But as a notary public, Schock was required to provide accurate information about witnessing documents being signed. Schock declared that he witnessed the documents being signed on Jan. 1, 2000, but they weren’t actually signed until more than a year later.
“I can honestly tell you I don’t remember signing anything. I’m sure I did,” he said. “But to ask me what day I signed a document eight years ago, I’m sorry to tell you I don’t remember.”
Schock […] commented on the subject while meeting with the (Springfield) State Journal-Register editorial board. He said he had notarized the document when he was 19, before he held elective office. “So I mean, the question of what I would be like if I was elected to office can be answered, has been answered,” he said, reciting his experience of being elected to the District 150 School Board and later to the Illinois House of Representatives. “I stand by my record in public office.”
These quotes prompted me to try to construct a timeline. I went back in the archives and determined that Schock decided to run for school board in December of 2000. In February of 2001, his petitions were challenged and he was ultimately removed from the ballot. He then mounted a write-in campaign and won on April 3, 2001. He started his term on July 2, 2001.
Based on published statements that the document that was dated Jan. 1, 2000 was actually signed “more than a year later,” that means it was signed after Jan.1, 2001. If it was signed before Schock “held elective office,” then that would mean it was signed before July 2, 2001.
So, I guess what we’re being asked to believe is that, in the less than six months between when Schock notarized a back-dated document and when he was elected and installed on the school board, he… changed. That stuff in early 2001 was a youthful indiscretion. But once he took office, he proved himself more mature, and not like that guy mere weeks before who engaged in professional misconduct.
Well, first of all, I think he’s splitting hairs. But secondly, Schock’s “record in public office” shows that he never really lost his inclination to playing fast and loose with the facts.
In 2006, when Senate Bill 2477 was being debated in the House, Schock told the lawmakers in Springfield a whopper. SB2477 was the bill that authorized District 150 to access funding through the Public Building Commission for their new school buildings. He told his colleagues, “This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.” But the city council never took a position on the bill, nor were all the council members in favor of its passage. But the legislators in Springfield didn’t know that. They only know what our representative tells them.
Don’t forget what his support of that measure meant to Peoria: keeping our property taxes high without a binding referendum. If that bill hadn’t passed, the school board still could have gotten funding — they just would have had to ask the citizens of Peoria to approve the funding via referendum. Instead, the school board was able to go forward with their plans without any accountability to the voters at all.
I guess the common thread among all of Schock’s controversies of late is this: Can we trust him? Can we trust him to make the right decisions? To accurately represent our interests? To support the best policies? To do the right thing when he thinks no one is looking?
That will be up to the voters to decide next month.
And everyone wondered why I refused to become a Notary…
I’m sorry, but I can’t take anymore of boy wonder. He’s starting to grate on my nerves. BTW – Vote YES for a Constitutional Convention, no matter what what the teachers union says.
Today as I listened to Colin Powell explain why he would be endorsing O’Bama instead of his friend of more than 20 years, Senator John McCain, it reminded me of Aaron Schock’s race. Colin Powell said his decision hinged on the decision Senator McCain made when he chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
Colin said at the end of the day she is not ready to be Vice President. I believe Aaron Schock is not ready to be a congressman. Schock must not be voted into office and if he is voted in it will speak volumes about the electorate in the 18th congressional district. We will be thought of as stooges (by anyone with a brain)-plain and simple- and I am afraid that is, in large part, Peoria’s long term problem.
CJ – Splitting hairs is your standard operational method…. I suppose you have never done anything similar? Never post-dated a check, etc. ? This is not an issue. Shoplifting (another local race) would be.
If you use a microscope on everything that any person said you can construe almost anything. If you think Callahan is a perfect person, you need to look into her background. Schock has people who hate him and they blog a lot but most of them have never supported him. Yet he won a Democratic area twice. He has a lot of support because of what he has done and how he has accomplished it.
There are double standards being applied against him like crazy.
No one faults Obama for not reimbursing one municipality for police protection for his massive fundraisers at $28,500 a person. NO ONE else should pay for police protection for fundraisers-only Schock.
Obama promised to use public financing of the election this fall and he broke that promise. He lied. He promised to run a positive, inspirational campaign. He lied. All I see are ads bashing McCain. (McSame, McBush, McCain not being able to send an email even though he doesn’t have flexibility in his fingers from war injuries.) That crap is not ” a higher level of political discourse” as promised by Obama. Regardless of what McCain does, Obama needs to live up to his promises.
Schock on the other hand hasn’t run a negative ad in his campaigns or a sent negative mailer, even though Callahan has ONLY had attack ads and press conferences to attack him, just like Bill Spears two years ago. Schock has been true to his word: positive ads. Something to believe in. Walking the walk. Other, more mature politicians have a lot to learn from his example. Leaders always have critics on the sidelines of life pointing out specks of imperfection while they accomplish big things.
Callahan could never weather the same scrutiny. She is lucky not to be running against someone else. She went looking for dirt because she knew she couldn’t win otherwise.
So go ahead, find an imperfection in Schock and decide not to vote for him and then vote for a candidate that hasn’t offered one positive thing in the entire election and then keep complaining about broken politics and negative campaigns.
CJ, use your electron microscope on Callahan for a minute of fair turnabout. Her position on the reinstituting the draft has changed about 10 times. Let’s “chronicle” that.
mdd — Not that it’s germane, but no, I haven’t ever post-dated a check.
I don’t think it’s an issue per se, either. But he would be better off just saying he was wrong and apologizing instead of trying to justify himself. He seems to follow the same pattern whenever a controversy comes up: defend, then minimalize, then back off.
Sam — You bring up a good point: if not Schock, then who? Alas, I have no answer. I don’t support Colleen “Reinstate the Draft” Callahan (and yes, I have been critical of her on my blog). Nor can I support Sheldon “Single-Payer Healthcare System” Schafer. So, I’m really in a pickle. I don’t like any of the candidates.
CJ says: I haven’t ever post-dated a check.
Sad thing is… I believe you.
CJ hypothetically post dating a check isn’t the same as a notary failing to do their duty. As far as I know CJ isn’t a notary and banks don’t require a notarized check. CJ could post date tons of checks and it isn’t the same as a notary certifying the signature and date of a document is valid when they are not. That is the notary’s only job, validate signature and date. That is why they pay their dues to get the seal/stamp, they are entrusted to check date and signature.
Sam: Perhaps none of us would be able to withstand the electron microscope scrutiny of today’s political arena.
Nevertheless, I was an Aaron Schock supporter in the beginning. SB 2477 changed my mind — it was disgusting. I am not a Pollyanna to believe that elected officials do not always tell the truth. This time the lie was in my community’s front yard and would directly affect our pocketbooks to the tune of $70million or more. That is inexcusable, as in ‘impossible to excuse or justify’ — the lie, the cover-up explanation, and then the non-admission of the lie and the cover-up from my personal conversations with Aaron regarding this particular issue.
I agree that positive ads are to be commended. When Aaron’s walk does not match the talk on a specific issue regardless of the money involved that is problematic. When the issue inolves millions of taxpayer dollars and is an end run to avoid giving the taxpayers a choice via referendum and has been he had lied and then covered up his lies that is not acceptible.
I agree with CJ, I do not want to vote for any of the candidates for this office.
A notary is a witness. Schock was supposed to attest to the identity and the date of the signature to prevent fraud, etc in the performance of a contract. What he has basically done is commit perjury as a professional witness. What he has done is basically no different from those rating firms that assigned triple A ratings to junk bond like mortgage backed securities. That crony capitalism has come back to bite the taxpayer in the butt. Go ahead and vote for Schock, but don’t complain about it later. There are plenty of red flags already there.
BTW Thanks C.J. for fixing the links in a previous comment about Schock’s funraising.
Sam,
“Democratic area?” Peoria?!?!?
Your boy is in the frying pan. Let him sizzle. If he wants to play the game…………. you can kiss his boo-boos later.
Dear Republicans,
Powell for Lieberman sounds like a fair trade to me.