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):
Tag Archives: Gary Sandberg
Sandberg appeals for judicial review
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):
Petition for Judicial ReviewSandberg to appeal ruling (UPDATED)
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.
The challenge to Sandberg’s eligibility: an analysis
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:
- Mr. Sandberg does not reside at the address listed on the petition filed for office of 1st District City Council.
- Mr. Sandberg has not met the length of residency requirement outlined in state statute.
- 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.
Sandberg running for first district rep
PEORIA — At-large city councilman Gary Sandberg filed petitions today to run for the first district council seat. He turned in his petitions at 4:59 p.m., just seconds before the deadline.
That means there will be three candidates vying for the first district seat being vacated by incumbent Clyde Gulley: Denise Moore, Randall Emert, and Sandberg. Sandberg recently moved from his home on Bigelow in the second district to an upstairs apartment on Adams Street in the first district.
If Sandberg loses the first district election, he will remain an at-large councilman. There is no requirement that he give up his at-large seat in order to run for a district seat. If he wins the election in April, then he will have to vacate his at-large seat, and the council will vote on a replacement to finish out the final two years of his at-large term.
UPDATE: According to WEEK-TV, here is the complete slate for the Peoria City Council races:
- 1st District — Denise Moore, Randall Emert, Gary Sandberg
- 2nd District — Chuck Grayeb, Barbara Van Auken (incumbent)
- 3rd District — Chad Grimm, Tim Riggenbach (incumbent)
- 4th District — John Kunski, Jim Montelongo
- 5th District — Dan Adler, Casey Johnson, Patti Smith, Dan Irving (incumbent)
As mentioned previously, incumbent Clyde Gulley is not running for reelection, but he is running for Township Supervisor against incumbent Joe Whalen. And fourth district councilman Bill Spears is also not running for reelection.
Temporary is a long time in Peoria
Since April 9, 2008, the Heartland Partnership has been conducting business in the former Damon’s restaurant at Riverfront Village with only a “temporary” Certificate of Occupancy. Councilman Gary Sandberg was tipped off that the building may be occupied without a Certificate, so he sent a FOIA inquiry to the Inspections department and discovered there was no Certificate on file.
Heartland Partnership is the employer of Councilman Ryan Spain, so I contacted him about it. He did some research and informed me via e-mail that “[t]he City has located a temporary certificate of occupancy dated April 9, 2008. Evidently, the employee that conducted the inspection has retired and there is incomplete information in the file.” Later, he added that “the final certificate of occupancy was awaiting signature from the fire department. The contractor and tenant requested a final inspection, which lead to the temporary certificate of occupancy on April 9, 2008. The inspections department coordinates this final step with the fire inspector.”
Inspections Director John Kunski said he couldn’t piece together exactly what happened because it was too long ago. It could be that the building inspector (now retired) didn’t notify the fire department, or that the fire department was notified but an inspection was never conducted for some reason. No one really knows (or will admit) who dropped the ball. Kunski says his department is the “gatekeeper” of the certificate-issuing process, but each department (e.g., fire department, planning/zoning department) is responsible for conducting its own inspection. If a department doesn’t follow through, Inspections “[doesn’t] have a system to flag it.”
The practice of issuing temporary Certificates of Occupancy was instituted under former City Manager Michael McKnight as a way to make the City more “business-friendly,” according to Kunski. But he said that it’s difficult to get compliance once a building is occupied. He would like to see the City require a deposit — $500, for example — that would be put in escrow and refunded once the permanent Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
According to the City of Peoria’s website, “a temporary or partial Certificate of Occupancy good for period up to eight (8) months for any building or structure” may be issued under certain conditions. However, the City Code, section 5-77, doesn’t specify a time-frame; it only says, “Upon written request, the code official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the use of any building or structure prior to the completion and occupancy of the entire building or structure, provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely prior to full completion of the structure without endangering life or public welfare.” Kunski was also unaware of there being any time limit set for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Kunski said that there were “no life/safety issues” at the Heartland Partnership building, or else a temporary Certificate would not have been issued.
So far, five people are definitely running, and two definitely aren’t
City Council hopefuls have six days to file petitions to be placed on the ballot. Today, five candidates filed:
- Ryan Spain (incumbent)
- Eric Turner (incumbent)
- Chuck Grayeb (former councilman)
- Chuck Weaver (Zoning Board of Appeals chairman)
- Jim Stowell (District 150 School Board member)
Two incumbents are definitely not running:
- Jim Montelongo wants to pay more attention to his family and his business
- George Jacob is recovering from a motorcycle accident
Potential candidates have to collect a minimum of 165 signatures to be placed on the ballot, and they have until 5 p.m. next Monday (Nov. 22) to file. Incumbent Gary Sandberg is expected to file at 4:59 p.m. on Nov. 22, as is his usual practice. He likes to be the last name on the ballot. As for who will be first on the ballot — we’ll find out tomorrow. It will be one of three people: Spain, Weaver, or Grayeb. They filed at the same time, so their names will be placed in a lottery to determine their order on the ballot.
If more than 10 people run, there will be a primary on Tuesday, February 22, 2011. The general election will be held Tuesday, April 5, 2011.
Start spreadin’ the news . . .
The New York Yankees are leaving the postseason today. The Rangers are moving on to the World Series. I only know of one person who will be sad about that.
Peoria’s priority problem
“The city doesn’t have a budget problem,” Gary Sandberg told me after the city council voted to spend taxpayer money for a walking trail and a private hotel. “It has a priority problem.”
That was the same observation made by Dr. Heywood Sanders of the University of Texas-San Antonio. Sanders is a well-known critic of the convention center (and increasingly, headquarters hotel) “arms race” taking place in cities across America. He’s currently writing a book about it. I asked for his thoughts on the argument that cities simply must offer huge, tax-supported incentives.
The argument goes like this: “In an ideal world, the free market would reign and projects like the hotel would be built 100% by private investment. But that’s not the world we live in. We’re in a struggle with other communities that are providing public incentives in order to lure businesses to their cities. If we don’t compete in offering these kinds of
incentives, we’ll lose out. It’s not the way it’s supposed to be, but it’s the way it is, and we just have to play the game.”
Dr. Sanders has heard the argument many times before. His response was instructive:
The “we have to do it because everyone else is” argument is repeated endlessly in city after city to justify a host of “economic development” efforts. But that doesn’t make it correct. Cities do need to compete for some things. The crucial questions are what the goals are that the city seeks, and whether the decisions make sense or not. The “we have to” argument neatly avoids laying out real goals and objectives, things that can be measured and assessed over time. And an investment decision necessarily involves risk.
The real [important things to consider are] what the potential rewards are, how they relate to community goals, and what the balance of costs and benefits are. It’s all too easy to hide behind simple homilies so that one doesn’t have to really consider what you’re trying to get, and whether it makes sense. As we’ve discussed, Peoria (like a great many cities) has been trying to “save” its downtown for decades. It doesn’t appear to have made much headway. If that’s really the goal, then you need to consider multiple strategies and alternatives, and see what actually happens.
The problem is that planners and local officials almost invariably seek to imitate what someone else has done, with little understanding of how it came about and why it works. There’s an endless parade of architects, planners, and local officials who visit San Antonio’s famed Riverwalk and conclude that all they need is [a] river (or a canal) to get “economic development.” It’s not that simple. Just like everyone thinks building a new convention center will bring hordes to town, and that they then need a new hotel to make the convention center work. And there are a host of consultants who are willing and eager to give local officials (and the business interests they serve) the urban solution du jour.
Peoria has a long history of trying to use large civic projects as a silver bullet to revitalize downtown:
- The Civic Center was supposed to revitalize downtown, but it hasn’t. It does bring people downtown for Civic Center events, but once the events are over, they all get in their cars and empty out of downtown. The restaurant with the best location relative to the Civic Center — the Grill on Fulton — couldn’t even stay in business. The Civic Center continues to operate in the red every year.
- Then the City developed the riverfront. There was $2.6 million for the Gateway Building, which the City spends $170,000 a year to operate and maintain. They tried to sell it in 2007, but were evidently unsuccessful. Riverfront Village — the raised concrete slab with parking underneath it that blocks your view of the river — was supposed to “pay for itself” with increased property taxes and parking fees. Parking is now free, and the tax-exempt Heartland Partnership is one of the three tenants on the slab. According to the 2010 budget, the Riverfront is expected to bring in $1.07 million in revenue toward the bond payment of $1.3 million.
- Then there was One Technology Plaza, which was supposed to “redefine downtown.” Remember that? As the Journal Star editorialized a year after it opened, One Technology Plaza “was advertised as a novel way to put Peoria on the high-tech map, to distinguish Peoria and its work force from virtually every other mid-sized city in America.” The city spent $9.6 million on that project “in part because the $28 million private development would feature the computer-training agency.” That agency — RiverTech Center — opened in April 2000 and closed in May 2001.
- Then the City acquired and prepared the land for a new ballpark to the tune of $3.3 million. That was supposed to lead to a renaissance south of downtown, turning blighted properties into a “Wrigleyville” atmosphere. The ballpark opened in 2002, but no Wrigleyville has materialized.
- Along the way, the City picked up the Sears property for around $1 million — the so-called “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria. They’re poised to give the land away to the County so Lakeview Museum can relocate to the block at taxpayer expense.
- And then there’s the Wonderful Development (City attorney Randy Ray’s ebullient appellation for the downtown hotel project), which the City Council has approved twice now. It’s a big project with a single developer and no public benefit — but a lot of public risk. This is the latest big, civic, silver bullet that will finally bring tourists to Peoria and make the Civic Center profitable. But just like with the other projects, no measurable, objective criteria for success has been identified for the downtown hotel project. Presumably, as long as the project meets its debt obligation, it will be declared a success, regardless of whether it brings in new conventions, regardless of whether other hotels and restaurants close.
The completed projects have not delivered on their promises of downtown revitalization, and there’s little reason to be hopeful that the proposed projects will fare any better. These projects are all big, flashy, and give the appearance that “things are really booming in Peoria.” Meanwhile, many less-exciting projects get put on the back burner or eliminated altogether. Those projects are called “basic services.” Things like road and sidewalk repair.
At the same time the Council approved the Wonderful Development, there was another $40 million project the council could have funded instead. It’s the Washington/Adams (U.S. Route 24) upgrade project. This would improve Route 24 from I-474 to I-74, which would benefit the public (it’s a public street) as well as numerous business/land owners and developers all up and down the stretch. It would implement key elements of the Heart of Peoria Plan (adopted “in principle” by the City Council) and the Warehouse District form-based code.
It would remove the median from the southern portion of the roadway, making the properties along that stretch more accessible and marketable, thus raising their value. It would make the Warehouse District area more pedestrian-friendly, spurring development of loft apartments/condos which would bring more residents back to downtown, which will spur more demand for retail services in the City’s central business district. Currently many of those properties sit vacant, contributing to the City’s budget woes.
This project is not without risk. There might not be enough property improvements or increases in tax receipts for the project to “pay for itself” (although I’m sure the City could find a consultant to say it will pay for itself if they really wanted to do it). But the project also carries significant public benefit, and the presence of multiple developers and property owners over a large, diverse area mitigates the risks. Yet this project languishes in the Land of Insufficient Resources while the Wonderful Development moves forward.
Conclusion: Success is not a priority for Peoria. Downtown revitalization isn’t really a priority for Peoria. Peoria’s’ biggest priority is the appearance of progress. And based on that criteria, we can all say “mission accomplished.” There’s a lot going on. Stuff being built. Stuff being torn down. Money being spent (mostly tax money, alas). It all contributes to the image that Peoria is moving and shaking.
But it’s not. Peoria is in debt and it’s continuing to lose population. City services are being slashed every year, driving more people away. The appearance of progress is bankrupting us. It doesn’t just affect the City. It also affects the County and, especially, the school district (Things are changing! Look at our shiny new buildings! Just don’t look at our test scores).
Sandberg is right. Peoria doesn’t have a budget problem. It has a priority problem.
Council Roundup 3/9/2010
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!