Judge Brandt ruled in favor of Gary Sandberg today, ordering that Sandberg be placed on the primary ballot for the first district City Council race. You can read the ruling here (PDF file):
Judge Brandt ruled in favor of Gary Sandberg today, ordering that Sandberg be placed on the primary ballot for the first district City Council race. You can read the ruling here (PDF file):
CRAP! I’m hoping I’m not the only former fan who he has gotten on the bad side of.
Vonster: Why is Sandberg on your bad side?
HA, HA, HA!!!! Go mayor Sandberg!!!
My perception is that the Election Commission played fast and loose with the statute interpretation to keep Sandberg off the ballot. Had their initial call been allowed to stand, it may have emboldened them to “get creative” with other candidate criteria in the future. Peoria’s government isn’t a “hybrid,” as the Commission referred to it in the Peoria Journal Star, but is Council-Manager. As a resident of the 2nd district, I am fighting to be sure we are well-represented on the City Council and have no dog in the 1st district fight. I do think the residents of the 1st should be able to make the call on who should represent them from as wide a field of candidates as possible. This ruling accomplishes it. Should Sandberg represent the 1st? Should Emert? Should Moore? The resident of the 1st will be able to decide.
Should be an very interesting campaign in the 1st District. Good luck to
all three candidates.
Conrad: I sat in the courtroom and I can tell you that the Election Commission did not play fast and loose with anything and in fact presented a very precise and coherent case before the Judge. Sandberg’s attorney on the other hand stumbled and his precedent was thrown out as irreverent. The argument can be made on both sides for sure but Sandberg’s lawyer said that if the judge felt it was a tie, it should go to Sandberg because being denied on the ballot was in effect keeping Sandberg from representing the citizens of the 1st. I may point out that Sandberg currently can and does represent the people of the 1st being an at large seated councilman already. The judge ruled and that is that. I have no problem with any citizen wanting to run for a seat and if it was 20 of us running, well, that is everyone’s right but with Sandberg here, there has to be something else going on in the mix. While Sandberg has great name recognition throughout Peoria and no doubt could easily win another term at a at large seat, I doubt he has that many people in the south end that trust nor will vote for him. Only 800+ people voted in the 1st. It will be interesting just the same as after all, it is the people who choose.
Always nice to be reminded that the First District is frequently referred to ‘that many people in the south end’. Those of us that reside in the First District living on the other side of the I-74, ie: Near Northside and Averyville, would appreciate some representation too.
of course Karrie. My apologies. I use the term out of bad habit. What has gotten on your wrong side lately?
Em: Not sure why you wrote ‘what has gotten on your wrong side lately?’ What does that mean?
You seem “angry” in some post responses and glued to the backside of Sandberg.
Em: Thanks for your response. Just being me …
(1) disappointed that people cannot read and understand that mayor-alderman and council-manager would be considered the same. Reminds me of the Peoria County asphalt case where legal counsel kept trying to say that one word really meant another word and kept saying it over and over. I politely told him is was not so … so small business owners had to lawyer up to stay in business at high five figure if not six figure cost only to have Judge Mihm use the FOIA’d information to tell legal counsel you cannot change words just because you think you can. More business unfriendly behavior in Peoria County.
(2) disappointed that people think that Gary’s intent is whatever they think that it is … really how would they know … are they inside his brain? I seem to recall that you do not like it when you would write something and then people would attempt to tell you what your intent was about said composition … or am I having a senior moment?
(3) disappointed that the Near Northside and Averyville are continually the neighborhoods of Forgotonia by First District Councilpersons for more than a decade.
(4) disappointed that people just don’t let Gary be Gary … it has always been Gary’s style to speak how he speaks and while I do not necessarily agree with his delivery … the content of his delivery is 99% of the time spot on as to why we are in the shape we are in as a city and how we got there. Maybe unpleasant for people to keep hear Gary sound the alarm … you know that saying about wanting to take the messenger to task.
(5) disappointed that people would expect Gary to turn in his petitions other than 4:59 pm … that is the way that Gary has done it for many election cycles or that he should not be allowed to run in the First District because he has talked with you or anyone else about running or that the First District should be the entitlement district to have minority representation on the city council … seriously?
(6) disappointed that people would expect Gary to not challenge what was so obviously (in many people’s opinion – mine included) a wrong conclusion by the election commission. That decision was not just for Gary … it is for anyone who wants to run. If you do not like it … then petition the State legislature to change it.
(7) disappointed that people make comments that Gary is a boat anchor, stands in the way of progress, he has no real ideas on how to fix Peoria et al … so miss the mark in my opinion.
I ask myself “Don’t people get it? What progress has Peoria made in the last say 20 years?
Gateway Building, Ball Stadium, Riverplex, Annexation, Cub Foods, Civic Center Expansion, Riverfront Museum, Hotel Deal and so on … yes, there may be some cultural benefits … but at what economic expense to the taxpayer while the basics have suffered?
Isn’t that the same thing that you have said?
Gary repeated states … we have to spend money on the basics, deal with crime, rebuild the core … instead we get the opposite ad infinitum from re-electing the same mentality which brings the same failed vision and more of the same failed policies while Peoria takes on more debt for trinkets. I have had enough of the Progressives who are regressing Peoria further into the sewer.
And I do take Gary’s back because he has taken my back as a citizen and taxpayer on many occassions over the last 19 years. I do not agree with Gary on everything … however, he has always helped me on issues … not once … not twice … many many times. He has been the only city councilperson to help.
I would like to actually be represented in the First District … not too much to ask … or is it?
Mr. Emtronics:
If you were actually in court, you missed what occurred in court. I was there. First, which case was “thrown out as irreverent”? I remember hearing Sandberg’s attorney say something about a Ketchup case, or so it sounded to me. If you are talking about that case, it is cited in the judge’s opinion in support of Sandberg’s attorney’s argument. Also, the second to last paragraph says “Equally persuasive are petitioner’s case citations…” So, what court hearing were you at?
“And I do take Gary’s back because he has taken my back as a citizen and taxpayer on many occassions over the last 19 years. I do not agree with Gary on everything … however, he has always helped me on issues … not once … not twice … many many times. He has been the only city councilperson to help.
I would like to actually be represented in the First District … not too much to ask … or is it?”
Sounds like you are already well represented by Gary from his At-Large seat.
I think Emert and Moore have come off rather poorly as a result of this situation. They have spend precious campaign time unsuccessfully trying to derail Sandberg, rather than making a positive case for themselves.
Anonymous: There is a difference in a district vs. an at large seat. I should be able to get my District councilperson to help me with issues specific to my district … isn’t that the responsibility of the district councilperson?
Soothsayer: Absolutely … not for another councilperson who thinks the answer is the creation of yet another TIF district … eh gads!
Why can’t you get an At Large council person to help you with a problem in your district? And why would a sitting council person in an At Large seat, able to help any citizen, want to abandon that seat for a district seat mid term? If a person was to do that, why couldn’t that person do that from their At Large seat? Why would an At Large person buy a warehouse building in a Warehouse TIF and then run for the District the Warehouse TIF is in?
True, the District Councilperson is supposed to help those in his/her district, but this isn’t always the case in many districts in Peoria.
Soothsayer: I am sorry, I don’t know your real name but while I have been making rounds of businesses in the 1st and residents and interviews with Unions, like the Fireman’s, I didn’t notice you following me. And Yes Karrie, this city needs another TIF like we need another hole in our heads.
As far as I am aware, both Emtronics and Mrs. Moore are decent people. However, I think their quotes in the PJS on the Sandberg situation have put them both in a bad light. Emtronics: Sandberg is in. Quit complaining about it. Quit talking about it. We got that you are not pleased. We got that you think you got handed a lemon here. Instead of grousing about it, you should have said something like: “Well, I obviously don’t agree with the court’s decision, but I’m going to work even harder to get out the message that I think I am the best person for the job.”
Soothsayer, that s exactly what I have said and I have made clear to many my stand on what I think should be done in the 1st. Mr Sandberg has not and refuses to to this day only saying the warehouse district is off course and he wants to fix it. Yet, if it is off course, it was under his term as an At Large councilman that it went off course so how is running for a district seat after buying a warehouse, going to fix this? Curious, because in the past, Mr Sandberg has been forth coming at council meetings about issues and a steward of the taxpayers money. Now he is costing the city $20k for a primary and offers nothing nor even an explanation. That is what I think we are all owed.
Emtronics: It sounds like your campaign is back on track. Best of luck to you.
I thank you. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I do learn very quickly and when I do, I am good at it. I restrict my comments on blogs for which I hope are obvious reasons to those who post here. This doesn’t mean I have nothing to say as those who know me know I always have something to say. No matter how this election goes, it rests with the voters of the 1st.
Em:
(1) As far as the game of politics is concerned … it is usually the District Councilperson who takes the lead on a project specific to any given district … correct? So that would fall to Clyde … correct?
(2) What would you do with respect to the Warehouse District? How would you persuade other city councilpersons to follow your leadership?
(3) Why do you keep repeating this misinformation …. “Why would an At Large person buy a warehouse building in a Warehouse TIF and then run for District the Warehouse TIF is in?”
Is Gary the owner of this building?
(4) Why do you keep saying that Gary is the one who is costing the city $20K for a primary?
Because he was the last one to file … which is his style for the past how many election cycles?
Because you still disagree with the verdict of Judge Brandt and Gary is still in the Primary?
There is a Primary because three people who filed … so if you had not filed there would not be a Primary or if Denise Moore had not filed there would not be a Primary … there is a Primary because more than two, in this case three people filed. So each of you have a responsibility that the city is paying $20K for a First District Primary. End of story.
Tell the voters of the First what Randall is going to do … not Denise … not Gary … just Randall … you are slinging mud about Gary’s intent, Gary’s right to be on the ballot, Gary’s lack of specifics from your point of view … that is not productive in this voter’s opinion … which is all that it is … my opinion and my point of view.
And the promotion of another TIF district anywhere and now in the First District is more of the same failed leadership that we have seen in our district. That is one issue that Randall, Gary and Karrie all agree on … Hooray!
“And the promotion of another TIF district anywhere and now in the First District is more of the same failed leadership that we have seen in our district. That is one issue that Randall, Gary and Karrie all agree on … Hooray!”
Name one TIF that did not get approval by this council or any other past councils. TIF’s are the latest buzz and fix all, but some people are bilnd to the Midtown falure. I for one think the East Village TIF will fail for the residents but be a cash cow for OSF and city projects (sewer under OSF).
Martin: Exactly … more pie in the sky promises!
The pjstar is calling out politicians now? If that’s the case, we should be seeing a lot more pieces like this…
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1926912213/Word-on-the-Street-Nice-dodge-Sandberg-but-the-question-is-still-valid
No comment Karrie. I’m not debating here and yes I didn’t like the judges decision but that is the law. I was shocked to see the EC go my way actually so stop saying I am against Sandberg being on the ballot. I am not but like you say in politics I had everything to gain if my objection was upheld. That is why I filed it.
@ Emtronics:
At 5:00 a.m., on January 17, 2013, you wrote “Conrad: I sat in the courtroom and I can tell you that the Election Commission did not play fast and loose with anything and in fact presented a very precise and coherent case before the Judge. Sandberg’s attorney on the other hand stumbled and his precedent was thrown out as irreverent.” Now, four days later, you say that the judge ruled based upon the law and that you were shocked to see the Election Commission rule in your favor. What is your official opinion? Obviously, you are able to speak out of both sides of your mouth with surprising fluency. You are well on your way to becoming a politician.
No like I said and nobody could predict, I thought the EC lawyer presented a good and precise case and many there also thought so. Even the lawyer for Moore. I am not a lawyer so I don’t have to understand election law. The decision was sad for me, but doesn’t men its all over. Just means there are 3 choices. Now, instead of grilling me, why aren’t you asking for Sandbergs motives?
You may not be a lawyer, but shouldn’t you understand the law that governs your candidacy?
Read the ICLS.
Em: ILCS??
Since there is a primary in another Council District, I assumed that there would be an extra $20,000 expense anyway, regardless if Mr. Sandberg had been allowed back on the ballot. Or am I wrong?
Em, I had hoped to see you at the MLK Commemorative Service yesterday, as all candidates for election were allowed to come up and front and speak for a couple of minutes. But Mr. Sandberg was not there either, just Mrs. Moore.
Why did Sandberg blast the guy from the PJS? He has come off looking very slimy in this whole thing.
Is it the ICLS? Whatever. Election law, State of Illinois.
Is it the ICLS? Whatever. Election law, State of Illinois. Dennis, sorry, I had a family obligation that had to come first. Moore is like a rash, she is everywhere. I wish to be and will try to be after March 1. Otherwise. Family 1st, then work.
@ Emtronics:
If, by ILCS, you mean the Illinois Compiled Statutes, then my response is that while I have not read the entire ILCS (without a reason, that would be a major waste of my time), I did read a not-insignificant amount of the Illinois Election Code. I found nothing in the election code that would ever allow the Election Board to rule as it did against Sandberg. Apparently, the court didn’t either. The Board perverted the law to achieve its goal. In the end, Judge Brandt’s opinion was simple and staightforward because it was not a difficult issue of law. Gary was entitled to be on the ballot.
Many people, including certain members of the media, have attempted to blame Gary (or otherwise make him look at fault) for everything from the cost of a 1st District primary to bending/breaking the law for his own benefit to not residing in the first district. I watched the board’s deliberations; they said that they had no reason to doubt that Gary does reside at 1213 S.W. Adams. Their beef was with his voter registration on Bigelow in November–not where he lives now.
Further, Karrie Alms hit the nail on the head: everybody running in a district with a primary is at partial fault for the cost of a primary. The only exception to this rule is where a candidate is running a write-in campaign because he was properly knocked off of the ballot for, say, failure to notarize documents. If that write-in campaign forces a primary like we are paying for in the fifth district, then the write-in candidate, a/k/a Dan Adler, is completely at fault for the cost of the primary because he could also write-in to the general election regardless of the primary results. For some reason, Gary has been blamed, repeatedly, for forcing a primary. For all of my previously-stated reasons, that is simply not true.
Finally, I don’t see any conflict with Gary voting on issues involving the warehouse district. He may benefit indirectly from improvements to the warehouse district; however, he would see no more benefit than any other councilperson that votes on issues that benefit their district–something that, if they are responsive to their constituents, they all do.
Perhaps, Gary is tired of responding to questions that he has no way of winning because of the public’s already-distorted perception of the facts. Personally, I don’t blame him. And, the reason that I continue to vote for Gary in at-large elections is because he is the type of person that is willing to speak his mind, which is exactly what he did in his email response to Kaergard.
Sincerely,
FS
First: and again, I have no problem with a primary. Second. 3 lawyers did in fact read the ILCS and the Election Board did find in favor of myself and Mrs. Moore. But I suppose FS, you are schooled and knew better. Third, there is no conflict with Sandberg running because his son owns the property he lives in. How convenient. Fourth, Gary tired to responding to questions? When has Gary answered any questions?
Emtronics: Are you implying (with your “How convenient” comment) that people who do not own their own home should not be permitted to run for public office?
Look you guess anything you want ok? You are simply stirring g trouble. Nothing more. Have a wonderful day.