Brockett Blog

This story originally was published Jan. 9, 2003 in the Braidwood Journal.

The second foot dropped in Braidwood’s petition problems on Tuesday when mayoral candidate Richard Girot was removed from the election ballot.

A 2-1 vote of Braidwood’s electoral board meant Girot became the third candidate in the past eight days to find himself off the Feb. 25 primary election ballot. On Dec. 30, mayoral candidate Wayne Saltzman and James Hutton, a candidate for commissioner of public buildings and property, also were removed by the board after their petitions did not conform with election guidelines.

Braidwood resident Kenneth Keith’s contest to Girot’s petitions noted a lack of binding on the petition paperwork and an incorrect date for the election on the petitions.

“[Candidates] have to comply with the simple requirements of the election code,” said Burton Odelson, an attorney representing Keith.

Girot’s attorney, Scott Pyles, argued that the discrepancies should be considered minor technical errors and did not warrant a mandatory elimination from ballots.

“All we’re talking about is screwing up on a date and whether it was bound by a paper clip,” Pyles told the board, which included City Clerk Sue Grygiel and commissioners Kay Heberer and Homer Cole.

Pyles indicated after the hearing that the case could be appealed in Will County court before the primary. A reversal means Girot would be placed back on the primary ballot.

Primary date listed
A petition packet filed for office in Braidwood includes a copy of a receipt, a statement of economic interest filed with Will County, a statement of candidacy, petitions of nominations, form D-5 and a signed code of fair campaign practices.

In Braidwood, a candidate must compile 12 signatures to be considered for the ballot. In Girot’s case, there were three pages worth of signatures but no paper ever listed the date of the election.

Instead of the Feb. 25 primary date, Girot listed Jan. 27. That date marks the deadline for voter registration in the primary, not the primary itself.

“He asked to be put on the ballot for a date on which there was no election,” said Odelson. “…If you don’t do it right, you don’t have the right to ballot access.”

Pyles, who said his client saw the date on a handout given by Grygiel and put the date down on accident, admitted the date was an error but said it did not mislead anyone who signed Girot’s petition or Grygiel herself.

“She knew what election this belonged to,” he said. “They’re not misleading to the clerk.”

Bound-aries
Most of the two-and-one-half-hour hearing consisted of arguments involving whether the petitions were bound sufficiently.

Grygiel, who moved down the table in Braidwood City Hall and was sworn in as a witness, testified Girot’s papers were not bound in any way when the former mayor turned in his packet. Grygiel said she later used a paper clip to make sure the papers stayed together.

The Illinois election code states that petitions must be bound, like a book, when turned in for office.

Girot testified that he handed Grygiel the papers with a paperclip attached, and she later stapled the papers in the top center portion of the paperwork. Under cross-examination, Odelson revealed none of the papers showed signs of stapling.

Pyles called the paperclip an act of substantial compliance, which would mean that it wouldn’t be enough to remove Girot from the ballot.

“Let’s let the voters decide who is going to be the mayor … not some technicalities,” said Pyles, who formerly served Braidwood as city attorney.

Pyles went on to bring both Hutton and Saltzman to the stand in an attempt to reveal Grygiel’s memory of paperclips was faulty. She recalled both former candidates did not use paperclips, while both men testified they did use the metallic devices to hold their petitions together.

Odelson said whether the paperclips were present or not, they still do not constitute proper binding.

“Bound does not mean a paper clip in this case,” said Odelson. “We don’t make exceptions for a special few.”

Pyles countered some of the questions of technicality by bringing up other aspects of the petition process. He asked for much of the information be “on the record,” most likely in the event the case were appealed.

Those points included Police Chief Rob Andreina serving the petition objections instead of the mandated county sheriff’s representative.

The board deliberated for 20 minutes before delivering their vote, with Cole as the dissenting vote. The race for mayor now stands as incumbent Harvey Taylor versus Chuck Holloway, with no need for the Feb. 25 primary.

This story originally was published Jan. 3, 2003 in the Braidwood Journal.

Two candidates for the spring city elections find themselves off the ballot after an electoral board decided petition inconsistencies violated election rules.
Mayoral candidate Wayne Saltzman and James Hutton, the incumbant commissioner of public buildings and property, both were removed from ballots Monday during a hearing at city hall. A third candidate, mayoral hopeful Rich Girot, had his case extended until 9:30 a.m. Jan. 7.
In all three cases, an objetor alleges the candidates filled out petition forms incorrectly and in violation of the state election code. Burton Odelson, an attorney representing Braidwood resident Kenneth Keith, argued for each candidate’s removal from election ballots.
Saltzman and Hutton said they will weigh their appeal options, but both plan on continuing to seek their respective offices. Their options include appealing the Municipal Officers Electoral Board’s decision to a court of law or running as a registered write-in candidate.
As for Girot, the board did not make a decision as his attorney, Scott Pyles, requested time to fact-find and prepare questions for witnesses in the case. In all three cases, though, Monday’s actions have stirred up bad blood right from the start of election season.

Saltzman’s statement filed late
Monday’s hearing — the first step in any decision on election decisions — revealed that the fine print of election law can magnify any irregularity.
Under election guidelines, any registered voter can contest a candidate’s petition. Without a contest, there are no checks on the validity of a candidate’s petition.
In Saltzman’s case, Odelson argued that a missing statement of candidacy was enough to eliminate the Braidwood Park District headfrom the mayoral race.
“That document is the most important document because it declares candidacy … letting us know that that candidate wants to be a candidate,” said Odelson.
In Braidwood, nominating petitions can be taken out by anyone, but the candidate must fill out the pertinent paperwork and obtain the proper signatures.
Saltzman said he didn’t realize his petition was missing the letter and turned in the statement at 4:45 p.m. Dec. 27, the same day the petition contests were announced.
“I filed late but I did file it,” said Saltzman.
The statement arrived at city hall 11 calendar days after the filing deadline, which was the deciding factor for the three-member board made up of Commissioner Kay Heberer, Commissioner Homer Cole and City Clerk Sue Grygiel.

Girot questions process
Although the board heard no details on Girot’s petitions, arguments from his attorney illuminated some of the more contested issues in all three cases.
When asking for extra time to subpoena witnesses, Pyles alleged there were problems in the electoral board’s attempts at due process.
Pyles questioned Grygiel’s seat on the electoral board, specifically because she would be a witness in fomer mayor Girot’s case. This would mean that she would be sworn in, testify and then have to decide on the validity of her own testimony, Pyles said.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate that she sit on [the board],” said Pyles.
City attorney Vince Cainkar, who ran the meeting, argued that there was nothing in election statutes or prior cases that prohibited her from sitting on the board.
Pyles then went on to question the delivery of the petition objections. While election guidelines call for a representative from the Will County Sheriff’s Office to deliver the notification to candidates, Braidwood used Police Chief Rob Andreina.
Cainkar said he didn’t think the sheriff’s office could handle their time-sensitive request due to the holidays, so he asked Andreina to take over that duty.
While the board granted the continuance, they did not grant the subpoena requests. Instead, Grygiel and Andreina were ordered to appear at the next meeting to offer testimony. Pyles’ request to make Keith testify was rejected.
“The objector does not have to testify,” said Odelson. “That’s why we hire lawyers.”

Hutton questions clerk’s role
Odelson told the board that in Hutton’s petitions, “almost nothing is done correctly.”
Those errors included a non-notarized statement of candidacy and petition sheets lacking numbers and notarization.
Hutton contended that he asked Grygiel if everything was correct while handing in his petitions. While the details of that encounter varied between the participants, Grygiel testified that she has no legal authorization to check petitions.
“Legally, I can’t tell you whether they’re right or wrong,” Grygiel told Hutton.
The Hutton case provided an example of what the Girot case was trying to avoid. Grygiel was sworn in, testified, and then the board (in this case alone substituting Mayor Harvey Taylor for Commissioner Heberer) voted unanimously to remove Hutton from the ballot.
Hutton’s attempt to receive an extension similar to Girot’s was denied. He also asked for Grygiel’s removal from the board due to bias.
If all three candidates are removed from the ballot, only the mayoral race — with Taylor and Chuck Holloway running — would have more than one candidate on the ballot. Each of the four commissioner spots would be running unopposed on the ballot.

This story originally was published Dec. 6, 2002 in the Braidwood Journal.

A request allegedly unbeknownst to the city clerk and City Council has resulted in fluctuating resident water bills, with changes still forthcoming.
The issue concerns an ordinance requiring residents to pay sewer charges based on above-normal water usage during the summer months. Water Commissioner James Hutton said he noticed earlier this year that the ordinance wasn’t being enforced, and made sure the oversight didn’t happen this year.
That change hasn’t faded with the suntans, however. On the latest bi-monthly water bills, residents can find a rebate ranging anywhere from $20 to $50. The amount marks the sewer charge accrued over the summer.
The savings won’t last, though. After heated debate, the City Council on Nov. 26 voted 4-1 to rescind the rebates and add the amount to next month’s water bill.
At that meeting, it was alleged Hutton told city hall employees to factor in the rebate, without the knowledge of City Clerk Sue Grygiel or council members.
“It’s just a messed up mess,” said Mayor Harvey Taylor to Hutton. “I think you opened up a Pandora’s box and I hope you can close it.”
Commissioner Earl Baker brought up the issue after looking at the latest water bill. The debate escalated, in part because Baker and Taylor said they defended the move earlier this summer, only to see another change without the council knowing about it.
Hutton avoided questions about the rebates at the meeting, claiming only that selective ordinance enforcement provoked the move.
“If you want to deal with what’s on the book, then let’s deal with what’s on the book,” said Hutton.
For example, Hutton said, the lack of enforcement on the previous police residency ordinance set a poor precedent for other city ordinances.
“How can I enforce an ordinance when other ordinances in the city aren’t enforced?” said Hutton.
The ordinance in question is at least four years old, although the exact date of passage is unknown. In fact, Taylor said Monday city staff still has not tracked down a copy of the ordinance.
“I can’t tell you the last time it was billed,” said Hutton at the meeting.
Baker alleges city hall employees were told to factor in the rebates without telling Grygiel, who oversees the employees. He questioned how something like that could happen without her knowledge.
“If you’re not aware of it, how can you be accountable for it?” asked Grygiel.
The nature of the rebates helped in not drawing any attention. Because the amounts were deducted from the monthly water bills, no checks were issued. Thus, the matter never appeared on the monthly bills list for the city.
“It was a big, 007 secret,” said Taylor.
City attorney Mike Cainkar, when asked at the meeting about the issue, said the decision to give rebates probably should have been brought before the council.
“This is like saying, ‘I’m going to do whatever I want,’” said Baker of Hutton.
The problem with the rebates, Baker added, was that they flew in the face of summer water conservation. While some residents, including Baker, cut back on water to save on the sewer costs, the cost of replacing unwatered grass or extra swimming chemicals escalated. With rebates, the residents who used water normally would benefit while the more frugal water users still paid.
“I think we need to take all of the money back that was rebated and decide on it,” said Baker.
Hutton was the lone dissenting vote in taking back the rebates.
The issue will be brought up again at the Dec. 10 meeting, Taylor said. Also expected is a report from consultant Richard Benson, who was asked to examine Braidwood’s code of ethics. He is expected to detail anything that needed tweaking in the wake of the water controversy.
Also, city hall employees have since been told to run all changes through Grygiel before implementation.

Editor’s note: This story originally was published April 5, 2007.

The race for Kirkland Library Board will be as quiet as optimum conditions amid the Dewey Decimal System. In fact, no names will appear on the ballot.

Library board races aren’t known for their contentiousness, but no candidates registered this spring for this board’s four open spots: three six-year terms and an unexpired two-year term.

Library director Judy Nelson attributed the lack of official candidates to cold weather during petition-filing season, when candidates are required to obtain 50 signatures from residents of the library district.

Three candidates have filed as official write-in candidates, however. That includes two current board members in Rebecca Lamont and Jennifer Montanus, as well as Richard Leonard.

“All they have to do is vote for themselves,” laughed Nelson.

If all three candidates receive a vote, they will join current board members Lori Finkle and John Royalty.

Nelson, who started with the library one day after retiring as postmaster, attributes many of her successes as library director to the board. The board employs and works with the director to set a budget, approve expenditures and put building improvements — like the recent ceiling repainting — to bid. Meetings take place once a month.

If no other write-in candidates emerge, there will be two openings on the board. The board then would interview prospective citizens who would like to fill that position.

“If you’ve got children, it’s a great way to be involved,” said Nelson. “I’m always looking for new suggestions.”