Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? I mean, the guy got a ton of votes, came in third place, and bested one of the three incumbents. What’s there to contest?
Answer: Whether state law will allow him to serve.
There’s this part of Illinois law called the “Prohibited interest in contracts” clause (50 ILCS 105/3) that says:
No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or Constitution of this State, may be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote.
Ryan Spain works for Heartland Partnership, a private company. The City of Peoria has a contract with the Heartland Partnership for $50,000 per year through 2008 (it was passed by the council on 4/19/05). Spain has an indirect interest in that contract since he is an employee of Heartland Partnership.
The Illinois Attorney General’s office published an opinion in 1996 that said employees of contracted organizations benefit indirectly from those contracts, and are thus prohibited from serving on municipal councils. They quote People v. Sperry (1924) as precedent:
If we attach any significance to the words used by the statute, “directly or indirectly interested in the contract,” we think the conclusion cannot be escaped that the officers of the city, who are also employees of the contractor, must be considered as indirectly interested in the contract, without regard to the fact that they derived no direct benefits from the contract itself.
I don’t know if anyone will actually contest it, but one would think it’s likely. I don’t imagine the council wants to take the chance of being in violation of state law. I’ve sent an e-mail to city attorney Randy Ray seeking comment. I’ll post his response as soon as I receive it.
If my interpretation of the law is correct, this situation raises a lot of questions. For instance, could this problem be removed if Heartland Partnership cancels their contract with the city before Spain takes office? I don’t know if that’s even possible, but if it is, I guess we’ll see what is more valuable to the Heartland Partnership — Spain on the council, or $50,000/year from the city.
Another question that arises is what will happen if Spain is found to be disqualified from service. Will the city try to get state law changed to allow him to serve, like they did with George Jacob? Jacob was originally ineligible because he held a liquor license, but state law was changed to allow him to serve as long as he abstained from any liquor-related decisions. If Spain ends up not being able to serve, would the sixth-place finisher (Dan Irving) be installed as a councilman instead?
Interestingly, this is not the first controversy surrounding Spain’s campaign. He set up a campaign teleconference event — a virtual town hall meeting — that took place at the Workforce Development Center at One Technology Plaza. Several people questioned whether tax-payer money was used for the event, but Spain says the meeting was paid for completely by his campaign, and that his forthcoming campaign disclosure reports will show this.
UPDATE: I’d just like to say, as far as communication goes, Randy Ray does a great job. He’s always timely and informative in his responses. Here is what he had to say on this issue:
Thank you for the question. I do my best to answer citizens’ legal questions concerning their city government, and I intend to answer this one. I have always addressed conflicts first with the affected official, and then, if no resolution is reached, with others. Accordingly, I will address this issue first with Mr. Spain, and then with you. Obviously, the time frame is short, so you can expect to hear from me on or before May 1.
I think that’s a fair way to handle the situation. Of course, I will post Mr. Ray’s follow-up when I receive it. As you can see, it may be a few days. Legal stuff always takes a while.
CJ, you stirring up trouble again?
You made me whistle again, C.J.
Interesting…..where’d this tip come from C.J.? Come on fess up, or Billy will call you to task for being behind a conspiracy to attack someone you don’t support – kinda like the PJS and Butler. 🙂
I read the statute section many times but I still fail to see how their is any conflict of interest that he could have if he abstains from voting on any future contract. I believe state law now allows City employees (at least Fire and Police) to serve on the City Council; how would that not be a conflict?
Just a few other examples of situations where, if Spain’s employment is a conflict, there are just as egregious examples of existing conflicts on the Council: Nichting abstains from votes on issues related to development in the warehouse district where he will directly benefit from some of the City investments and overall development that occurs. Spears and Ardis are able to vote on (and provide policy direction to the City Manager) collective bargaining agreements that directly benefit family members who are members of City unions.
I truly hope that there is no conflict that prevents him from taking office – the public clearly likes what he stands for. IF the legal opinion says there is, the City Council should immediately terminate the contract to clear the air and remove any obstacle to him taking office and then work to change the law.
Police, fire, and other city employees are public employees. Heartland Partnership is private; the contract is with a private company. So, for instance, I don’t believe an employee of AMT could be on the council (but don’t hold me to that — I’m thinking off the cuff here). There’s no “contract” with the Warehouse District — the Warehouse District isn’t even a corporate entity.
This issue should be resolved one way or the other. You’re right that the people clearly want him in office, so if this can be resolved by getting rid of the contract, that would be fine by me. In fact, he could then say that his first act in office was to save the city $50,000 a year! 🙂
So I should stop buying Budweiser beer because my councilman, Jacob, owns the distrubuting warehouse and he is on the council that oversees liquior licenses? Oh wait. he can abstain from voting on liquior issues. So why can’t Spain abstain from Heartland matters? Isn’t Budweiser a private company also? For christ sake CJ, you gotta stop talking to Sandburg. I don’t believe for a minute that you truly believe that this isn’t going to be a problem. Sounds and smells more like sour grapes. It will indeed be interesting to see what Mr Ray says if anything and more interesting to see who is behind this whole issue.
Hi Emtronics! I’ve been waiting for you. No, it’s not sour grapes. I’m not hoping he gets thrown off the council or anything. I’d be happy just saving the $50,000/year for the city. Maybe East Peoria or Dunlap will make up the difference.
Anyway, more on point, the city doesn’t have a contract with Brewer’s Distributing. If they did, then Jacob couldn’t serve either. I don’t write the laws — I’m just pointing it out. Wouldn’t you rather know now, before he takes office, than have a “gotcha” moment later?
this wasn’t a scoop, it’s a direct attack from an incumbant.
Em, you’ve got to put your bias aside or tell us about that deal that has Budweiser sponsoring the City of Peoria.
And if it’s not legal, it’s not legal Paul. That doesn’t make it an “attack”.
Seems the key issue is the phrase “in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote” and whether if Spain would abstain any time such a contract with his employer comes up for a vote he has avoided being “called upon to act or vote.”
C.J.,
I do understand that the difference is public versus private employment; but my point (which I didn’t make very well), was that IF this is a conflict that would prevent him from serving then something needs to be done to correct the situation. However, if it deemed to be one, I’d bet large amounts of beer (Bud of course) that the same connected individuals that changed state law to get Jacob appointed will quietly look the other way.
There are many more direct conflicts of interest where councilmembers are taking action on items before them, where there is an immediate and/or direct benefit to a family member, friend, etc. of the councilmember. That seems to me to be as big an issue as this one – the only difference is the State Legislature has made one legal and one illegal. I just don’t see much consistency in the laws. Not sure I agree with the distinction that Jim Ryan made in his legal opinion either where he split a hair about the difference between public and private employees.
I think that I’ll just sit back and wait for the opinion Randy Ray provides. He’s a great municipal attorney and lays it out based on law alone and doesn’t play games with interpretations.
SA — The statute goes on to say that a person could hold office and just abstain from voting on matters that affect his business only if certain conditions are satisfied. One of those conditions is that the contract has to be for less than $25,000. Since the Heartland Partnership contract is for $50,000, serving and abstaining from relevant votes is not an option.
The gottcha moment you are waiting for isn’t going to happened. I wish I could say more but for now, all of you enjoy. I am going back to pouring the rest of my stock on Bud down the drain and head out and get some Miller.
Post that Ray email if and when it comes.
Peo Proud — I agree that the laws are inconsistent. And I also agree that a precedent was set with councilman Jacob. If they were willing to move heaven and earth to get state law changed so he could be appointed to serve, then one would expect the same kind of attempt would be made on behalf of a duly-elected candidate like Spain. If they don’t, we have to ask why not. That can of worms could be avoided by getting out of the contract, though, which seems to be the simplest option, if Heartland Partnership is willing to give up the money.
I, too, await Mr. Ray’s response. I think Spain is definitely in a conflict-of-interest situation, though. The question will be how they get around it.
Thanks for the enigmatic comment, Emtronics. Sounds like you’ve been talking to your “voice on the council.” 🙂
Nope I have not been talking to Spain if that is what you mean. I wish not to plug my blog but read the lastest entry. Spain and his campaign aren’t talking.
Shot in the dark here, but as this is state law, I suspect the apparent unfairness of this situation vs. others y’all mentioned above is probably because Illinois’s favorite form of corruption is selling state contracts to politicians’ relatives and friends. When I did ethics training at ICC (irony note below), there was a LOT LOT LOT about not selling gov’t contracts to people I know.
I think it’s another example of the pervasive high-level corruption in Illinois falling heavily on low-level employees and small local governments when the bigwigs go on as corrupt as they wish. The irony note is: Springfield wants to look like it’s doing something about corruption without actually doing anything. So I had to do ethics training. After being hired to TEACH ETHICS.
Eyebrows – as always, an insightful response and I have to agree with your assessment of the state’s approach.
C.J. – you are on a roll lately in bringing out some big issues ahead of all the other bloggers and media outlets. You seem to have made some good connections and people obviously see you as a good resource for shedding light on issues. I also am waiting to see the City Attorney’s response and depending on what it states – how the City Council reacts (or doesn’t).
the question is moot. even if spain can’t hold office and his job, he will resign from his job and stay on the council. there is no law against running for office while in such a job situation. you just cant hold office and the job at the same time.
he is so well plugged in with the rich and powerful he will get a job elsewhere.
look at ardis. his friends took care of him when he needed a gig.
I have a feeling that some big names will get involved in this. This will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Nice work, C.J.
I have to wonder,if this had been Jacob or any other candidate would CJ be making this an issue? Is there an underlying “agenda” going on here? Why with all your great in depth reporting did this go un noticed after Spain won the Primary and seemed to have a lock on a seat?? The real issue here is not so much Spain and the law, that will be decided by the people that be and not CJ and his commentors, but what prompted this now and who prompted this. Who’s agenda is really being full filled here?
I kind of agree…nobody even hinted at this before the general election. And I am going to investigate this $50,000 contract more thouroughly…I wonder if it is really what people think…
You know what will happen? They will get their trail!
I’m not “making this an issue.” I’m pointing out that an issue exists. And yes, if it had been any other candidate, I would have brought it up. The reason I didn’t bring it up before is because I didn’t know about it before. I’m sure if I had known about it and brought it up before the primary or something, you still would be accusing me of conspiracy.
The issue is: is it a law or isn’t it? I still maintain, it’s better to bring it up now, before he’s seated, than later — after he’s seated. If it turns out his service would be in violation of this law, then as soon as he were seated, he would be committing a felony. Isn’t it better for everyone to find out ahead of time?
If you read the rest of the code you will find other exemptions and I think this might clear up any confusion:
b‑5) In addition to the above exemptions, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services, or labor if:
A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which the interested member of the governing body of the municipality, advisory panel, or commission has less than a 1% share in the ownership; and
B. the award of the contract is approved by a
majority vote of the governing body of the municipality provided that any such interested member shall abstain from voting; and
C. such interested member publicly discloses the
nature and extent of his interest before or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and
D. such interested member abstains from voting on
the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum.
Unless I am sorely mistaken Spain and his job meet those requirements.
This is very similar to the previous exemption CJ cited that had a $25000 dollar limit, however the level of ownership is lowered (Spain is not an owner in any sense so its not an issue) and there is not contract limit.
Well said by an observer…when Randy Ray speaks, we will know for sure.
By the way…
No I am not Spain nor did I even vote for the guy. Just wanted to try to clear up the confusion. And in CJ’s defense he honestly had anything against Spain he would have done more damage if he brought this up BEFORE the election when it could have actually hurt his chances.
Perhaps. I’m not sure he meets the less than 1% share requirement. We’ll see what Randy Ray has to say about it.
I was reluctant on Spain in the election because I thought he hadn’t proven himself. Well he ran a good campaign and he has proven himself and everyone knew he works at Heartland. Whatever has to be done needs to be done. He has earned the position. If the law could be overturned for Jacob it can be modified for Spain. In Spain’s case it would be one abstention a year vs one a meeting for Jacob. Not to mention the conflicts Ardis and Spears have in voting on union contracts when those contracts affect their brothers. Or that Spears got Ardis to appoint his brother-in-law Jacob to begin with.
CJ: I know you are “just reporting” and not making this an issue. I am sorry if I come across like you are. I am just wondering how you came up with this issue all of a sudden. I do believe that someone “tipped” you off to this and that someone is a key player on the council. What that person’s agenda is I am not sure. I can’t believe that you simply sat down the other day and started researching state statues on elected officals. Then, found 105/3. Can I ask how this came to light?
I know how this came up but I am wondering if you will admit it.
Two words: Gary Sandburg. No doubt Mr. Sandburg put a little bug in CJ’s ear. I’ll bet you a thousand virtual dollars. Like the Butler thing, if it is a problem, it is a problem. But timing is everything. If it is Mr. Sandburg, did he look into this before the primary or before the general election? He’s a smart guy. He wouldn’t have to “leak” it to the press (in this case, CJ), just inquire to the city’s lawyer or some other lawyer. More “gotcha” from the parrot.
Emtronics — indirectly. Someone mentioned to me that they heard a rumor that Gary might contest Spain’s election because of the city’s contract with Heartland. That was all that was said. I thought that sounded like a stretch, but followed up on it anyway. In researching conflict of interest stuff for public officials, I came across the opinion from the attorney general, which in turn references the state statute. I also Googled the city’s website for any contracts with Heartland and found that the city did have one with them. So I heard a rumor and put the pieces together myself.
Still, I can’t understand why you think the timing is *bad*. If this had been brought up *before* the election, it could have affected his chances of winning. If it were brought up *after* he was seated, he could be guilty of a felony. I can’t imagine a better time to bring it up and make sure there’s no state law being broken than right now, while there’s plenty of time to get the whole thing settled one way or the other — either we get a legal opinion that he’s not in violation, or we do something to get him out of violation.
The timing is *bad* in that this question about whether he can legally serve wasn’t given an airing before voters had already cast their ballots. Unlike the Alicia Butler matter, this is a question about whether or not a person is legally able to serve once elected.
If Gary knew about this and DIDN’T bring it up before the election, he should have.
Still my reading is that as long as he abstains from voting, he’s in the clear.
Spain never hid from anyone what he does for a living, and it’s a matter of public record that Heartland received public cash.
You may be right C.J. but ponder this.
If brought up before the election and Randy Ray concluded it was not an issue it could have easily helped Spain MORE! Just as Alicia Butler would have turned out fine had she proven she actually had a degree (which she clearly doesn’t’). If anything, there is a chance it could have back fired on Mr. Sandburg. (How that is I have no idea…he has prostitutes, makes open fun of mayors and is fond of that taboo “N” word and still wins in landslides)
Gary is a smart, very intelligent man and Gary realizes, just as you will probably find out from Mr. Ray, that Ryan is not going to be removed. It is a power play tactic, in my opinion, to bully and try to intimidate a young candidate. This is the kind of “cut throat” game Sandburg plays and it is really counter productive to the health of this city. People need to see the bigger picture: if Peoria grows and prospers economically, everything else, including essential services will happen. (More business + More population = More city revenue) It is more complicated than that but you get the picture. Maybe the voting public should reconsider the “essential services” FIRST model and change a stagnant way of thinking that is making our community “second rate” compared to Naperville, Schaumburg and even Normal!
I mean…haven’t we heard the essential services first model for 18 YEARS! Have we seen any results?
It’s all a lot of speculation until we see the legal opinion. We just need to wait for that to see what the legal options are.
The statute also notes: “No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or constitution of this state, may be in any manner interested, either directly or indirectly, in his own name or in the name of any other person, association, trust or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote. * * * Any contract made and procured in violation hereof is void.”
Couple points that may be relevant. There may be no potential conflict until the contract comes up for a vote again. Until that point, he hasn’t participated in the making or letting of the contract. It was enacted by a prior council. So abstaining on future votes might suffice.
Also, note the last sentence of the highlighted section, any contract made in violation is “Null and void”. Which should make some on the Council happy as they have never felt they got their monies worth out of the Heartland Partnership contract anyways.
I have known about the two state statutes covering conflict of interests(not just the one CJ relied upon)for 8 or 10 years because they have directly affected me. I have been repeatedly instructed that I could not even provide Architectural services for the Peoria Housing Authority, as a sitting City Council representative, for example.
I specifically in writing asked Corporation Counsel Ray for clarification if I as an employee of a company could have that company enter into a contract with the City of Peoria to construct the replacement of the Rebecca Street Arches, a project that was being advertised at the time (Feb-Mar of 2007). Mr. Ray informed me I could not and be a sitting Council member (02 March 2007). I did not become part of that potential project team. I routinely ask Corporation Counsel Ray regarding legality of conflicts that may arise.
I believe there is a direct collary between that situation and that of Ryan Spain, but I could be wrong as I don’t have Peoria’s “heavy hitters” and/or the local daily newspaper supporting me. I know that IF I was or had been in violation of that same State Statute, It would have been headlines along with Alicia. I doubt if the “situational ethics” of the Journal Star would have “overlooked” a “gotcha moment” for a candidate they personally attack while shielding their “chosen”.
I did not make this a campaign issue because other than the ethical or character litmus exposure that Ryan created by not discussing the state statute with Corporation Counsel Ray months ago, it is not against any law one can not run for office, just not hold office. Ryan felt free to state his position as Public Policy Manager of the Heartland Partnership without prior discussion with Corporation Ray. If he has to change jobs, it its Ryan’s fault and quite frankly an affront to those who voted for him because he was Public Policy Manager of the Heartland Partnership
It was my intention to let the “vetting” process take it’s place and ONLY IF NOT ADDRESSED during that process bring it to the attention of appropriate authorities after the swearing in process, as only then had any law been potentially violated. I did share with Mayor Ardis and several other elected individuals my concern as early as the first of March that there is a problem with Ryan Spain’s ability to hold office.
It is Ryan’s obligation to assure his conformity with state statures, not mine. I have repeatedly had to make decisions and professional sacrifices based on the same state statute that in Ryan’s case appears to have his supporters, overtly or covertly, willing to overlook. So much for situational “zero tolerance” enforcement of laws that Candidate Spain espoused.
For the record, with respect to George Jacob and changing the state statute to serve him, I clearly stated that I thought the law served a purpose and I did NOT (the only one) vote to appoint him or my friend Pat Sullivan as long as either of them or anyone else held a liquor license. Lastly, if Gale Thetford would have been re-elected, she also with her current employer may have run into the state statute as her employer up to two years ago provided health care administration for the City of Peoria (and several others).
The law is there and is there to serve an ethical and potentially criminal situation and it is up to elected representatives to know the law, understand the law and the implications that the law has for them in fulfilling their elected responsibilities. To charge it is an “attack” is as misplaced as much as blaming the VICTUM of an “Assault Conviction” instead of the person convicted of the assault, don’t you think Paul Wilkinson?
Looks like Mr. Sandberg will have a great working relationship with Mr. Spain on the Council! Gary?, why in the hell don’t you ever do something constructive, rather than destructive, and be a good councilman for the city of Peoria
Roman II says, “why in the hell don’t you ever do something constructive, rather than destructive”.
Wow, those are strong words considering Sandberg (again) got the most votes for at-large. Seems that you are in the minority in your opinion. Many others feel different.
The law is the law. If this is an issue, it needs to be resolved.
Gary is, IMHO, an excellent councilman. And that he brought this issue up at this time is a wise move for everyone concerned. To have brought it up during the campaign could have looked like mudslinging on his part – this is my take – and Gary has consistently been a low key campaigner. So, per his argument, he was leaving it to Mr. Spain to deal with during his campaign as he saw fit. It was Spain’s responsibility during the campaign, plain and simple.
But Spain, not to say I don’t like him, didn’t deal with it prior to his election. Maybe he didn’t understand the issue completely, who knows. Law is a complicated thing – I certainly don’t claim to be an expert. But now, Gary has a right (so does CJ) to bring the issue into the public arena. This could be a problem – and leaving it until Mr. Spain is in office and people or groups start suing over conflict of interest would be a disaster for the City as a whole.
Bringing this up now, Gary or CJ, takes a lot of the bite out of the issue. He got elected, and now we have to look at the validity of his ability to serve before he actually takes office. Had he not been elected, this would be moot. But now that he is, it must be clarified.
It doesn’t look, to me, like an attack (although I was mildly suspicious of CJ’s source/timing, but as that’s been cleared up, I’m cool). This should be dealt with now. Cool logic would appear to back this up, and not any kind of bias or bullying.
I’ll give Councilman Sandberg (don’t know him well enough to call him Gary like some of you) credit for acknowledging that he initially identified the issue and raised it with some other Councilmembers. And I have to agree that it’s Councilman-elect Spains duty to address it – if it needs to be.
While people may not like Councilman Sandberg’s approach (as I don’t at times), he is at least consistent. He did vote against the appointment of Jacob and despite the high marks many give Councilman Jacob for his efforts, he does have to abstain on a significant number of votes. I do think that the ability of elected members to serve is impacted by frequent abstaining on votes but also feel that the laws should be consistent in their application.
My gut says that this potential issue is no more an obstacle for Spain’s successful tenure than the other ones facing many of the other Councilmembers. I hope that it can be easily resolved in favor of letting him serve.
It is so nice of Mr Sandburg to watch our backs when it comes to the council. I guess we will just have to wait and see how this plays out and there is always the chance Spain may just resign his position at the Heartland Group to stay on the council. If that happened then all this will be moot. At any rate, I am sure Spain will make all the hard sacrifices Jacob had to make to be seated. (snark) Maybe when Jacob, his brother in law Spears,and Sandberg get together, they can discuss ways to make the council an effective governing body. Something it hasn’t been in years. Don’t forget the ex wife of Sandburg, Van Auken. It’s a family thing and I for one am damn glad they are watching our backs and reading the laws to make sure everything is on the up and up. As we all know in Peoria, the Council is nothing but straight forward. Now I am going to pay my Garbage Fee and then go watch another house come down in the Arbour District.
I agree, a great way for Gary and Ryan to hit it off. How pathetic. I am sure Mr. Spain is no doubt part of the vast conspiracy in Peoria to promote everything that is evil.
Jealous, anyone?
The degree of the incestuous political relationships now governing Peoria is bad and hurtful to Peoria. We watch TV and shake our heads at the ridiculous perpetual domination of a few Chicago families running that city and punting to relatives to succeed them or giving relatives contracts or huge salary raised or ghost jobs and all kinds of conflicts of interest. But we are no better.
Yes, Gary Sandberg and Barbara Van Auken were married and still date. Then we have boyhood friends Ardis and Spears on the council appointing Spears’ brother-in-law Jacob to the council. Then Ardis and Spears vote on city contracts and direct the city manager on implementation of those contracts even though both their brothers are covered by those contracts.
Who cares who abstains from a particular vote. They each scratch each others back often enough to get the others to vote their way on the issues they care about but can’t vote on because of the conflicts. Whether they abstain or not, being in the incestuous majority they get their way anyway.
We need a fresh independent voice like Ryan Spain on the Council. This petty “conflict” which is not covered if you read all the relevant laws is a tiny compared to the moat in the eyes of Sandberg, Van Auken, Ardis, Spears, and Jacob. Those are real conflicts which cost the city money.
Leave Ryan alone.
If Spain gets bummped does ths put Thetford on the council? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Vonster: No, Irving came in sixth.
Whewwwww!
Perhaps. I’m not sure he meets the less than 1% share requirement. We’ll see what Randy Ray has to say about it.
Left by C. J. Summers on April 20th, 2007
I looked into this issue spefically before I decided to run for City Council in Pekin, and found that basically, unless you have ownership in the company, all you have to do is abstain.
I wonder how this lines up with letting firefighters serve on councils…
Chad, that info is gonna kill CJ. I have learned here (from reading my Star Trek Journal) on this blog that you simply can’t mix “Anti-Spain” with “Spain”.
I think Chad and “an observer” are probably right. I’ve been looking up some info on that “b-5” exception and it looks tailor-made for Spain’s situation. I should have caught it the first time. Since I found the AG’s opinion first (from 1996), I was going primarily off of that. The “b-5” exception was passed in the latter part of 1997.
Regardless, this situation was going to come up once Spain was seated — Gary already mentioned that — so I think it was good to defuse the situation ahead of time. By getting this all cleared up before he’s seated instead, it will allow the council to get to work without this as a distraction.
And Emtronics, the only thing that kills me is your belief that I’m “anti-Spain” simply because I thought other candidates in the race were more qualified. I’m sorry it offends you that I don’t worship the ground he walks on like you do.
All anyone can ask C.J. is that you keep an open mind and give all councilmembers (including existing incumbents) the same level of scrutiny. I think your prior posting show that you’ll do that.