I cared enough to get 250 signatures. Stapling isn’t about caring it’s about bring naive.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Obviously you did. And maybe you’ll get bailed out at the hearing.

But please don’t insult most of our readers’ intelligence: Not reading the rules, or reading them but not understanding them and not consulting someone who does understand them, isn’t being “naive” – just like the airplane mechanic isn’t being “naive” by tightening 99 bolts but not the 100th, which causes the plane to crash.

Your analogy I’d not working for me Bob, but you are entitled to your opinion. I hope I just get bawled out. I was speaking figuratively about being kicked off the ballot.

It is a shame that more folks are not running for the Park District Commissioner. Although the gesture of not raising taxes was obviously a preemptive strike to discourage folks for running; I think that the swimming pool non-referendum decision was a mistake.

I don’t know Ms. Grau or what her positions are on Park District issues, but I hope they allow her to run to at least make the existing three commissioners do some work.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Centennial water park “non-referendum decision” was a brilliant political masterstroke by, and an integrity-bankrupt artifice from, the Park Board members: it enabled them to claim (without having to prove it with votes) that the taxpayers wanted to blow $8 million on a 3-month a year facility, without having to risk disregarding a “no” vote and catching political hell if they went ahead and bought it anyway.

However, to our knowledge Ms. Grau never publicly commented on that decision back when it was being made – so she might very well be cut from the same ignore-the-taxpayers-and-spend-what-we-want cloth as at least two of the folks she wants to run against.

Just a bit of research on Ms. Grau gives a pretty clear picture of the motivation behind the challenge. Just another example of politics.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “research” and what “motivation”?

Ms. Grau:

You not only failed to follow the explicit rules of the Cook County Board of Elections in completing your candidate packet, but you also listed the wrong body of government on your Statement of Candidacy. Apparently, the rules only apply to the other candidates and not you.

Moreover, in the three short sentences you wrote on this blog, you managed to include two glaring typos. I’m starting to see a trend in your actions – and it’s one I don’t like to see in my elected officials.

By the way – since you’ve decided to post something here – do you care to enlighten us on what it is you think the current Park Board is or isn’t doing with regard to the green initiatives that you hold so dear?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not be too persnickety about typos in blog comments as reflecting on one’s qualifications for public office. For all we know, that might disqualify most of our elected officials.

If you look at Ms. Grau’s public profile on LinkedIn, her political leanings become rather clear.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/cindy-grau/66/519/8a3

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve got Democrats and Republicans on all of our local NON-PARTISAN governmental bodies, so we don’t put all that much stock in those kinds of labels – especially when we’ve seen more than enough anomalies in political behavior (e.g., nominal “R”s blowing public money like drunken “D”s) to shoot many of those stereotypes in the kazoo.

Thank you 1:27. You beat me to it. Combine that with the fact that Foss-Eggemann is a thillens supporter and this assures he will not lose again and you see the politics involved.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We suggest you wait and see what happens to those objections after the hearing on Friday before anointing Thillens. But as for Foss-Eggemann, “a Thillens supporter,” challenging Grau’s petitions, did you expect a Grau supporter to challenge them?

Ms. Grau, do yourself a big favor and stop commenting on this blog, at least stop including your name. It’s suicide in that the result is preordained.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, because it makes you anonymous folks seem even more craven than you might otherwise be.

“It’s important to protect the integrity of the electoral process, including the details.”

So in our recent local election we both candidates playing very loose with the facts if not flat out lying. We had money ON BOTH SIDES that came from god knows where. I am sure we had significant dollars that even came from out of state, all so my mailbox could be filled with this utter crap making claims about one candidates record or past and almost zero discussion of what each of them would actually do. That is actually a good thing considering they both had records of not doing what they said or doing things in the past that contradicted what they are now saying.

During this whole mess I did not hear you or anyone on the other side trying to add some sanity to this mess.

But now you have come forward in a big way!! Thanks to you we can now sleep well tonight knowing that someone is on guard watching the integrity of the electoral process…..or at least how well your opponents are stapling their documents!!

I am sure Mel is sleeping well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Moylan v. Thillens was not susceptible to any “sanity,” so we didn’t choose to waste our time trying to add any. But at least Thillens appears to have filed his petitions correctly – a low bar, to be sure, but one that seems to have caused others to stumble.

No PD I did not expect a Grau supporter to challenge them. I simply wanted to point out the politics involved here. If you look at the group that Ms. Grau volunteers/works for and some of their positions and Thillens to the mix I feel like that is at leas worth documenting for the discussion, which you did not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We didn’t even know about Ms. Grau’s affiliation with the AAUW when we published this post. However, since we do not perceive it to be inherently antithetical to the Maine Twp. Republican Organization, had we known about it we probably would not have drawn your inference.

With regard to her challenge of Cynthia Grau’s Park District Board candidacy, Char Foss-Eggeman has cited a commitment to the integrity of the electoral process as her prime motivation. Cool, but since Park Ridge politics pretend to be non-partisan, it’s not clear why the Maine Township Republican CommitteeMAN has such an interest in a Park District election. And to be honest, it has occurred to me that the real reason for Foss-Eggeman’s “objection” has more to do with a thinly disguised attempt to use a document stapling error to remove a dangerous liberal from the contest.

If Char is so obsessed with the integrity of the electoral process, she need look no further than her 2014 campaign. She might say to herself: “Char, how do you account for the fact that all these people from a lot of places way, way outside of Maine Township (and outside of Illinois even) spent $60,000 on an unpaid township political job.”

One of the outfits working for and contributing to Char’s campaign was Liberty Principles PAC, a Super PAC operated by none other than Dan Proft, a C list right wing talk show host and erstwhile friend of Cicero Town President Larry Dominick. Liberty Principles’ largest donor by far is a cat name of Richard Uihlein, who is also a major supporter of the Illinois Family Institute. The IFI is a little bit far right and a little bit homophobic (they came to town several years ago for the purpose of making changes to Maine South’s biology curriculum).

Uihlein’s company – formerly based in Waukegan – is now based in Wisconsin, where the small government libertarian benefits from $18.6 million in state incentives funded by Wisconsin taxpayers (the free market is more free for some than for others). For his part, Proft lives downtown. “Why the sudden interest in Maine Township?” Char might hypothetically ask herself. Remember, when Char talks about taking the Republican Party back, the people who stole it were also Republicans. So there’s that.

The sources of Char’s campaign contributions are a matter of public record but not obvious to the casual voter. One has to go look for the info, and then spend another 15 minutes tracing back further.

http://bit.ly/1BAQaYw

Depending on one’s political proclivities, knowledge of where that $60,000 came from might put a different spin on a race that would normally be under the radar.

Now, if Char really wanted to fixate on the integrity of the electoral process, she might take a look at the mailers produced by her campaign and then compare them to the mailers produced by Liberty Principles. Because of the vast quantity of campaign collateral coming in the door last sSpring it was impossible not to note the similarities between the material produced independently by the two staffs. It was like they were written and designed by the same person. Clearly they could not have been, because federal campaign laws prohibit cooperation between campaigns and PACS. Red, white and blue is red, white and blue and one negative message is much like another.

Still, details like that can undermine the citizenry’s perception of electoral integrity. It’s not as important as how well a candidate handles paper fasteners, but it still matters.

EDITOR’S NOTE: MWIP, you raise some good points and some less good points.

We’re no fans of Proft, but even a cursory review of Ms. Foss-Eggemann’s campaign reports belies your sinister implications. For example, her D-2 Quarterly Report for 1/1/2014 to 3/31/2014 shows that, of the 51 contributors representing over $36,000 in contributions, only one sports an out-of-state address (Char’s mother in Florida), while the vast majority of the rest appear to be Maine Twp-based. Similarly, her D-2 for the period 7/1/2013 to 9/30/2013 accounting for $22,000 more of contributions appears to be Illinois-based – including your buddy Mr. Uihlein (Lake Forest) – except for Char’s family members.

So while it’s always good to have this kind of information available, even about a Republican committeeman race between Foss-Eggemann and Carol Teschky (who is more of a “RINO,” like the rest of Maine Twp’s Provenzano Brigade who supported Democrat Moylan in two straight elections), it doesn’t seem as relevant to this post as whether a candidate can comply with the basic rules of petition filing.

The 6:32 post was intended to be addressed to Ms. Foss-Eggemann, not PD. The quote at the top came directly from her.

She is the elected official who is worried about integrity when it comes to staples vs. black binder clips.

But she did not add any sanity in the recent process where both sides did not behave in a way that reflects well on the electoral process. Apparently she does not see the integrity in that part of the process as an issue….but look out you black binder users!! She is coming for ya!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: While binder clips v. staples is a convenient shorthand way to address the issue, we suspect the two economic interest-related documents may be more decisive to the challenge.

Hmmmmm…..”inherently antithetical”. Them’s some big words!!

Well let me just say this. She was involved in recruiting Dathan Paterno for the school board and had Congressman and radio host Joe Walsh as a speaker at an event.

These things are not inherently bad but I find it impossible to believe person who has these two things on her record would in any way want a someone who works for an organization that, for example, supports Gay marriage or contraception or the Affordable Care Act to be on the ballot for the Park District, School board or dog catcher.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry if those 9 syllables threw you.

This editor is fine with “Gay marriage” (we didn’t realize it was promoted to initial capitalization), contraception and the ACA, yet we endorsed Dathan Paterno two elections ago. On the other hand, we don’t trust Mike Madigan, John Cullerton or Rahm Emanuel as far as we can drop-kick them. And we’re glad John Heyde will soon be leaving the building at D-64. So go figure.

But we’re glad you straightened us out on Joe Walsh: that explains why he looked so puzzled when we kept shouting “Play Funk #49!”

Mr. Pubdog:
To clarify: Uline, Richard Uihlein’s company, is headquartered in Pleasant Prairie, WI. The tax benefits generously conferred upon him by the citizens of WI allow him to reside in Lake Forest, IL

EDITOR’S NOTE: MWIP:

We’ve got all we can handle keeping an eye on things here in Park Ridge. If those cheeseheads want to throw millions at Uihlein, his company, or the Bill Cosby Defense Fund, it’s not going to cause us any lost shut-eye.

I did not incorrectly fill out my statement of candidacy. That is incorrect information.

I am not afraid of using my name because you are talking about me whether I respond or not.

AAUW is not a partisan organization.

I cannot comment on the water park other than to say that a lesson should have been learned from the public’s reaction to that decision.

I think I’ve answered most of the things I’ve read here, except for the typos! That comes from fat fingering my keyboard on my tiny phone and autocorrect. I’m an excellent speller but need to proofread better.

Carry on.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re glad to see you engage here – if you can hold your own on this blog, O’Brien, Ryan and Thillens will be a snap.

We didn’t think AAUW was a “partisan” organization, and we don’t see how anybody else would draw that conclusion.

What “lesson should have been learned from the public’s reaction to that decision”?

Typos are “details.”

We intend to.

Gotcha, but you kind of threw me off with the detour into the Bill Cosby Defense Fund!

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’ve got to work on your free association, MWIP.

Wild Irish:

The is some theorizing in your post but overall I love it!! I am not saying she is guilty of anything other than taking advantage of the violation of a rule. I just think there is too much interplay of people and positions not to at least see and discuss some of the politics (perhaps they are all coincidences) involved.

I do agree with her that the integrity of the electoral process is critical. I just think (as part of your post points out) if she really wants to make dramatic improvements in the integrity she should stop looking at staples and look at other parts of the process. It is not staples that have caused the electorate to be come so disillusioned with our politicians and elections in general.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There’s nothing wrong with connecting the dots.

In Illinois the electorate became “so disillusioned with out politicians and elections in general” due to 30+ years of Madigan’s Democratic imperialism, aided and abetted by Republican In Name Only (“RINO”) governors “Big Jim” Thompson, “Slim Jim” Edgar and George “No. 16627-424” Ryan. And on the Maine Twp. level the disillusionment, at least for real Republicans, comes from the RINO Provenzano Crew that cuddles up in the same bed with Madigan cabana boy Marty Moylan.

In light of various past board of election decisions on the exact same topics (something a lawyer filing such objections would presumably have checked since a simple Internet search by a simple person disclosed) the objections appear to be nothing more than distract annoy and delay tactics engaged in by the very politicians that this blog so loves to hate. She should be ashamed of herself for filing them.

here you go:

Statement of economic interest that identified the office or position as “City of Chgo—City Council” is sufficient. Wahadlo v. Hairston, 11-EB-ALD-089, CBEC, December 29, 2010. Even if the statement failed to properly identify the office for which the person is a candidate, removal from the ballot is not a permissible sanction when the office is mistakenly or inadvertently described, citing Requena v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill.App.3d 728 (1st Dist. 1998). Wahadlo v. Hairston, 11-EB-ALD-089, CBEC, December 29, 2010.

Where candidate’s nomination papers contained 29 nominating petition sheets, a statement of candidacy and a statement of economic interests receipt and were bound by two metal clips, including one large metal paperclip, and photograph of the candidate’s nomination papers taken by Board staff accurately depicted the nature of the candidate’s nomination papers at the time of filing, the Electoral Board found that as a matter of law based upon the holding in Bendell, the candidate’s nomination papers substantially complied with Section 10-4 of the Election Code. Haynes v. Anderson, 07-EB-ALD-017, CBEC, January 12, 2007.
Fastening the nominating papers with only a rubber band did not comply with the fastening requirements of Section 10-4. Brown v. Muhammad, 11-EB-ALD-006, CBEC, January 7, 2011.
Candidate testified that she had filed her papers having been stapled within a yellow folder. At the time of the hearing, the papers were held together with a black clasp. The hearing officer examined the papers, especially the petition sheets and found evidence of stapling of the papers in the upper left corner of the documents. The hearing officer found the candidate’s testimony to be credible. In addition, the Receipt for Nomination Papers – City of Chicago had the “Yes” box marked to the question: “Are the Nominating Papers bound? If yes, describe how they are bound: File Folder (yellow)”. Held: candidate’s nomination papers were securely bound and fastened in book form and complied with Section 10-4 of the Code. Brummit v. Tankersley, 11-EB-ALD-149, CBEC, December 29, 2010.
Hearing officer found that a review of the picture of the candidate’s nomination papers when they were filed revealed that they were secured by a large metal binding clip and that they were fastened in a secure and suitable manner as required by Section 10-4 of the Election Code. Bocanegra v. Rodriguez, 11- EB-ALD-197, CBEC, January 18, 2011.
Where it was stipulated that when the candidate’s nomination papers were filed with the Board, they consisted of 32 pieces of legal size paper and one statement of economic interests receipt held together by two jumbo-sized paper clips, each measuring about three inches in length, with the two paper clips placed about two inches apart at the center of the top of the bundle of papers, the nomination papers substantially complied with the binding requirements of Section 10-4 of the Code as held in Bendell. Haynes v. Pritchett, 07-EB-ALD-20, CBEC, January 16, 2007.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So it looks like we should conclude from all of this that you will be representing Ms. Grau at Friday’s hearing, and that she will win easily. You should have provided a “Spoiler Alert” at the beginning of your comment.

While we’re not election law specialists, it’s our understanding that the only true binding “precedent” you’ve cited is the Requena appellate court decision, where the issue was the appropriate sanction for failing to adequately identify the office sought on the candidate’s statement of economic interest. But since that doesn’t address all of the issues raised in the objection, there may still be some suspense in Friday’s hearing.

I don’t like the challenge.

To me, it reeks of political nonsense that I’d rather not have in local politics. I think what Mrs Grau got seemed close enough. Getting 250 signatures without a political organization is a lot of work. In reviewing the procedure to submit the candidate packet, it is a little ambiguous as well.

I say this as someone who thinks the “Go Green” crap, is crap, and who supports more of what Char does. I’d like to see some debates. I’d like to see less of political gamesmanship.

Out of all of the hankering over the beautiful new pool and (state subsidized) “Prospect Park”, not one of you Jamoke’s decided to challenge the incumbents? I guess that tells the Park Board that they have made the right decisions. I really think this is a green light for more upgrades and improvements to our aging park infrastructure.

Looking forward to another great year at the pool!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Frankly, we’re not particularly enthusiastic about the challenge, either, especially to the extent it could conceivably help re-elect OPM spendthrift like Ryan and Thillens. But the idea that “close enough” has become a standard of performance reminds us of the old saying “good enough for government work,” and doesn’t bode well for somebody seeking the ability to exert control over a $17 million budget.

By what passes as your logic, advisory referendums – like former Park Boards held back when they actually cared about trying to measure public support before building expensive amenities like a new Oakton pool/water park, a new Centennial pool/water park, or another indoor recreational facility – are unnecessary and undesirable when a vocal minority wants something (and wants the whole community to pay for it) simply by sweet-talking a few bureaucrats and a few elected officials willing to buy friends and political support using OPM and long-term debt.

That’s what “reeks of political nonsense.”

I was just pointing out that ms eggerman instead of focusing on substantive issues she is doing what the madigoons and cullertitans have been doing for years- trying to knock candidates off the ballot through technicalities (see above binder clips =ok; rubber bands = not ok) rather than on the substantive rules (enough valid signatures with the voting district) in order to squelch opposition and solidify existing incumbent majority aligned with her interests. Politics as usual -even madigan and Cullerton pontificate that their self serving actions are for the “sake of integrity of the system” or some similar phony excuse.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We weren’t aware that the “existing incumbent majority” is “aligned with [Ms. Foss-Eggemann’s] interests. And we’re also not aware of the legal basis for treating the number of “valid signatures with[in] the voting district” as “substantive” but the other filing requirements as mere “technicalities.”

PD, you should know there’s no such thing as a free association.
The issue is, or should be, whether Ms. Grau substantially complied with the election law. Technicalities like the ones employed here by Ms. Foss to reduce voter choice violate the spirit of the law. And regardless who prevails tomorrow, you know it and so does everyone else. Yeah, it’s how the game is played. If you think a process people are still dying for all over the world is just a game.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hmmm…we thought whether “Ms. Grau substantially complied with the election law” is what the election panel – and not bloggers or commentators – is supposed to determine at tomorrow’s hearing, which itself is part of the legal process designed to ensure that the election laws are followed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hmmm…we thought whether “Ms. Grau substantially complied with the election law” is what the election panel – and not bloggers or commentators – is supposed to determine at tomorrow’s hearing, which itself is part of the legal process designed to ensure that the election laws are followed.

Pubdog. Madigan and Cullerton even george Ryan would be proud of and agree with your statement as I’m sure does the objector. You all apparently are more similar when it comes to politics than you think.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sticks and stones might break our bones but words – even insulting associations with slimeballs like Madigan, Cullerton and Ryan – will never hurt us.

We’re big on abiding by the legal process, not only when it works for us (which is when so many local politicians, bureaucrats and anonymous commentators love it, too) but even when it works against us (which is when those same politicians, bureaucrats and anonmymous commentators curse and demean it). C’est la vie.

I think we can agree (even though most of us are anon) that none of us want election fraud including fake signatures to get someone on the ballot in the first place. But is that really what we think happened here??

This incident reminds me of the “weasley” kid in junior high who would tattle on classmates to gain favor with the teacher and give himself a better opportunity. “Teacher!!!! Ms. Grau didn’t use staples!!!”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This isn’t about “election fraud,” it’s about complying with the election laws. Or not, if they don’t suit you. Kind of like: “Gee, officer, I can understand if I was 20 miles over…but writing me up for a lousy 5 over? C’mon!”

“The purpose of requiring candidates to securely bind and number the petitions is to prevent tampering, thereby preserving not only the integrity of the petitions submitted, but also the election process in general. Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill. App. 3d 557, 562 (1989). These provisions are mandatory, and failing to comply with even one of them will result in the petitions’ invalidation. See Jones, 190 Ill. App. 3d at 562-63.”

And within the past 30 days, for want of a staple two candidacies have been lost: http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/2014/12/20/morris-electoral-board-rules-in-favor-of-objectors/ajpnw2p/

The written decision from the board, upholding the hearing officer’s recommendation, states the officer inspected the nomination papers and found no impressions at the “bind here” portion of the papers that resembled impressions that would be left by a binder clip.

Ms frost-eggman did not object that the petitions were not bound at all (the Morris case determined there was no evidence of a binder clip – thus implying a binder clip is sufficient) but that it was not stapled but instead bound with a binder clip. So she admitted that the petitions complied with prior rulings yet still objected. Doing Substantial justice to the electoral rules is the phrase often used. Not having enough valid signatures – sure not substantial justice. (You know doing 80 in 30 zone to use your example which warrants commensurate punishment -potential arrest vs doing 5 miles over where office has discretion to give you a warning not a citation and send you on your way).
Seems someone wants to protect the rank and file republicans from getting voted out by avoiding having to debate on the issues or be challenge by someone who has more liberal views (according to someone’s earlier posts that Internet searched the candidates background).objecting to Binder clip v staple is as much an act of “protecting integrity” as is an act of refusing to pay your d64 school fees in protest (didn’t you criticize someone for doing that in last post?). Just saying if this objector finds those actions as integral to protecting the integrity of the system I wonder how clouded her judgment is on issues that have a real impact on citizens of Maine township. Geez how do these types get elected? (That was rhetorical -I know the answer- has to do with your quote about the best argument against democracy)

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll try to make this as simple as we can because you appear to need it.

1.Illinois election law, including its petition rules, is intended to provide integrity for our elections.
2.Those petition rule are relatively easy to observe by anyone who is reasonably competent and diligent.
3.Election law permits objections to non-complying petitions.
4.Hearings on objections are intended to provide “Substantial justice” in this area.

Had Grau simply complied with the petition rules we wouldn’t be having these discussions. Unfortunately, she either wasn’t competent enough or diligent enough to do so, which likely is why she and her apologists are trying to shift the blame to the objector.

In following your link of the Morris case I came upon this decision

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2014/1stDistrict/1140446.pdf

Seems to say minor defects need not be handled as harshly as you suggest. Apparently the devil is not in the details unless the details are something that goes to the intent of the statute. Substantial compliance apparently is ok -you know 4 or 5 miles over is substantially complying so give a warning don’t publicly flog the offending driver and then deprive that driver of his freedom. Thank goodness you ain’t the sheriff in town. Our lockup would be full of those 5 mile over speeders that are threatening the integrity of our justice system by flagrantly disobeying the law!! Hang them high pubdog – they should get the most serious punishment (throwing them off the ballot) for having the audacity to use a binder clip over a staple!!! (Maybe the objector can get her a deal on a uline stapler?)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Frankly, because we so strongly favor contested elections (this editor signed Ryan’s nominating petition even though he would never vote for her for any public office), we would prefer a challenger to folks like Thillens and Ryan. But when a candidate can’t even get the petition process right, that’s a sad commentary on his/her competence and/or diligence.

That being said, we suggest that you re-read this post – move your lips if you need to – and then tell us where WE have suggested how “harshly” the election hearing board should handle these defects.

So is your comment simply stupid, or dishonest?

I stand corrected although tampering or changing signatures or data might be considered fraud.

As to whether Foss-Eggemann wins, that would not change my feeling about the act. I would actually find it even more “weaseley” if she wins her objection.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So an election board’s determination that proves Grau’s petitions were non-compliant and disqualify her from the ballot makes the objections even more “weasely”?

That is, in a word, retarded.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This isn’t about “election fraud,” it’s about complying with the election laws. Or not, if they don’t suit you. Kind of like: “Gee, officer, I can understand if I was 20 miles over…but writing me up for a lousy 5 over? C’mon!”

You want her to get “written up” (off ballot the harshest penalty the board can give)for a lousy 5 miles over (that is using a binder clip instead of a staple)

If you re read your own editors notes along with your original post -I ll give you s moment maybe you need to process it too – that is what you are saying and you are giving your friend credit for objecting to “save the integrity of the system” rather than her real purpose in making the objection and yours for this post – to portray the candidate as incompetent and not diligent ergo not fit to serve with the great statesmen that grace our park board.
And I wrote that with minimal lip movement.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The candidate appears to not need our help in that regard, as her inability to follow petition rules demonstrates that better than we ever could.

As for “the great statesmen” on the Park Board, this editor would never vote for Ryan or Thillens for any local public office: we only suggested a hold-your-nose vote for Thillens for the State legislature as a vote against Madigan’s veto-proof majority as enabled by his Des Plaines-based cabana boy, Marty Moylan. So the last thing we want is an uncontested election that ensures their re-election.

That being said, however, we also have no great desire to replace them with somebody who can’t even get the petition process right.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We suggest you wait and see what happens to those objections after the hearing on Friday before anointing Thillens. But as for Foss-Eggemann, “a Thillens supporter,” callenging Grau’s petitions, did you expect a Grau supporter to challenge them?

Also if your friend the objector truly is only concerned about the integrity of the process – then why not examine everyone’s petitions for any flub of the rules? Maybe the stapler for her friends running didn’t staple all the way through?
No need to answer. We know her true intentions- madigan Cullerton ryan style politics alive and well in Maine township.

EDITOR’S NOTE: How do you know she didn’t – and concluded only Grau’s petitions appeared non-compliant?

But you’re right about one thing: “madigan Cullerton ryan style politics” is “alive and well in Maine township” – in the form of the Bobby Provenzano crew of RINOs running it.

Not retarded PD….human nature. Come on now you are not too old to remember and it was not any different even though we did not go to the same schools or even live in the same town.

For someone to tattle for their own benefit was bad. Sometimes it worked and sometimes the teacher saw through it. When it worked and the got the benefit that made even worse. The would always sit there all smug with this grin on their face.

You remember.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your tattletale analogy fails in the first instance because the objector is not a candidate and will not directly benefit from Grau being knocked off the ballot.

On the other hand, if your goal is to encourage disregard for what are relatively simple rules for getting on a ballot, just say so.

Here’s a fun fact for you: Char’s attorney representing this challenge is John Fogarty Jr., who currently serves as general counsel to the Illinois Republican Party.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Would you expect her to hire the general counsel of the Illinois Democratic Party?

Has anyone considered the possibility that Char is trying to protect Ryan’s candidacy?

EDITOR’S NOTE: No.

This isn’t the Homecoming Float Committee. This is elected office. The State Board of Elections is the body that regulates the campaigning for every election in the state from the governor to the dog catchers. There are rules, and this being Illinois with its penchant for dishonest officials, my guess is every one of those rules was written in response to someone doing or attempting some fraud.

Also, the way the State Board of Elections is designed, they rely on citizens to inspect and file objections to candidate’s candidacy papers. There is no Board inspection of these filings. None. A candidate can file 250 petitions all signed by Scooby Doo, and if no one objects, that candidate is on the ballot.

And the clip is just one of the problems raised in the objection.

If Ms. Grau’s supporters spent as much time reading the easily found instructions for filing, or spent one tenth the time speaking to someone familiar with campaign rules, as they have typing complaints here, there would be no violations to object to.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That pretty well sums it up. And you make a great point about Illinois election law depending upon private citizens to enforce it through the objections process.

Of course, we’d all be better off if the public official receiving the petitions for filing were to determine AT THAT TIME OF FILING whether they at least satisfied the structural requirements; e.g., the “securely fastened” rule, the page numbering rule, the required items rule, etc. – so that the only things left for challenge by private objectors would be the “substantive” ones like lawful circulator, valid notary and valid signatures.

But this being Illinois, a state that has been flushed down the toilet for the past 30 years by all the crooks and morons the voters keep electing – primarily Democrats, with the assistance of three RINO governors – the idea of reforming/improving the petition process is probably a non-starter.

No analogy is perfect. Your analogy about the speeding ticket does not work either in that you are caught by a police officer rather than having a fellow citizen file an objection to you driving 5 mph over.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The point at which our analogy was directed (and the same one the “tattletale” analogy was directed to) was the “substantialness” of the violation; i.e., binder-clip violation = 5 miles over v. invalid signatures + 30 miles over.

But as has been pointed out, a determination of whether that’s a valid distinction or not cannot even be made unless a citizen files an objection. So the objection serves the purpose the legislature intended: safeguarding the integrity of one portion of our election process from folks who can’t seem to figure out the petition process, or scofflaws who simply disregard it.

Anybody who believes that this objector looked over everybody’s petitions for errors or that believes she did it for purposes of “integrity” are to use pubdog’s terms either stupid or dishonest

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-ballot-petition-rauner-quinn-illinois-edit-0829-20140828-story.html

EDITOR’S NOTE: Too bad none of the folks defending Grau’s inept filing care about anything more than keeping her on the ballot, irrespective of her compliance or non-compliance with the election laws – as evidenced by the fact that not one of them has even suggested (as the Tribune editorial does) that “the General Assembly pass new laws to make the election code fairer, simpler, more sensible, more welcoming to would-be candidates.”

That’s because those folks don’t care about what John Adams called “A government of laws, and not of men” – unless those laws operate to keep their candidate on the ballot.

Another useful insight to the challenge process. Note that the purpose often is to tie up the candidate in focussing on the legal challenge so as time and money is pulled away from the campaign. Hmmmmmm? Could that be happening in our quaint lil town? Surely ms eggman wouldn’t engage in such tactics less she lower herself to the Madigoons’ level.

Note in this article the director of Illinois campaign for political reform is quoted as saying “if we throw out a challenge based on something like a typo instead of the merits of the complaint that WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE of the challenge”
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=176570
slimey politicians using loophole to their advantage.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The H-A article says nothing about the objections being based on “a typo.”

We also find your use of the term “Madigoons” interesting, considering that we’ve heard today that at least some of these anonymous comments are coming from the Maine Twp. RINO brigade that helped one of the Madigoons – Marty Moylan – get elected and re-elected.

Should your friend the objector have insulted suggested (as the Tribune editorial does) that “the General Assembly pass new laws to make the election code fairer, simpler, more sensible, more welcoming to would-be candidates.” Rather than try to knock a candidate off the ballot on typo-like rookie flubs and claim protection of integrity of the system as her motive? Stupid or dishonest? (Hey your catch phrase works here too)

EDITOR’S NOTE: We love the irony of the one attempting to enforce the rules as they are (through lawful objections) being attacked by folks like you who, without advocating a change in the laws, are trying to excuse the scofflaw (or incompetent) candidate with alibis like “rookie flubs” for NON-“typo” deficiencies.

But the greater irony is that we’re defending a process that could actually make it easier for incumbents like Ryan and Thillens to be re-elected. Sometimes standing on principle sucks, but as JQA once said: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Objections are fairly common, with over 140 being heard on Suburban Cook elections for the April 7 election alone, all smaller local offices.

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/electoralboard/pages/default.aspx

The purpose behind the signature requirement is not to avoid any kind of voter fraud (voting doesn’t occur until election day). The purpose for requiring someone to get enough signatures is to make sure the ballot is manageable and will consist of only those candidates that show a modicum of support otherwise every Tom dick and Charlotte would put their name on the ballot potentially making the ballot longer than a novel with names of people running just for kicks. Thus saying you are objecting to someone’s petition to uphold the integrity of the system means you are doing it to uphold this stars purpose of the Signature requirement not to prevent voter fraud. the candidate here actually garnered enough valid signatures (other the vulture looking over her petition would have made that a part of the challenge) SOOO how does enforcing the staple requirement uphold the purpose of ensuring that the ballot is not overwhelmed with candidates that aren’t even serious about winning????

Of course challenges are common because they are employed not to fulfil the purpose of the signature requirement but simply to harass and cause the candidate to waste time and money or ultimately to quit or be thrown off the ballot. Our very own current president used this tactic to knock of four opponents including an incumbent when he was running for office.
This whole blog was an attempt to try and make this objector seem noble rather than conniving and I think the readers of this blog are smarter than that. The objector was not even sly enough to do what the regulars do – have a cool aid drinking flunky file the objection to have plausible deniability of participating in the politics as usual tricks of the trade. Nothing noble or brave in making such an objection. Actually it is cowardly because it shows that the objector fears that if this candidate makes it in the ballot one or more of her incumbent chums will lose to her.
Sad. Stand up for reform. Don’t stoop to the dirty politics use of loopholes that you purport to detest. Shameful. Really shameful and hopefully the voters remember this next time she runs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: How interesting that you’re so motivated by just this one post as to submit 13 anonymous comments (1/7 @ 9:59PM; 1/8 @ 11:03AM, 3:31PM, 10:36PM & 11:05PM; 1/9 @ 8:18AM, 8:25AM, 4:59PM, 5:16PM, 5:24PM & 9:01PM; and 1/10 @ 8:03PM & 9:10PM) ripping the objector for doing exactly what this particular election law is designed for, permits, and actually encourages – and then suggesting she should have been more sly and had a “flunky” file the objections.

Apparently the closest you can come to “noble or brave” is to spell them correctly.

We’re willing to put the record of this blog and its editor up against anybody when it comes to standing up “for reform,” and “reform” candidates, in Park Ridge. And if you weren’t so “cowardly” you would come out of the closet and stand up for your version of “reform” in your own name.

The more I learn about the topic of challenges/objections to candidate petition the more it becomes apparent that the process is not used for any “integrity” protection AT ALL. Read this link and the quote from it below. Even a substantive challenge on validity of signatures often results in VALID signatures veins deemed invalid because the panel reviewing the petition signature against the voter registration signature will in the individuals subjective opinion say there is no match ( do you still sign your name the way you did when you registered at 18 years old?). A Green Party candidate had his own signature deemed invalid apparently because when it was scanned into the system. So what a bunch of showy for the objector to say she did this to protect the integrity of the system! Or for pubdog to say “that’s EXACTLY right”. You both are being stupid or dishonest. Hopefully my research will educate you both and you will advocate to fix the system rather than play the games it currently allows:

http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2014/12/01/running-for-office-in-chicago-can-be-challenging/

In 2006, Rich Whitney was the Green Party candidate for Governor. His own signature was challenged for being “not genuine.” He himself was seated at the computer terminal when his signature came up. And the image that came up on the computer of his signature was indeed his signature — but distended, as though it had been scanned poorly. And so even with the candidate/signer sitting right there, the board official still ruled that the signature was somehow not genuine.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Courts have consistently held that filing non-frivolous objections to candidate petitions inherently protects “the integrity of the system.” And as the Bendell case pointed out, “strict compliance” rather than “substantial compliance” with the page numbering and secure fastening requirements is required.

Based on the evidence presented in that case, a paper clip was a sufficiently secure fastener for those particular “6 to 8 pages which could not be separated without removing the paper clip.” That court, however, did not find that a paper clip would always be acceptable – as pointed out in the dissent, where Justice Wolfson stated that “[f]astening securely is not a trivial or nitpicking requirement” but is “obviously intended to prevent fraud or tampering, thus preserving the integrity of the papers.”

The H-A article also mention ms gruss was getting challenged for district 64 school board. The objector was Dan Johnston a supporter of local republicans. Interesting that ms eggmen did not feel the need to check those petitions in that race to protect the integrity of the system. Seems Chicago-style politics is at play.

Here is a list of the candidates in that race.
On the District 64 ballot, only one incumbent is seeking reelection: current Board President Anthony Borrelli. Newcomers hoping for a seat on the board include the following:

• Gregory Bublitz, who is currently director of special services for neighboring East Maine School District 63.

• Kristin Gruss, a personal injury attorney who interviewed in July for a vacancy on the District 64 board.

• Mark Eggemann, an account executive for a commercial real estate firm and 2013 campaign manager for Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt. Eggemann is also the husband of Maine Township Republican Committeeman and Park Ridge Library Board Trustee Char Foss-Eggemann.

• Athan “Tom” Sotos, an attorney and restaurant owner.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Claiming “Chicago-style politics” in ripping Ms. Foss-Eggemann for objecting only to Grau’s petitions but not objecting to other petitions is especially idiotic – although not surprising, given the contents of your 12 other comments to this post.

I gotta say you seem to be backing up or justifying these shenanigans. It’s making you less Pubdog, and more Scrubdog.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ho hum, more sticks and stones.

The majority of the court in Bendell v. Education Officers Electoral Board held that the petition fastening requirement demands “strict compliance,” not merely “substantial compliance.” And as Justice Wolfson said in dissent in the case: “Fastening securely is not a trivial or nitpicking requirement” but “is intended to prevent fraud or tampering, thus preserving the integrity of the papers.”

So challenges to petitions that don’t strictly comply with “fastening” rules are not “shenanigans” – except, apparently to supporters of the alleged scofflaw; or opponents of the objector.

Maybe the Maine township republican committewoman was actually involved in both objections but used another person to file the school board objection to avoid looking like Chicago style machine politics? You agree?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We thought by now it would have been clear, even to you, that we support non-frivolous petition challenges as a vital part of the current election law – although that law could be clarified and/or dumbed down so that inept candidates might still be able to get on the ballot.

Yes even your favorite politicians madigan and Blago engaged in defending the honor of the system. Very valiant but often they didn’t hide behind other like our main township republican committeewoman

http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive/newswire/display/72963/index.php

EDITOR’S NOTE: You seem to be confusing “frivolous” objections with legitimate ones, which even your indymedia link distinguishes between. Maybe it’s time for you to look for another hobby, because you’re starting to bore us.

Seems our republican committeewoman wants to attempt to become Maine townships madigan trying to amass power. Of course if she believed that legitimate objections should be revealed to protect the integrity of the system why doesn’t she own up to collaborating to knock off a candidate from the school board race where her husband is running? Seems she should if she believes as you so adamantly have been stating above. Right?
Instead like blago madigan and in true Chicago style politics she collaborated with others to object in that race without signing her name (you think she would be proud to since such action as you and she state protect the integrity of the system -cue the patriotic music and the stars and stripes waving in the background) – then examine the two links below which contain the objections to Grau and to gruss only one of which the rep committeewoman had the bravery to sign. Note that each is typed in same font, uses same terminology as if typed from the same form or even the same word processor, note the exact same date each was signed and notarized. But wait
The one for the race in which her husband is running does not have her name? What? Miss a chance to uphold the integrity of our democratic process?!
No worries another objector on the very same day with the same font and form took up the cause. Who is this crusader of justice so bravely standing up for the electoral process?
A lil research reveals he is a lawyer living in town, supporter of our local republicans. Nothing fishy about that I’m sure the Maine township committeewoman did not even know he was doing it as she was busy making sure her friends on park board had no opposition (sorry I mean standing up for integrity).
But wait. The petitions were not only filed on same day (maybe they just car pooled to help save the environment?) but they were also notarized at same time and BY the same notary. What?
Probably just the closest currency exchange notary near park ridge right?
Howeva
The notary for both objections who notarized in the presence of the signors (our rep township committeewoman AND this brave soul park ridge lawyer- you keeping up pubdog ?) happens to be an employee of the law firm of the lawyer who signed the objection to hopefully knock a candidate out of the race in which that committeewoman s husband is running (a race where someone leaked to the papers that another candidate was a defendant in a sexual harassment suit years ago that was settled – lawyers seem to like to look up old lawsuits as pubdog above you demonstrated)

Here are the links for all to judge for themselves. Stupid or dishonest about protecting the integrity?
Or just same old Chicago style politics in park ridge?!
http://www.cookctyclerk.com/elections/electoralboard/CaseDocuments//2014COEBPD04.pdf

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/electoralboard/CaseDocuments//2014COEBSD91.pdf

Still bored pubdog?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep,

So why avoid the question?
Why didn’t she own up to collaborating to knock off a candidate from the school board race where her husband is running?

EDITOR’S NOTE: So why not identify yourself?

And why are you so obsessed either with Grau’s candidacy, or with ripping her objector, that you have accounted for close to half of the comments to this post?

I gotta say that last post 5:39 was like a Perry Mason finale. Nice job posting on that one. Very entertaining and I believe it as well.

you are right that the purpose of the securely fasten is to be able to tell if someone after the filing deadline pulled Apart the petitions presumably to add more valid signatures. Important goal. But in Grau s case no one is even claiming that she didn’t have enough signatures. So why the fuss over whether someone would be able to pull them apart without leaving indentations?
So what happened with Gruss objection? Why you so quiet on that one? The same H-A article you based this post upon also mentioned that one. You have an update on Grau how about an update on Gruss?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ask the legislators who drafted the law, but the courts have looked at the secure fastening rules as not only addressing the addition of more signatures but also to removing signatures; to adding missing information and correcting erroneous information on a page, etc. If you can tear yourself away from your obsession for awhile you could research the legislative history of the secure fastening requirement.

Content yourself with the Grau objection.

I am interested in the “integrity of the system” so if gruss true objectors need not disclose herself why should I?
Chicago style politics is the name of the game where anonymous actions behind the scenes – but without being clever enough to cover your tracks is rampant. Apparently park ridge is no exception

I feel it’s my public service to point this out – or maybe I’m practicing for my own blog. Can’t be that hard to do. I hear some blogger has hundreds of readers

EDITOR’S NOTE: And we feel its our public service to call you out.

But since you seem to want to dominate the comments with the same repetitive and boring whine, we may have to treat you as an obsessed cyberstalker/troll and cut you off.

why avoid the question?
Why didn’t she own up to collaborating to knock off a candidate from the school board race where her husband is running?

Your silence speaks volumes.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And now so will yours. Adios.

I gotta ask. Are you banning a poster for digging on something? I actually thought they have brought more to this than anything around here in a long time.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we’re banning an obsessive/compulsive boring troll after publishing 19 of his/her comments.

You call him a troll. Do you know what a troll is? He nailed something and looks as he did his research. A common person or group responsible for trying to eliminate a few candidates. That’s huge. I get it, its your blog, your rules. Sounds like the Scrubdog is either in with this group or just butthurt. Grow a sack

EDITOR’S NOTE: …says one anonymous troll defending another anonymous troll. Or one and the same anonymous troll posting under different IP addresses.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Now that you’ve earned “boring troll” status you won’t be published again (at least not intentionally) until you identify yourself.

And, yes, we believe that non-frivolous objections to non-compliant petitions ALWAYS uphold the integrity of the election system, no matter who files them.

Further clarification: The hearing officer denied all of the objections raised. The objector then withdrew her/his objection today. Mel Thillens was present at the hearing last Monday when the case was argued.