Category Archives: Gary Sandberg

Gary Sandberg

To my friend, Gary Sandberg

21 Comments

Dear Gary,

It’s too bad you missed the All-Star Game Tuesday night. You would have loved it. The American League won, and Mariano Rivera got a standing ovation. It would have brought tears to your eyes. You know, despite being an obnoxious Yankees fan, I always appreciated the fact that you were, above all, a baseball fan. There are so few of us around these days. Everyone (and especially ESPN) is into football and basketball. You’d think with 30 teams playing 162 games each year that there would be plenty of baseball to talk about on sports shows, but baseball always seems to get short shrift. You always enjoyed watching a game no matter who was playing (even the Cubs — it was always fun to see them lose), and I’m the same way. I’ll miss meeting you at Whiteys to watch a game over pizza.

I’m glad you got to see the Yankees one more time — and even make the highlight reel! That was pretty cool seeing the home run ball bounce just a few seats to the right of you in Yankee stadium. Too bad it wasn’t the Yankees who hit the home run. Ha ha. Hey, you can’t win them all.

Remember last year when you found out I was going to the Heart of Illinois Fair and you asked me to pick up some salt water taffy for you from the guy who sets up near the front gate? I remembered that this year, and I picked some up for you again. I even drove by your place Thursday night to drop it off as a surprise, but all the lights were off. It looked like no one was home, so I drove on. I was hoping you were there because my wife and son were in the car, and I wanted them to see the work you had been doing on your apartment. My son especially would have loved the fire pole you were putting in.

I thought it was strange that you hadn’t responded to my texts and appeared not to be home, but you’ve taken unplanned trips before, so I wasn’t too worried. I figured you’d get back to me soon with tales of how your phone was lost or broken, or how you were out riding on Route 66 and didn’t hear the phone ring. You always had a great story to tell.

The story my wife thought was so funny was the one you told when we met you at the Garden Street Cafe for breakfast. You know, the one about mailing that package to Colt in Macau, and all the different ways you had to repack it and compress it until it met the size restrictions? And how exorbitant the cost was? You really had us in stitches by the end of that one; it was almost too ridiculous to believe.

The cars that you had were a real hoot, too. My favorites were the Austin-Healey Sprites you would drive in the summer when you weren’t on your motorcycle. They are impossibly small; I still can’t believe you could fit into them. And they were so low to the ground! I remember you saying you really noticed the city’s lack of infrastructure maintenance in that car because you could feel every bump and see every deteriorating curb. Your ability to get them running and keep them running was pretty ingenious. You were the last of the shade-tree mechanics.

Everyone knows you as the guy who (supposedly) always votes “no” on the City Council, and always stands up for the citizens when it seems like the rest of the council only stands up for the developers and the movers and shakers of the community. I always appreciated you holding everyone’s feet to the fire, even if you were the lone voice crying the wilderness. It was nice to know someone at City Hall was listening and fighting for the little guy. That’s what made you a hero to many. I always tried to encourage you to keep up the good fight, not that you needed the encouragement. I wonder who will stand up for the citizens of Peoria now.

I wonder a lot of things. Right now, I wonder why you insisted on working in that building without air conditioning in the kind of heat we’ve had — especially after you just had heart surgery not that long ago. You’re smarter than that. What was it? You just like living on the edge? Like riding your motorcycle without a helmet? Or walking to the Election Commission just seconds before they closed to turn in your nominating petitions?

We didn’t agree on everything. We rooted for different baseball teams. We differed on gun control. We were poles apart on religion. But we were friends. You were always very encouraging to me and very kind to my family. You were always genuine. No one ever had to wonder where they stood with you. You let them know in no uncertain terms. I always appreciated that kind of honesty, even though you probably took it a bit too far sometimes.

I guess there’s nothing left to say except farewell, and I’ll miss you. And the Yankees are in fourth place, but the Cardinals are in first.

Your friend,
C. J.

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg appeals for judicial review

3 Comments

At-large councilman Gary Sandberg, who was removed from the first district ballot last week by the Peoria Election Commission, has petitioned the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court for a review of that ruling.

Sandberg argues in his petition that a requirement that “aldermen” reside in their “ward” for one year prior to the next election does not apply to councilmen in the Council/Manager form of government.

You can read the petition here (PDF format):

PDF Link Petition for Judicial Review

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg to appeal ruling (UPDATED)

12 Comments

Just minutes before Peoria’s Board of Election Commissioners voted to remove Gary Sandberg’s name from the first district ballot, Sandberg told the Peoria Chronicle, “If I am disallowed I will appeal to circuit court.”

Published reports so far have not detailed which part of the municipal code was cited by the Election Commission in making their decision. The Journal Star, for instance, just says, “Commissioners cited municipal code that states a candidate has to live for one year in the district in which he or she runs for office.”

Updates will be made to this post as more information becomes available.

UPDATE (12/18/2012): Despite having asked for a copy of the ruling a week ago, the Election Commission would not release it. However, I was able to get a copy from Sandberg. Incidentally, Sandberg asked for it to be emailed to him and signed a document to that effect with the Election Commission, but they wouldn’t email him a copy. They sent it regular mail. It’s unclear why the commission chose this tactic of deliberate and unnecessary delays in releasing public information that was already announced at a public meeting a week ago. I guess just to show us peasants who the lord of the fiefdom is.

The analysis I provided in a previous post was basically correct, except that I missed one thing. You’ll recall that I was unsure how 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(c) would be interpreted, since it used the terminology of “alderman” and “ward,” and our form of government is council-manager which uses the terms “councilman” and “district.” The answer is found in 65 ILCS 5/1-1-2(8), which states: “Wherever the words ‘city council,’ ‘aldermen,’ ‘commissioners,’ or ‘mayor’ occur, the provisions containing these words shall apply to the board of trustees, trustees, and president, respectively of villages and incorporated towns and councilmen in cities, so far as those provisions are applicable to them.” Based on that, the election commission determined that the one-year residency requirement for aldermen also applies to councilmen.

So far, Sandberg has not filed an appeal to the Circuit Court.

2013 Election, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

The challenge to Sandberg’s eligibility: an analysis

21 Comments

First district city council candidates Denise Moore and Randall Emert have filed formal objections to Gary Sandberg’s bid to run for the same office. They both claim that Sandberg does not meet the residency requirement per the state’s election code.

Emert’s Challenge

Emert’s challenge is simple: he says, “It is my understanding, that under law, a person has to have lived for one year at an address within the district a person files to run for in an election, such as City Council District seat. I maintain that Mr. Sandberg has not lived at his current address since November 26th, 2011.”

Illinois’ election code is confusing and contradictory — some would say purposefully so. As a result, it’s nearly impossible to do a “plain reading” of the code and draw any solid conclusions. Emert does not cite any specific Illinois statute, but merely repeats what has been published in the Journal Star: “According to an Illinois State Board of Elections representative, it appears Sandberg has to live at what he declares to be his home address for at least one year prior to the filing deadline, which this year was Nov. 26.” As with Emert’s challenge, the newspaper also does not cite any specific portion of the election code to back up this assertion, nor do they publish the name of the ISBE representative who provided this information.

Given that, let’s see if we can find what the residency requirement is. If you look at the 2013 Candidates Guide published by the Illinois State Board of Elections, you will see that there are four types of municipal governments covered on pages 21-30: Commission Form, Mayor-Alderman, President-Trustee, and Council-Manager. Peoria’s form of government is Council-Manager, so page 28 covers our elections.

Note first that it says: “The council-manager form is the only form of municipal government covered (for election of officers) by Article 5 of 65 ILCS/5.” So here we have a definite citation from the State’s municipal code. If you take the time to read through this code, you will find this section:

65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3
Sec. 5-2-18.3. Selection of part of council at large and part from districts. If a city elects to choose part of the city council at large and part from districts, then the following provisions of this Section shall be applicable. The term of office of the mayor and councilman shall be 4 years, and the election of the mayor and councilmen shall be every 4 years after the first election. In addition to the requirements of the general election law, the ballots shall be in the form set out in Section 5-2-18.4 and 5-2-18.5. Sections 4-3-5 through 4-3-18, insofar as they may be applicable, shall govern the election of a mayor and councilmen under this Section.
(Source: P.A. 87-1119.)

Without getting into too much detail, suffice it to say that the sections cited do not require a councilman to live in a district for a year before he can run for office in that district. It does, however, require that he live within the district. 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.7¶8 states, “One councilman who is an actual resident of the district, shall be elected from each district. Only the electors of a district shall elect a councilman from that district.” Getting back to the Candidates Guide, it has a section on page 28 that specifically states what the length of residency requirement is:

One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election. If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person’s spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement.
[65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5]

As you can see, there is no requirement stated here that one has to live in the district for a year before becoming eligible to run for district councilman. But we have another municipal code citation: 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5. I won’t quote the whole thing, but I will quote section (c) so we can see if this applies:

A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

Now here’s where it will be interesting to see how the board of elections interprets this. It would appear to me that this section does not apply to our form of government. It applies to “the office of alderman,” but that is not the same as the office of city councilman. Considering the Candidates Guide makes a clear distinction between the Mayor-Alderman and Council-Manager forms of government, it would appear that this provision of the code only applies to the Mayor-Alderman form of government. Section (a), on the other hand, applies to all municipal offices:

A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

Notice the difference in wording. It doesn’t say “alderman” here, but “elective municipal office,” which would apply to all forms of government. If section (c) had been intended to apply to all forms of government, it is reasonable to assume they would have used the same wording. Since they didn’t, it appears they intended to make a distinction in section (c) that is different from section (a). Section (a), just as the Candidates Guide indicated, says that candidates for elective office must have lived in the municipality for a year, but does not specify that they have to have resided within the district for a year.

Moore’s Challenge

Moore’s challenge to Sandberg’s residency is more sophisticated. She writes:

I intend to show that Mr. Sandberg could not and does not reside at the 1213 SW Adams street address listed on his Statement of Candidacy petition, and that his eligibility based upon his residency is not compliant with Illinois State Statute [65 ILCS 5/3.1-10.5]

The objections are grounded by information found in the State of Illinois Candidate’s Guide for 2013, Council-Manager Form of Government-Municipal; (page 28)

  • Office: Mayor, Councilmen-at-large (and part from districts in some cities), Clerk, Treasurer.
  • Residency: “One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election”.

With the acknowledgment of the wording “and part from districts in some cities”…I contend that ‘municipality’ in this case refers to the district in question and not the entire city as would be the case for an At-large race.

There’s a problem with her logic here. The phrase, “and part from districts in some cities,” is a reference to 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3, which was quoted above. The purpose of that phrase is not to restrict the meaning of “municipality,” as Moore contends, but rather to acknowledge that some cities with a Council-Manager form of government elect all their councilmen at large, and some cities elect part of their council at-large and part from districts.

She continues:

These objections are based upon my belief that:

  1. Mr. Sandberg does not reside at the address listed on the petition filed for office of 1st District City Council.
  2. Mr. Sandberg has not met the length of residency requirement outlined in state statute.
  3. Mr. Sandberg’s Bigelow address was not impacted by the recent Redistricting.

We have already dealt with objection 2, as this is the same as Emert’s objection. Objection 3 is moot if there is no district residency requirement. So the only new objection here is Objection 1. Moore says:

Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star. Mr. Sandberg states the property listed on his petition is “intended to be home for his son when he’s in the United States”. This would make Mr. Sandberg a temporary visitor rather than a permanent occupant. In addition, the property, like those adjacent to it, appear to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant.

We’ve learned quite a bit about what it takes to establish residency here in Illinois, thanks to Rahm Emmanuel’s mayoral run in Chicago not that long ago. There’s also another recent case (2005) that deals with residency, People v. Baumgartner. This appellate court ruling stated:

[B]ecause eligibility to run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a particular jurisdiction, we will use the definition of “residence” as used within the Election Code for voter registration. […]

Two elements are necessary to create a “residence” for voter registration purposes: physical presence and an intent to remain there as a permanent resident. Delk v. Board of Election Commissioners, 112 Ill. App. 3d 735, 738, 445 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (1983). […] To change residence, “there must be, both in fact and intention, an abandonment of the former residence and a new domicile acquired by actual residence, coupled with the intention to make it a permanent home.” Welsh v. Shumway, 232 Ill. 54, 77, 83 N.E. 549, 559 (1907).

If Sandberg has moved his voter registration and personal belongings to this new residence and is actually living there, as newspaper accounts indicate, then it would appear that he is a resident of that address in that district for the purposes of being a candidate for City Council.

That the building “appear[s] to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant” is a valid challenge. It’s possible that an inspection could be done to determine if the property can, in fact, support a tenant, and perhaps Sandberg could be asked to produce witnesses who will attest to him in fact living there.

However, Moore goes off track in saying that because Sandberg does not actually own the building, he cannot be a resident. In addition to quoting Sandberg’s statement to the Journal Star, she continues:

In addition, the most recent information (dated 11/27/2012 attached) provided by the Peoria County Assessors’ office indicates the address in question, 1213 SW Adams Street, is owned by Sue D. Johnson, not Mr. Sandberg. […] Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star indicate the property was purchased in the summer of 2012. As such, Mr. Sandberg could not have lived at the address for the required 12-months as outlined int he state statute cited above.

Mrs. Moore may be surprised to learn that many of the residents in her district do not actually own the home in which they live. They might be surprised to learn that Mrs. Moore does not consider them “residents” because of this. The point is, one can reside in a home without owning it. The ownership of the property can even be transferred while a tenant continues to occupy that property. So appeals to the property’s ownership are completely immaterial in this case.

Conclusion

As stated earlier, the state’s election rules are difficult to decipher. Emert and Moore could very well prevail in their challenge based on an interpretation or conflicting statute I haven’t been able to contemplate. But based on my layman’s reading of the materials available, it appears there is a requirement that a candidate live in the district he seeks to represent, and there is a requirement that a candidate live in the municipality for a year in order to be eligible to run for council, but there is apparently no requirement that a candidate live in a specific district within that municipality for a specified period of time before he is eligible to run for district councilman.

And that, ultimately, is the point. Candidates for City Council are not experts in state election law, nor should they be required to be. They read the information available to them and do their best to abide by the rules as they understand them. Sandberg was also quoted in the media as saying that he read the Candidates Guide and saw no district residency requirement. If it turns out there is one, perhaps the State Board of Elections should rewrite their Candidates Guide to make that clear, so no other well-meaning candidates get led astray.

Note: The post above has been revised to remove ambiguity. Specifically, I have tried to make it clearer that there is a residency requirement, but there is apparently no length of residency required in the district to be eligible to run as a district councilman.

City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Council Roundup 3/9/2010

1 Comment

I started to drive to Peoria City Hall Tuesday night for the council meeting, but before I even got there, they were finished! The agenda was short, and council members Spain and Sandberg were both absent. The consent agenda passed unanimously, and no one removed any items from it. The one regular business item regarding the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Service was deferred for two weeks, and the Town of Peoria items were dispatched unanimously as well.

Speaking of Gary Sandberg, he’s been up at Mayo Clinic the past week where he underwent aortic valve replacement surgery. I’m happy to report that the surgery was successful, and he’s recovering well. He’s hoping to come home sometime this week. Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Gary!

City of Peoria, Energy Issues, Gary Sandberg, Peoria Police

City trying to cut down on idling vehicles

11 Comments

The City of Peoria is going to try to persuade its employees not to leave their city vehicles idling for long periods of time. I wouldn’t say they’re “cracking down” on the practice, because there doesn’t seem to be much more than an awareness campaign planned at the moment. But it’s not a bad first step.

Several citizens, including councilman Gary Sandberg, noticed that some police officers who would eat breakfast at a local restaurant in Peoria left their squad cars on and idling in the parking lot the whole time they were inside eating — sometimes as much as an hour or longer. When the City’s Energy Efficiency Task Force submitted their report to the council, Sandberg asked interim City Manager Henry Holling to look into the idling problem, since that’s a huge waste of energy, not to mention unnecessary pollution.

After that, the police officers never came back to the local restaurant. They apparently eat breakfast somewhere else now. That prompted Sandberg to say at a recent council meeting that “moving the problem is not solving the problem.”

So now, according to this week’s “issues update,” the city is giving all its employees who drive a city vehicle an anti-idling brochure: “A change in behavior will be reinforced with flyers posted on bulletin boards and articles in the employee newsletters. Department Heads are also emphasizing in staff meetings the need to reduce engine idling.” It doesn’t appear, however, that there will be a policy instituted or enforced.

My take: This will be great for conscientious employees who probably aren’t letting their vehicles idle excessively anyway. For those who leave their cars idling for an hour while they eat breakfast, I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever, some of them even they go and find the best dash cam online so they car are secured while they’re apart of the car. Those employees already feel justified in leaving their cars on for excessive periods of time, and will likely change their behavior only if told by a superior to knock it off. So that’s precisely what needs to happen in addition to this public-awareness campaign for any significant change to occur.

If you witness excessive idling of a city vehicle, write down the vehicle number and location and e-mail it to me. I’ll pass that information along to the city.

City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg, Peoria Public Library

Sandberg liaison resignation letter

33 Comments

Here’s the letter Gary Sandberg sent to Mayor Ardis announcing his resignation as liaison to the Library Board. This may answer some questions about why he resigned, and raise some other questions about the intentions of the rest of the council:

27 May 2008

Mayor Jim Ardis
419 Fulton Street
Peoria, Illinois

Dear Mayor,
Please accept my resignation as the City Council Liaison for the Peoria Public Library effective at [7:00] PM on 27 May 2008. It is abundantly clear that you do not value my participation as Council Liaison by recent events. At this point I am not sure you and a majority of the Council share mine or even a common vision for Peoria. From my perspective based on behind the scene deals proposed on the 16th of May by Corporation Counsel Randy Ray such as “three negative Council votes would convert to positive votes if the Library would use it’s eminent domain powers against the Elliot’s Site (7807 N. University Street)” is totally over the top and morally, ethically wrong, if not totally illegal. Combine that with the total lack of communication regarding “unanswered questions” appearing at the last moment (after 4:00 on this day) and a last minute deal yet to be offered by Councilman Nichting at 5:30, it is clear that my views and values at it relates to public service and more importantly the public process are of no consequences to you or the Council.

The Library brought forward a product which was the result of a totally transparent process, objective criteria evaluation, careful analysis and recommendations from professional consultants that was totally within the criteria contained in the 2007 advisory referendum. To entertain debate on the merits of that product is healthy, but to politically sabotage those efforts thru these sorts of antics is totally unacceptable to me, so therefore I wish to separate myself from the Council majority that feels actions like these are appropriate.

The past year has been a wonderful experience working with the Library Building Committee, the full Library Board, and the professional Library Administration. They accepted each and every challenge to produce objective recommendations and a multi-faceted program within the referendum budget. I became completely convinced that the public interests were served by their open, transparent and inclusionary actions. The involvement raised my opinion of public service and it’s assurance that with public participation, everyone’s best interest is served. It is sad that the same opinion of public service and it’s transparency is not the rule of the City Council.

At my age, I value time and by the actions of a majority of the Council, they do not share the importance of one’s time. I do not wish to waste their time nor mine by continuing as liaison.

Sincerely
Gary Sandberg, City Councilman At Large

There was a serious proposal to put the new north branch on the site of Elliot’s strip club so the city could take that land and get Elliot’s out of the north end. Besides the obvious ethical violations, that site is too small anyway. The city would have to not only buy Elliot’s, but a number of surrounding sites for that to work, pushing up the cost of land acquisition, razing existing structures, and construction … not to mention the legal battles (if you thought what the City paid for Eagle Cleaners was high, just try to take Elliot’s via eminent domain). This from a council that is only delaying a vote on the library bonds because they are supposedly looking out for the taxpayers’ best interests.

UPDATE: Here’s Billy’s take on the resignation letter.

Here’s the Journal Star’s article.

Gary Sandberg, Peoria Public Library

Why do you think he keeps getting elected?

7 Comments

The Journal Star is shocked — shocked! — that at-large city councilman Gary Sandberg has been helpful as the city’s library liaison. The headline today is “Library’s unlikely advocate: Sandberg.” Ed Szynaka, director of the library, is quoted as saying:

“But he’s gone above and beyond his role as the council liaison. He hasn’t missed one meeting. He’s well-prepared and we’ve benefited greatly from his extensive knowledge of the process.”

And Frank Gold, chairman of the library board’s building subcommittee, added:

“I think differently about Gary than I did at the beginning,” Gold said. “He coached us back from our initial misstep and has been a strong supporter of the project. He’s been nothing but helpful.”

Well-prepared, extensive knowledge, commitment to basic services… who doesn’t know this about Gary? Why is this a big surprise — so big, in fact, that it merits a front-page, above-the-fold headline? Apparently the confusion comes because the newspaper and others don’t see libraries as a basic service; they see them as a “quality-of-life” amenity.

The most surprising thing to me was not that Gary was helpful and prepared, but that Gary evidently allowed himself to be interviewed by the Journal Star. Gary’s had a pretty well-known feud with the paper, and hasn’t granted an interview with them for years.

Naturally, a majority of the other council members, who have had no problem imposing/maintaining the garbage tax fee that’s almost universally opposed, are reticent to impose a tax that 72% of voters approved in a non-binding referendum.