression that he does, just by 'allowing' this single challenger to compete.
Perhaps it's more important to the political apparatus that they maintain the 'tradition' of squashing all contenders before the fight is held.
It is alot to ask someone to back off for the sake of a principle when they hold an advantage but
it would say a great deal about our Representative
if he rose to the occassion. I would support him
if he did that.
Graciousness is a two-way street.
(my opinion) if given the chance by the largess of Fritchey.However, blocking an election that has not happned in 100 years may raise eyebrows
when coupled with the possibility that Romanelli
can go to court and might prevail. Voters are
left to wonder why they were deprived of the right to choose their Committeeman for so long. If
Romanelli gets on there would be little the
Representative could say to justify his actions.
It is much less risky for the favored candidate to
also be the gracious one and as the saying goes
"heap burning coals of kindness upon their head."
The more outrageous Romanelli, the more Fritchey
looks like a statesman. But if Romanelli fights his
way back he becomes the vindicated underdog - very appealing in the current climate.
It's not about personal graciousness, kindness, courtesy or respect.
It's about the long overdue respect that the voters have been denied, said respect being, in this case, the refusal of the machine democrats to 'permit' any other declared democrat from daring to challenge one of the party anointed.
No doubt the republicans have done this very same thing to their own party's voters.
It's the principle of acting in favor of the voter's right to HAVE choices, which is what makes an election an election, and not a christening.
This is supposed to be a Democracy, NOT an Aristocracy.
The party 'regulars' don't get it, but the voters are beginning to.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
The voters are most respected when their
wishes are known. Without this race moving forward that will never happen...
The party regulars are always winning, what they need is to lose.
The only persons who you should be looking to help win are those who have been losing, as in the citizens.
As for "The voters are most respected when their
wishes are known.", well, you really are new.
The rule of thumb, said rule being repeatedly proven over several generations of Chicagoans and Cook County residents, is that the voters are NEVER respected, in any sense of the word, until, and unless, those holding political power fear the wishes of the voters being to NOT reelect the party's incumbents.
A rare occurrence in these them parts.
the situation.
Both are equally positoned to follow long-term goals instead of short term gratification but only one of them has the ability to discern the difference.
There are some practical issues not yet raised relating to that:
1. Given that the B of E has already ruled on Mr. Fritchey's objections to Mr. Romanelli's petitions, I wonder if Mr. Fritchey even has the legal option to withdraw his objection. Probably not.
2. The media reported that in the last municipal election, voter turnout was in the general neighborhood of an (abysmal) 25%.
3. Notwithstanding Mr. Joravsky's reporting, aside from the one or two dozen people posting on this board, I wonder:
(a) How many voters in the 32nd Ward even know that there are Democratic and Republican ward committeemen in Chicago?
(b) Are aware that Mr. Romanelli and Mr. Fritchey even exist?
(c) Are aware that one of them has been ruled ineligible to stand as a candidate?
(d) Care?
4. Financing a competitive campaign in a ward as large as the 32nd would probably cost at least $50,000 (didn't Mr. Waguespak spend $100,000?).
So with all due respect to those suggesting Mr. Fritchey withdraw his legal objection to Mr. Romanelli's petitions - asking Mr. Fritchey (or anyone for that matter) to spend $50,000+ that he doesn't have to so that 25% of the registered voters of the ward might have an alternate choice in a race for an unpaid, partisan position that barely anyone knows even exists, much less cares about, is probably asking a lot.
This is doubly so given that Mr. Romanelli doesn't seem to have much name recognition and so isn't likely to be remembered for very long.
Blame voter apathy. Blame Mr. Romanelli's careless signature collection process. Blame Mr. Fritchey's steely cold-heartedness. Blame the poorly written affidavits of Mr. Romanelli's lawyer. Blame the B of E. Blame whatever factors or individuals we choose, asking a candidate to raise and spend that much money for a race no one knows about, cares about or will remember is asking a lot.
Link to Stay on 30th District Ballot
by Russell Lissau | Daily Herald Updated: 12/22/2007 12:09
Embattled state Sen. Terry Link survived a formal challenge to his candidacy and will stay on the Feb. 5 primary ballot, the state elections board decided Friday.
Although the panel ruled 1,660 of the signatures on the veteran lawmaker's petition were invalid, he was left with more than enough to remain a candidate for the 30th Senate District seat, election officials said.
Link's challenger in the Senate race, Jerry Johnson, wasn't as lucky. Johnson, a former North Chicago mayor who'd formally objected to Link's petition, was removed from the ballot because of invalid signatures on his own petition.
Three Link supporters had challenged Johnson's petition.
Link, who also leads Lake County's Democratic organization, said his victory Friday feels good.
"I'm very happy that …. I am on the ballot and Mr. Johnson is not," said Link, of Waukegan.
Johnson accepted being kicked off the ballot but said he is considering appealing the panel's decision in the Link case.
"Terry Link's ability to be on the ballot was upheld today. That does not make him right," said Johnson, of North Chicago.
The election board's ruling doesn't end the controversy surrounding Link's candidacy.
The Lake County state's attorney's office is investigating several complaints about the senator's petition. Critics have said the document contains the names of dead people and area residents who've denied signing the form.
Additionally, some signatures on the sheets are in alphabetical order, which is unusual for campaign petitions, state's attorney Michael Waller said.
Link has said he did not circulate any of his candidate petition forms. Records indicate campaign workers and volunteers did.
Petitions circulated by two campaign workers particularly have come under fire, officials said. Because the workers also gathered signatures for other Democratic candidates in Lake County, the state's attorney's office is investigating those political petitions as well, Waller said.
The complaints prompted picketing at Link's house and a Democratic Party office in Waukegan on Thursday, and criticism from Democrats and Republicans.
Link declined to comment on Waller's investigation, saying the state's attorney hasn't contacted him about it.
Friday's separate decisions in the Link and Johnson cases followed several hearings before election-board representatives.
In the Link case, the board ruled 5-3 the senator should remain on the ballot. The panel said he had 1,718 legitimate signatures, far more than the 1,000 required to appear on the ballot, elections board Executive Director Dan White said.
As for Johnson, the panel ruled 8-0 that he should be removed from the ballot. It eliminated 673 signatures, leaving him with no more than 841, White said.
Johnson has said he might run as a write-in candidate in February or as an independent in November's general election.
Most of the 30th District is in eastern Lake County, but it also includes a small part of northern Cook County.
No Republicans filed to appear on the primary ballot in the Senate race.
Candidate Officially Off
Daily Herald 12/21/07
The Illinois Board of Elections on Friday officially ruled against Charlotte Kegarise's bid to remain a candidate in the Feb. 5 Republican primary for state representative of the 56th District. An objection questioning the number of valid signatures on her candidacy petition led to the ruling. Kegarise, the Schaumburg Township Elementary District 54 school board president, has 10 days to decide whether to appeal, and she said Friday she hasn't yet reached that decision. For the time being, the only candidate in the GOP primary is Schaumburg Township District Library board President Anita Forte-Scott. She hopes to unseat incumbent Paul Froehlich, who himself faces a Democratic primary challenge from newcomer John Moynihan.
just a registered voter in the Ward.
I see my posts are not moving entrenched positions,
Apathy serves a few individuals but it does not
ultimately serve the Ward. After 100 years this
race might let people know why they should
care about Ward Committeeman or participate
in their Democracy at all. That is why only
Fritchey, the recognizable public servant, had the
power to open up the process-energize people to vote. The Presidential Primary is getting more
people thinking. But to keep this electable job
off the table plays to cynics who don't vote,
alienates voters and gives fodder to those
who just want to criticize and destroy. All of us
stand at a critical time. Those who care might
take some responsibility for what is happening.
It would have cost Rep. a bit of money (not that
much) and time but he could have created a new
legacy. Incivility and corruption led us to this
place. Citing business as usual is no answer.
I sense many intelligent and passionate people
think they are doing the right thing.
I can not agree with that.
March, 1996: Fritchey had an actual opponent in the Democratic primary in his first attempt at elected office, then the 33rd Illinois House district, a vacancy created when Blago ran for Congress. Here's the Tribune's 1-sentence intro to Fritchey:
" ... John Fritchey, 31, a lawyer supported by Ald. Dick Mell (33rd), the father-in-law of Blagojevich."
Fritchey won the primary.
John Fritchey (x) 6,328
Kevin Lamm 3,413
Nov, 1996: Although the GOP had a candidate on the primary ballot, by the general he was gone, and Fritchey ran unopposed.
March, 1998: No primary opponent
Nov, 1998: No GOP opponent. Fritchey defeats Libertarian Party nominee Ljubomir Marinov, a retired bus driver.
March, 2000: No primary opponent.
Nov, 2000: No opponent.
March, 2002: Now the 11th district, no primary opponent
Nov, 2002: Fritchey defeats Libertarian investment manager John E. Yackley.
March, 2004: No primary opponent
Nov, 2004: Fritchey defeats "low-profile GOP candidate Doug Nelson, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress against Jesse Jackson Jr., and Libertarian Jason Briggeman, a 27-year-old post- punk rocker."
John Fritchey (D) 30,789
Doug Nelson (R) 9,945
Jason Briggeman (L) 1,694
March, 2006: No primary opponent.
Nov, 2006: Fritchey defeats GOP candidate Republican Ashur S. Odishoo.
John Fritchey(D) 21,586
Ashur Odishoo(R) 4,450
lackluster field over the years. At least there
was a chance to vote and he ran. Having
heard him speak I have no doubt Fritchey could
easily campaign.
Local politics in 32 needs a shot of vigor and
credibility. The job of Committeeman has not
been decided by voters in 100 years. We should
all be ashamed of that and any action, legal or not,
that continues this is offensive and wrong.
Rep. Fritchey, by the mere act of encouraging
an election, will win and debunk all detractors and
misstatements. The gesture would be for the Ward
and our system in sore need of a statesman.
The gesture would not be for Romanelli who
will lose,but could no longer play system victim
or accuse his opponent of not bending over backwards to return honor to Ward politics .
Now we MAY be getting somewhere.
What is Democracy?
Do most citizens really know?
And by know, I mean understand what the experience of living within a democratic society both provides to each citizen and requires of each citizen.
Because, as apparently only a small minority of citizens are acutely aware of, our society, and, thus, our living environments, conditions, economies, day-to-day events, the very ability to survive, are all affected by the governments we 'elect' and empower to:
1) Make Laws (our various Legislators)
2) Interpret and Adjudicate those Laws (our various Courts/Judiciaries)
3) Make Policies and Programs (our various Executive/Administrative Agencies)
The essential principles of a Democracy, ours being a democracy of elected Representatives (our legislators) making laws, said laws administered, imposed and enforced by elected Executives/Administrators (our mayors, governors, presidents and those they appoint/hire/contract), and said laws interpreted/adjudicated by our elected or appointed Judiciary (our courts, judges, hearing officers, arbitrators), seem to be substantially unknown and misunderstood by a large majority of our fellow citizens.
Regardless of what our 'educators' have been 'teaching' our children, it appears that few citizens have been reaching adulthood with even a rudimentary understanding of the principles of democracy, the vital elements a democracy must consist of (to be an effective means of benefiting the citizens living within a society based on democratic principles), the original intentions of those founding fathers of our democracy, the social, legal, economic and dynamic forces our 'democratically elected' governing officials impose upon each and every citizen, and the potential (for good or ill) inherent in these principles.
Many citizens THINK they understand, but, in reality, misunderstand.
What else, but an egregious misunderstanding of democracy, can explain why approximately 50% of all potential citizen/voters don't register to vote, and, of the approximately 50% who are registered, about 50% of those don't bother to regularly vote in every election?
For this country to actually BE a Democracy, our fellow citizens must understand what a true democracy is.
Recently, our own lovable Mayor Mumbles made a statement that revealed exactly how far from a true democracy we have strayed.
I don't recall exactly what words he spoke, but the gist of it was that he, Mayor Mumbles, did not agree that the issue of gambling expansion in Illinois should be decided by referendum (as in each citizen of Illinois voting to approve or disapprove) but rather, that elected 'leaders', such as himself and our legislators, should decide this issue for the citizens, without the citizens having anything more than a theoretical, and non-binding, influence on this decision.
The 'will of the people' having an effect on the actions/inactions of their 'elected' representatives depends entirely upon those elected representatives respecting said will.
We assume our elected officials respect our desires because we assume that they believe that, should their actions/inactions show they do not, they will expect to not be reelected.
The reality is quite the opposite.
The reasons our elected officials do not expect to not be reelected are obvious, and a review of this blogs' archives, articles and comments alike, will garner much detailed information as to those many reasons.
The dumbing down of America is almost complete.
The fact that approximately 75% of our fellow citizens do not understand their responsibilities as citizens is the strongest evidence of this.
Our Democracy has mutated into a not-so-benign Aristocracy.
This is not a surprise to the very few citizens who have bothered to understand what so many citizens have not.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Remember, for an incumbent, the best campaigning isn't done in the weeks leading up to a race, but by how you do your job once elected. Looks like he's done that pretty well.
His numbers look like they outpace the partisan numbers which means he's also picking up non-Democratic votes in the Generals.
And so a rare moment slips by.
"Voting everyone out is not the way."
Actually, more or less, it is.
At least it is the beginning of the way.
Since the very act of voting 'everyone' out includes voting others in, it's not like these publicly elected offices are not going to have elected individuals in them.
But you do bring up the next step, in the process of restoring our Democracy, that step being answering the question:
How do citizens know who to vote for, once those, whose actions in office have proven them to be Aristocratic rulers, rather than Democratic Representatives and Public Servants, have been denied reelection?
The comments made by 'Looks to me like...' are typical of those many citizens who think they're reelecting an incumbent, whose 'record' in office is substantially unknown to them, but, since they've not heard anything 'bad' about an incumbent, they assume said incumbent must be doing a good job.
If we voters could only know one tenth of what these incumbents are actually up to........
As it is, we are spoon fed the meager amount of information about our many incumbent officials, with no real assurance of either the truth of what we're being told or the completeness or accuracy of same.
The Paul Harvey 'the rest of the story...' radio bits come to mind. And even those depended upon trusting a guy named Paul Harvey.
If the citizen/voter doesn't understand the specific responsibilities, legal authorities and practical abilities each individual publicly elected office requires, as in functioning solely for the best interests of the people as a whole, how can they decide who is best qualified for any particular public office?
As it stands now, all those who actually do vote know about the candidates for elected offices, be they incumbents or challengers, Democrats, Republicans, other parties, or Independents, is that the 'winner' must have been a 'good campaigner'.
What does that mean, to be a 'good campaigner'?
In my experience, that usually means a person who is skilled at telling people what they want to hear and, then, if elected, mostly doing whatever they, or their associates and financial supporters, want them to do, paying only as much attention to their new constituents as they believe they have to, to avoid pissing off enough of said new constituents to have to worry about being reelected.
Party backed candidates know that, once they are elected, the number of citizens they can count on to vote for them at reelection time greatly increases, purely because of their Democratic or Republican party's support.
And why do these two parties support specific individuals for elected office?
A seemingly ignorant question, no doubt, with many obvious answers, but worth thinking about, nonetheless.
Until we, the citizens, voting and non-voting alike, have practical access to whatever factual information can inform us of the nature, duties, responsibilities, practicalities, authorities, legalities, purposes, functions and day-to-day operations of each publicly elected office, how can we actually know what we are electing individual fellow citizens to do?
Because, if we don't know specifically, and in great detail, what a given public office does, how can we decide who is the best person to hold that office?
What we can see is that, as in the past, communication is the key.
Unlike the past, we now have the World Wide Web. :)
And, while this relatively new means of communicating doesn't guarantee that information found here will be truthful, accurate and factual, it does provide the opportunity for competing opinions to be more readily available.
We still must use each of our individual brains to determine what is true, what is factual, what is real and what makes sense to each of us.
I find that I prefer to have more to think about, rather than less.
How about you?
32nd Ward 2008 Democratic Committeeman Race-
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare/...
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Like YOUR comment contains anything of substance...... lol
First of all, I had spoken with Mr. Javorsky after a TIF forum sponsored by the IVO-IPO about any opinion’s I had about this race. At that time, I truly had none. I cannot understand why anyone would want to part of a committee that chooses Todd Stroger as their standard bearer? Having said that, I felt (and still do to some extent) that anyone would be better than the Gabinski/Matlak/Machine hack that traditionally has come out of the 32nd ward, and that Rep. Fritchey met that threshold in my estimation. Although his ‘view from the inside’ as of late has left one wondering if any of the rank and file (outside of Rep. Hamos) is capable of not only giving a candid assessment of the fiasco that is our state governance, much less offer any constructive legislation or path out of a growing crises in state government, or the disingenuous politics currently practiced at the local level; his attempt at offering some sort of transparency in state government is far more admirable than the gross lack of any attempt than any other of our legislator.
What I find so ironic is that Rep. Fritchey believes he has ‘ideas’ on how to reinvigorate the Democratic Party in the 32nd ward, while unwilling to test those ideas in a contested election and appearing so dismissive toward the very real concerns of the Democratic Party members in the 32nd ward who have elected progressive reformers like Alderman Waguespack and Commissioner Claypool. I agree with the sentiments of many of the posters on this blog that Rep. Fritchey needs to clarify if he is going to side with the progressive, inclusive, and transparent democratic process and the future of successful politics in Chicago; or if he is going to rely on the personal relationships between himself and Rep. Madigan/Ald. Banks/Mr. Kasper to further his own personnel career at the expense of winning elections on the merit of his ‘ideas’ and ability to implement those ideas and attempt to continue the bankrupt politics that a growing number of citizens throughout Chicago are expressing their disgust toward.
Second, I think the focus of Alderman Waguespack’s endorsement in this race is completely unwarranted of the attention it has received. After the run-off elections, the Reader profiled each of the Aldermen in the City of Chicago, and the assessment of Ald. Waguespack seemed to me exactly on point. He doesn’t have any patrons whom he is indebted to his seat – (the unions split their endorsements) – and it was a coalition of interest in the 32nd Ward who empowered Ald. Waguespack, not the backroom dealings of Rep. Fritchey (and if he believes he is somehow responsible for getting Scott elected, he is extraordinarily arrogant and a little delusional on his own influence in the ward). The more that I have gotten to know Alderman Waguespack (and I do not know him all that well), the more respect I have for him. He has a bright future in Chicago politics and is exactly the kind of citizen we need to step forward to participate in our politics. I think Hugh’s criticisms are also justified. I am far more critical of Comm. Quigley than I am of my other representatives because I have much higher expectations of Quigley and do support him – and reminding the few truly progressive elected officials that we are watching them and will hold them accountable to our desires of supporting transparency and candidates who merit support is needed. Having said all that, I don’t think Ald. Waguespack should charge windmills or fight loosing battles. He is exactly correct in focusing on putting his Aldermanic office in order rather than attempting a run at a symbolic committeeman slot that will do nothing to improve politics in Cook County.
Finally, what is being done to Mr. Romanelli is even more egregious and outrageous than what I went through in my ballot access case, and I hope he does not give up his fight. I made an error in not submitting a receipt, and although I believe that statutory rulings by the state court and constitutional rulings by the federal courts supported my argument for access to the ballot, what is being done to Mr. Romanelli is truly unprecedented. The administrative officer is calling the over 40 individuals in the 32nd ward outright liars. If the fix ever was in, it has never been so blatantly exposed. If this ruling stands, any signature that doesn’t exactly mirror the signature on anyone’s voter registration can be disqualified, despite the sworn affidavit of an individual. This truly would any hope of a democratic process and an election that is accountable to citizens or a government with the consent of the people. I hope that Mr. Romanelli has the resources and will to take this into court and challenge the validity of this ruling.
I would say to Mr. Romanelli that the principal of ballot access is far more important than the position of ward committeeman. I hope that he would consider starting a DFA group in Bucktown/Wicker Park/or even in the 32nd ward. You don’t need to be part of a corrupt and dismissive committee that doesn’t reflect the best of our party members in order to organize and advance the Democratic Party. I, for one, loathe my committeeman – as do a growing number of Democrats throughout Chicago – and despite my years of involvement in Democratic politics, I am not a member of the Cook County Democratic Party because I was not born into, or married into, or willing to throw the very principles of my Parties platform to the curb in order to be a member of their exclusionary club. The Democratic Party doesn’t belong to these fool, and they do not represent the best of our party either. Organize on your own, and build the coalition that elected Scott. That would scare the hell out of the establishment – the realization that it isn’t going to be reformed from within, but that its constituency has given up on them and is organizing themselves. I also hope that after your hopefully successful battle in the courts for ballot access, you will consider serving on a ballot access caucus with a group of concerned citizens who want to prepare ourselves for the next elections and ensure that Kafkaesque rules don’t deny the citizens of this city or state a contested election that holds those elected representatives responsible for the gross state of affairs in our governments throughout IL.
I wish you a happy holiday and luck in your battle Mr. Romanelli.
Damn, Chris, now that's what I call a comment of substance.
A few more paragraph breaks and it'll be ready for publication.
I'd take the liberty of re-formatting and re-posting it, but I've already been spanked for doing that in the past.
Still, one helluva comment, especially because it's so very true.
Where's Round Two?
Yours truly,
Slats Grobnik, Bucktown
slats_grobnik@hotmail.com
The one thing our alderman can do that we can't is vote in City Council. An alderman's vote in Council is not charging at windmills, it is their single most important responsibility. EVERY TIME a vote is cast that is not congruent with his constituents, our alderman has betrayed us. It doesn't a matter what feeble justification they offer for their abhorrent behavior, "aldermanic privilege," "aldermanic prerogative," "relationship building", whatever, it is WRONG, and there is NO WAY to excuse or forgive it. There is NO higher principle than representing your constituents with EVERY vote. If you don't hold your aldermen responsible for their vote then you can't hold them responsible for anything, there is no accountability.
Unless Waguespack somehow believes a majority of his constituents think that what Chicago needs most right now is 6 new TIF districts, he has betrayed his constituents.
Unless Waguespack somehow believes a majority of his constituents think that our City should be in the business of transferring private property from non-clouted owners to hooked-up developers/campaign contributors , he has betrayed his constituents.
"I have much higher expectations ... and reminding the few truly progressive elected officials that we are watching them and will hold them accountable to our desires."
Why are you so quick to look the other way when they don't?
Too little collegiality is a problem, and so is too much. Collegiality is nothing as compared to the most important value in an elected representative: representation. When collegiality interferes with an elected representative representing their constituency, a an elected representative fails in their fundamental mission.
Waguespack owes Schulter NOTHING. Waguespack owes EVERYTHING to his constituents.
Chicago's aldermen have been feeding Chicagoans lame excuses for their non-performance for so long, even otherwise intelligent people think it makes sense. Representative democracy will emerge in Chicago when we stop swallowing the old excuses.
News Years Resolution: Stop accepting the old excuses. Insist your alderman represent YOU.
And when they don't, as is so often the case, then:
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION
ROGER J. ROMANELLI,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN FRITCHEY, objector, BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and its members LANGDON D. NEAL, chairman of Chicago Board of Elections, RICHARD A. COWEN, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections, and MARISEL A. HERNANDEZ, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections,
Respondents.
Case No. COEL000065
ELECTION CASE
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE DECEMBER 16TH, 2007 ORDER OF FINDINGS AND DECISION