Wind farm ban becomes issue in Sangamon county board election

Proposed changes to the county wind farm ordinance have become an issue in the election for Sangamon county board seats. In August, I wrote about the county board threatening to turn away green jobs and clean energy by adopting the most extreme restrictions in Illinois. The post got some attention, including a promotion to the front page of DailyKos.

County board members punted the issue again by extending the ban on wind farms for another six months. Ordinance changes, which may halt development of a wind farm proposed in western Sangamon county, will be considered again after the election.

The delays, hesitation, and threatened destruction of a project that would create badly needed green jobs has been raised by several candidates challenging county board incumbents. Mike Ziri was the first to contact me after my blog post. Ziri is a Springfield Democrat running in district 11. Both Ziri and Mike Crews spoke in favor of wind farm jobs at the Liberty Brew & View candidate night last month. Crews referenced his opponent's vote for the wind farm moratorium in a campaign mailing.

The sponsor of the ordinance is Springfield county board member Tim Moore. I contacted his election opponent, Tony DelGiorno, to ask if this is an issue in his race. He speaks about it with voters while knocking on doors and it's included on his campaign website. Tony sent me this quote:

"In my opinion, Sangamon County should be among the pioneers in renewable energy alternatives in the State of Illinois.  Other communities and counties in Illinois have successfully built wind farms, minimized adverse consequences, and reaped the rewards of increase property tax revenue and the creation of green jobs. The so-called moratorium and overly restrictive ordinance put forward by my opponent demonstrates the shear lack of leadership, ingenuity, and forward thinking that has stagnated the county board.  We need new leadership with new ideas."

Those are refreshing words compared to the hemming and hawing from county board members who seem unable to resolve the issue. My impression is that many Republican board members are hesitating partly due to pressure from a small, but vocal, group of opponents. The dynamics can change if they realize there will be a political cost for stopping the wind farm.

Candidates are making their final push before the election. If you speak with a Sangamon county board candidate, ask whether they support wind farm jobs, and then give your support to those who do.

If you live elsewhere, remember that energy is not just a national issue. Local officials in your area have a large voice in whether we stick with dirty energy sources or build a new energy future.


Note: I didn't want to procrastinate this blog post any longer so I didn't attempt to contact every candidate. If other candidates send me their position, I'll be happy to post those as well.

A hidden Obama success story: weatherization and energy efficiency

I sometimes hear people say they wish Barack Obama had created more New Deal style programs to create jobs like the WPA or CCC. It would be even better if he did it to build clean energy projects and deal with climate change.

I often think, that's a great idea! I liked it even better the first time when it was called the federal stimulus bill! Then I try to remember not to be such a sarcastic jerk and politely point out that Obama funded a lot of projects like that when he decided to make energy the main focus of the stimulus bill. Many forget or never knew.

Part of the trouble is that Obama didn't advertise stimulus jobs with catchy acronyms like CCC or WPA. Sure, there were signs at some public works projects but it wasn't mandatory. The vast majority of jobs saved or created by stimulus funding didn't arrive with a sign to let people know where the money came from.

For example, energy efficiency and weatherization funding. I learned at Climate Progress that, after getting $5 billion in the stimulus bill, the Weatherization Assistance Program has weatherized 1 million homes as of September 27, 2012. Woohoo!

The program is a triple win. It creates jobs, helps deal with climate change by lowering energy use, and lowers monthly utility bills. The post at Climate Progress points out that "state governments have been using a network of over 1,000 local agencies and more than 4,000 private contractors while employing an average of more than 12,000 workers per quarter to perform weatherization services across the country."

The Weatherization Assistance Program not only created jobs desperately needed in the construction industry, it also provided a boost for American manufacturing and small businesses. More than 89 percent of the materials used in home retrofits are made right here in America. In all cases, except refrigerators (which are 62.3 percent domestically produced), retrofitting homes exceeded the national average for domestic share of all manufactured products used in the United States of 76.5 percent. Recovery Act funding went through these channels to stimulate local economies, employ thousands, and create demand for American-made supplies. 

I'm sure workers in some of the factories making those materials know they won new orders because of the weatherization program. But, I wonder how many people are aware that a factory in their town was able to stay open or hire new employees because of orders generated by the program. Not many, I bet.

Consider how it was implemented in my community as a typical example. Federal money was given to the states and passed down to agencies with weatherization programs. It allowed Sangamon County to dramatically expand their program during a time of major budget cuts. I'll be cynical and assume that the heavily Republican Sangamon county government probably operated by their usual buddy system and hired contractors they knew.

Neither Republican county leaders nor the friends they hire to do the work will go out of their way to credit Obama. In fact, many of them are the sort of people who nod their head when a politician says "government doesn't create jobs," even if they've spent most of their lives working for the government.

One might read in the newspaper or on the county website that the program was expanded thanks to stimulus funds, but there's nothing obvious to point that out when the work is being done. No one from the federal CCC or WPA came to work on their house. A contractor sent by the county did. It's likely that many program participants are unaware or quickly forget about the connection to federal stimulus funding.

The $25 Billion of energy efficiency spending in the stimulus bill included much more than weatherization. Using another local example, Springfield's public utility did very well applying for stimulus funds, getting awards for a number of popular new and expanded programs.

The utility isn't shy about saying they received funding from the awkwardly named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But, there's no particular reason to mention ARRA to every single person when work is being done and rebates are being distributed.

From a governing standpoint, it may have been more effective to distribute funding through existing agencies and non-profits rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy.

From a political standpoint, it was a huge failure not to brand the stimulus with a catchy name that would be mentioned every time a job is saved or created. That allows Republicans to call the stimulus a failure and continue repeating the delusion that government doesn't create jobs. It also allows Green Party cynics to make their own delusional claim that Obama is no better than Bush on energy issues.

This is more important than Democrats taking credit for a hugely successful program that every single Republican in Congress voted against. Obama just made the largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history, by far. But, every expert I've read believes we must do much, much more.

There's no path to dealing with climate change that doesn't include dramatically reducing the amount of energy we waste. It's important to brag about the success of these programs because they need to happen again in Obama's second term.

Will Sangamon county turn away green jobs?

A proposal is currently before the Sangamon County Board that would end a project to create local green jobs and clean energy. I decided to check out rumors I've been hearing that the county board may kill a proposed wind farm and there's definitely reason for concern.

The county has a "moratorium" on wind farms while it considers zoning rules. The current rules require turbines to be 1,000 feet from any structure and 1,200ft from a neighboring property line. That's already the most restrictive setback requirement in Illinois. The next largest setback rule is 750ft in Peoria county.

I'm told that some Illinois wind power producers dislike the Sangamon county ordinance because it could set a new standard that's too restrictive. Despite that, the company proposing a new local wind farm, Sangamon Wind, still agreed to the rule.

Now, there's a proposed change that would be even more restrictive. The "perimeter setback" to the property line of the project would be increased for turbines over 400ft, like the ones proposed by Sangamon Wind. This would protect pieces of ground on neighboring property from being near a wind turbine even if there are no houses or other structures nearby. It would essentially give landowners veto power over their neighbors who do want to participate in the project.

As if that weren't enough, two county board members offered separate floor amendments at their last meeting extending the perimiter setbacks even further to 1,850ft or 2,640ft. Thankfully, the proposals were postponed but the issue will come back at a future meeting.

I spoke with a representative of Sangamon Wind who told me that the new guidelines would effectively ban wind farms in Sangamon county.

Farmers and other landowners across Illinois sound generally happy with the extra revenue they're getting from hosting wind turbines on their property. The wind industry supported 5,000-10,000 Illinois jobs in 2010. Could Sangamon become the one county backward enough to turn down good jobs during a recession?



There was some opposition at previous public hearings on the ordinance. Residents near the project had reasonable questions. A few others brought up a long list of far-fetched objections and internet conspiracy theories about wind power generation.

Ultimately, there are some people who just don't want any change to their scenic views of corn and soy fields, even though wind farms preserve the rural nature of the area. It would be ironic if opponents stopped the wind farm only to see the area later developed with a subdivision or mega hog farm.

There's also a great deal of support, including land owners who already agreed to have wind turbines on their property. Added tax revenue will benefit the rural New Berlin school district, which is below the state average on per-pupil spending.

Wind power is facing an unusual level of scrutiny. In contrast, the county board didn't hesitate to approve a dirty energy project in the recent past. An expansion of the Viper Coal mine near Williamsville was not only approved, but given $900,000 in local tax breaks over ten years. They also received $4.7 million in grants from the Illinois Coal Development Fund, and that's hardly the first time the out-of-state owners have been given large coal subsidies.

To my knowledge, Sangamon Wind isn't asking for the same special county tax subsidies or state grants given to Viper mine. Tax revenue from the project will benefit local schools and government.

Sangamon county needs more jobs and the nation needs more clean energy. It's puzzling that the county board is having such a difficult time doing something that should be a no-brainer.

County board elections are happening this year. If a candidate asks for your vote, ask them where they stand on bringing clean energy and green jobs to Sangamon county.

County residents run from the shadows

Sangamon county's strict guidelines for wind energy appear to be in reaction to a few objectors who are spreading misconceptions among county residents. The most frequent complaint aired at Monday's county board committee meeting was the fear of declining property values.

Regional Planning Director Norm Sims pointed out that studies of sales before and after wind farm development in the U.S. showed they had no statistically significant effect on surrounding property values. In some areas, positive attitudes about wind power caused property values to go up. The Planning Commission compiled information on this issue for a more thorough report to the county board.

The remaining menagerie of fears ranged from the inconvenient prospect of forcing crop dusters to coordinate their schedule with wind farm operators (the operator is offering to turn off turbines for crop dusting) to the specter of "shadow flicker." This refers to the terror of moving shadows being cast by a turbine if someone is unable to close their blinds for a few hours of the day during certain times of the year.

A myth v. fact paper by the American Wind Energy Association offers an explanation with less sarcasm than my blog.

For some who have homes close to wind turbines, shadow flicker can occur under certain circumstances and can be annoying when trying to read or watch television. However, the effect can be precisely calculated to determine whether a flickering shadow will fall on a given location near a wind farm, and how many hours in a year it will do so. Potential problems can be easily identified using these methods, and solutions range from providing an appropriate setback from the turbines to planting trees to disrupt the effect.

People are also concerned about noise. I visited someone who lived less than a mile from the wind farm in McLean county. They didn't mind being close and I thought the steady turning of the blades was relaxing. I couldn't hear the turbines on a very windy day but the loud clanging of a snap hook the wind was knocking against their flag pole was getting on my nerves.



(Gob nob turbine near Farmersville)


When I visited the gob nob turbine in Farmersville I thought it was pretty loud. Then I realized it was just the frogs croaking. I couldn't hear the turbine on a windy day until I was standing directly under it.

The Planning Commission put together another report on health impacts from wind turbine sound. Additionally, you can check out their summary of setback requirements, which are stricter than many other areas. They also spoke of measures to prevent bird kills, which is an important issue when siting wind farms.

The planning professionals are doing their part to clear up misconceptions and provide unbiased information. It's up to the public to let county board members know that there's support for this project.

Besides, it's what Lincoln would have wanted.

"Of all the forces of nature, I should think the wind contains the largest amount of motive power—that is, power to move things. Take any given space of the earth’s surface—for instance, Illinois—; and all the power exerted by all the men, and beasts, and running-water, and steam, over and upon it, shall not equal the one hundredth part of what is exerted by the blowing of the wind over and upon the same space. ...As yet, the wind is an untamed, and unharnessed force; and quite possibly one of the greatest discoveries hereafter to be made, will be the taming, and harnessing of the wind."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1858

Sangamon county unfriendly soil for wind farms

As the nation attempts to come out of a recession, Sangamon county is thumbing its nose at new energy jobs. At a committee meeting of the Sangamon county board, the Regional Planning Director acknowledged that our local zoning ordinance for wind farms is stricter than most other counties reviewed in Illinois and surrounding states.

The Monday meeting included a description of the wind energy zoning ordinance, most of which is copied from similar laws in other areas, but with additional requirements. A copy of the presentation is on the county website.

Among the restrictions, the county will enforce violations of noise and some other regulations if the state fails to do so. I'm not aware of the county offering to police other state environmental regulations but it's interesting to think about who might be impacted if they choose to become green watchdogs. The distance turbines can be placed from incorporated areas and existing structures is already greater than many other counties require, and some residents are asking that it be increased even more.



(Iowa wind farm that provides power to CWLP)


The developers of the proposed wind farm weren't given time on the agenda but they were allowed two minutes each during the public comment period. One spokesperson stated that if the county enacts requirements for a one-mile setback, which some residents are calling for, the company would be forced to abandon the project.

It's disappointing that more time wasn't given to the developer or to a wind energy expert to clear up concerns raised by people in the audience. The county's strict guidelines appear to be in reaction to a few objectors who are spreading every youtube rumor about the supposed horrors of wind farms. I'll write more about their objections in another post.

In contrast, the county board took a very different approach to the Viper coal mine expansion near Williamsville earlier this year. The Viper mine has been cited for hundreds of safety and environmental violations. Despite their record, the county board approved $900,000 in sales and property tax breaks to the International Coal Group for expanding mining operations. It's hard to argue that the multinational corporation needed special help to expand Viper Mine since they also received massive taxpayer subsidies from the state.

That's the kind of corporate welfare people should keep in mind when the county claims they don't have money to avoid laying off Sheriff's deputies. They have money, but they choose to prioritize it elsewhere.

During the meeting, I asked the county board committee whether they considered giving similar incentives to attract a wind farm. If they're going to subsidize an energy source, shouldn't it be one that has the least negative impact on our community? It didn't appear that anyone has considered it.

The county board is mostly hearing from people opposed to the project. If you care about bringing green jobs to Sangamon county then make sure your county board member knows what you think.

Two more meetings about the wind ordinance are scheduled:
7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25 at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 715 E. Illinois St., New Berlin
7 p.m. Monday, Feb. 1, Rochester Village Hall

Sheriff's public corruption unit

This is exciting but don't expect anything like it in Sangamon county anytime soon.

Dart said that while the federal government often targets "the big fish" in public corruption, they don't always have the resources or the time to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at the lower levels of suburban government.

While the Cook County state's attorney has a responsibility to prosecute such cases, the officeholders there have had a spotty record at best.

Some suspect that state's attorneys have wanted to look the other way because they rely on local government leaders for support come re-election time.

Which makes me wonder why we haven't heard about the Sangamon county State's Attorney doing follow up investigations to find out if what happened at the state level also happened in Sangamon. For example, why are employees of Cellini family companies always on county committees related to building roads and planning? And why do you have to read about that on some blog instead of seeing it in the local paper?

It's easy to attack Cook county for corruption but I wonder if the main difference is that in Chicago there's someone to investigate and uncover it. It's easier to keep things quiet in smaller towns when everyone is benefiting and the local press is cooperative.

How Sangamon voting machines were programmed to influence local races

Many of the ways a partisan election official can influence the outcome of an election are within the law. We saw that this year in Sangamon county.

Last year Sangamon county used Populex voting machines that alerted a voter when they skipped voting in a race, also known as an undervote. This year we used a new ballot counting machine that has the ability to give a similar message alerting voters that they skipped a race. An ES&S fact sheet for the ballot counting machines used in Sangamon County states:

In the event of overvoted and undervoted situations, the Model 100 can immediately return the ballot to the voter, displaying the specific race in question in the LCD display. Voters may then instruct the Model 100 to “Accept” or “Return” the ballot through the simple push of a button.

Additionally, I googled an article about the machine which claims:

The ES&S machine turned out to better communicate residual votes to voters by displaying the number of undervotes that appeared on the ballot. After scanning his or her ballot, if the machine found undervotes, the voter is prompted to either eject the ballot to make corrections or continue on leaving the undervote as is. In addition, the machines can be programmed to go through each of the undervotes on the ballot, allowing the voter to eject it or continue on. This feature allows voters to select to undervote on a specific race without unintentionally undervoting on other races that may follow.

During the training for election judges I asked if people would be alerted about undervotes and was told they would not be. The day before the election I read on the ES&S website that the machines were capable of alerting undervotes so I called the election office to double check. The woman I spoke with said that the machines would have an alert for undervotes.

That was good news but after getting two different answers I wasn't sure what to expect on election day. I raised the question with the other election judges before the polls opened. One remembered being told that there was no alert for undervotes and another thought that there would only be a message if someone cast a blank ballot with no votes in any race at all. The others weren't sure.

During the day it became obvious that the ballot counting machine was not alerting voters who skipped voting in a race. It never happened once. Apparently, the County Clerk had the option of programming the machines to alert voters when they skipped a race but chose not to.

This has obvious implications in a year when large numbers of new voters were expected to cast their vote for Obama. A Democratic Presidential candidate won Sangamon county for the first time in many years and the tide of new Democratic voters was sure to have an impact on other races down the ballot.

Looking at the voting results I don't see any races where the margin of victory was less than the number of undervotes. Thank goodness. But, no one knew that would be the case before election day, and there were several close races. It easily could have made the difference in a close race this year or in future elections.

The biggest undervotes were in uncontested races, which is normal. There were large undervotes for races on the back of the ballot, including retention of judges, and 6,337 people didn't vote on the proposition to reduce the size of the county board.

Some people didn't like that the old Populex system alerted people when they undervoted. The decision to not have the new system do the same is defensible. There are reasonable arguments to make for that decision. What's indefensible is the lack of effort to inform the public about a significant change and the failure to clearly emphasize that change to election judges who also could have informed voters.

The only news coverage I saw about the change was a single line in passing buried near the end of one SJR article. There was no mention that this was an optional programming decision made by election officials. I found no mention of the change on the county website or anywhere else that was likely to be seen by many voters. I saw no attempt to ask voters in advance if they would like the undervote feature programmed into the machines this year. That's hardly the level of attention called for by a major change in the voting process that could have altered the result of a close election.

I don't know that this was a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of closely contested local races. I'm not going to engage in mind-reading accusations. It's just as likely that this happened because it's standard operating procedure for county Republican leaders who like to keep things "under the radar." Distributing information on a "need to know" basis is typical for Sangamon county government from rate increases by the Sanitary Board to the selection of the Populex voting system by a committee of insiders who made no effort to seek public input.

A majority of voters didn't vote for change in Sangamon county government this year. I suspect local Republicans will keep getting re-elected as long as local new outlets continue to let them do most things under the radar. It would be nice to see a news article telling us who approved this decision and why voters weren't better informed. I won't hold my breath.

How things went with the new voting system

This year Sangamon County switched from one of the most obscure voting systems to one of the most common. The new voting machines in Sangamon county were popular with voters. Many people feel that having a paper ballot is simpler and more secure.

Judging by local press reports from the last election you would think that the Populex voting system used in the last few elections was a big hit with voters. But I heard about two dozen people say how much they prefer this year's paper ballots over the electronic voting machines. I didn't hear anyone say the old Populex machines were better. Many voters asked why we weren't using the Populex system again this year.

The one complaint I heard about the new system is how difficult it is to keep your vote private. Throughout the day an election judge was near the ballot counting machine to instruct voters and make sure each ballot had the initials of another election judge. I did that for the last few hours of voting. Judges were supposed to stand a "few feet" from the machine and try not to look at people's ballots while the voter fed them in to be counted.





On the one hand it was important to be nearby because some people had trouble inserting the ballots without a little encouragement to keep sliding it into the machine. Also, it's important to be nearby in case there's an error reading the ballot.

Sometimes a ballot would come back with an error message and had to be re-inserted. The most common message said that no image was detected on one side of the ballot, even though the voter had filled in ovals on both sides. In those cases we inserted the ballot again and no message popped up. A few people actually hadn't voted on both sides and went back to finish after realizing that there were more races to vote on.

The problem for an election judge standing nearby is that people had difficulty keeping their ballot covered with the oversized "voter privacy" folder while inserting the ballot to be counted. Most people ended up opening their folder, or they struggled to push their ballot in while keeping it inside the folder.

It was difficult for me as a judge to instruct people who were having trouble inserting the ballot while also allowing them to feel that no one could see their vote. A number of people said they didn't care if I saw their ballot but one woman told me I wasn't supposed to be standing so close when I thought she was having trouble inserting the ballot.

Smaller voter privacy folders without a side tab or more detailed instructions for voters might solve the problem.

The only effort I saw to unduly influence the election was a perfectly legal decision by the County Clerk to not have the voting machines alert voters when they skipped voting in a race. I'll probably write more about that in another post.

Observations as an election judge

I've done Get Out The Vote work in many elections but Tuesday I got to experience things from a new angle as an election judge. There are all kinds of things you see as an election judge that most people don't usually think about.

I enjoyed the experience and the other judges of both parties were all nice to work with. I didn't like getting up at 4:15am to arrive at the polling place by five. The last time I was awake at 4am I had stayed up all night with a roller derby team. That was much more fun.

The most exciting moment was seeing a line of people gathered outside the polling place when we opened at 6:00am. For the first three hours we averaged about a voter a minute in my precinct. There were lines during parts of the day but I don't think anyone had a long wait. Things went smoothly.

In the late afternoon we reached 1,000 voters between the two precincts in that polling place. I let everyone know and all the judges cheered for lucky voter number 1,000. I told her she won a free parking space but mostly she just looked embarrassed.

Two people in my precinct who wanted to vote were purged from the voter rolls. In at least one case it was determined to be an error and he was allowed to vote after we spoke with the election office.

The most obvious barrier to voting I saw Tuesday is a perfectly legal one: the voter registration deadline. The most common problem I witnessed was people who didn't update their voter registration when they moved. In some cases they can still vote, although it might be on a federal-only or provisional ballot. I wonder how many more people who wanted to vote weren't aware of the deadline until it was too late?





I'm more convinced than ever that we need election-day registration. In every election uncounted numbers of people are denied the right to vote because of needless deadlines, and that's disgraceful. In a way, I'm glad John McCain brought up ACORN because it made more people aware of how the bogeyman of voter fraud is used as a voter suppression tactic.

People fraudulently voting multiple times isn't a real-world problem in modern elections. Disenfranchising people with early registration deadlines is.

I'll write about the new voting machines in another post.

New Sangamon county voting machines

I heard the county had trouble finding election judges the last time we switched to new voting machines so I decided to sign up this year. The new system has paper ballots scanned on electronic vote tabulators. I don't think the SJ-R reported the specific model of the new machines, so for the curious you can google ES&S Model 100.

ES&S has a page about the machine and you can easily find old articles about various problems with them in past elections. Sangamon county is leasing previously used machines so let's hope those old problems were fixed. It would be nice if the County Clerk released public information about those issues to reassure the public, but as we learned in the Populex debacle, they would rather suppress public concerns than address them.



ES&S model 100 precinct vote counter

There are additional machines for voters with disabilities. I was impressed by how many different ways it allows people to vote despite any challenge you can think of. Two of them broke down with paper jams during the training, but I'm sure they'll be ready to go on election day.

During the judges' training I was struck by the way that each part of the voting process is monitored and double checked to provide complete transparency. Multiple people check to make sure the ballot box is empty at the beginning of the day. Each voter name is checked and judges from both parties are a check on each other throughout the entire process. Unfortunately, those safeguards are designed for a 19th century voting process that had nothing to do with electronic voting.

Who double checks to make sure there are no programming errors with the ballot counting machines or storage devices? Shouldn't independent computer programmers get to look at the system on election day? We don't have those kind of safeguards for modern elections.

With paper ballots we can verify that votes were counted accurately but only if there's a manual hand re-count of randomly chosen precincts. Running ballots through a machine a second time only proves that they were counted the same way twice. It doesn't guarantee that they were counted accurately either time. So, it's good that we have a voting system with a verifiable paper trail but there's no guarantee of a fair election without a recount by hand.

Centralization of power on the county board

One of the biggest laughs I've gotten this election season is hearing Republican leaders argue that reducing the size of the county board might lead to more centralization of power, as was the case in the Illinois legislature. Centralization of power in the Illinois General Assembly has far more to do with the fact that campaign funds are centrally controlled by the four legislative leaders rather than the number of representatives in office. Candidates have a difficult time raising money on their own and are usually forced to seek support from the legislative leader of their party.

We have a similar situation on the Sangamon county board. Many Republican board members were appointed to office before they ran for election and they rarely have their own campaign committees on file at the board of elections. Campaigns are funded through the joint Republican County Board Election Committee that has a history of producing identical (insert name here) fliers for every candidate.

County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter has put tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into this fund and other Republican elected officials are major donors in every election cycle. How independent can we expect a county board member to be if they're hand picked by Republican leaders who then fund their campaign and provide cookie-cutter literature for mailings? I'd encourage everyone to see if the Republican county board candidate in their area was appointed to office and look up how much of their campaign is funded by the joint Republican County Board fund.

Power on the county board won't be decentralized until campaign finance laws change the way campaigns are funded and/or we have completely new leadership. Reducing the size of the county board couldn't hurt either.

I voted early

I went to the county building and voted Wednesday. I didn't realize that the Greens were second on the ballot in Sangamon County. I guess they get to compete with the two big parties for ballot spots after gaining official status in Illinois. Republicans were third. A lot of people think being at the top of the ballot will swing a few percentage points but I'm skeptical.

I voted for a new Constitutional Convention and I'll write about that soon. I voted for reducing the county board to fifteen members. If Cook County can get by with 15 board members then so can Sangamon.

I encouraged people to vote early when I ran for county board two years ago, but it didn't catch on in a big way since it was still unfamiliar to most people. More voters are doing it this year despite how little Sangamon county is doing to promote it. The Clerk's office at the County Building is the only place you can vote early until October 30.

Some clerks have several permanent early voting locations around their county. I was recently in Peoria County where I saw a brochure from the Clerk's office promoting the many early voting locations they set up. I guess there isn't enough money to do a major voter registration drive or open extra early voting locations in Sangamon county but somehow the county board finds the money to pay for 25 Republican board members to dance in the Andy Van Meter puppet show. It's all about making priorities.

Sangamon county run by invitation only

The State Journal-Register has an editorial opposing Sangamon County's plan to increase the amount of legal settlements that can be decided without a full vote by the county board. Settlements up to $70,000 would be decided in committee.

If you look at the committee pages on the county website you won't find much. They don't post their meeting minutes, agendas, resolutions considered, any action taken, or any information that would be useful for someone wanting to know what's happening in county government.

Even information for full county board meetings is sparse. The agendas don't list the names of people proposed for appointments, don't provide helpful descriptions of bills to be voted on beyond a short title, don't provide copies of ordinances considered, and no information is given about how to address the full county board on an issue.

The county has audio files of full board meetings, which lets people know what happened after the fact, but it isn't useful for those who want to have a voice before decisions are made.

In another recent article one county board member said that the full county board meetings amount to a rubber stamp, while real work happens in the committees. In other words, if someone wants to know what's really happening in the county they have to take time off work during the day on a weekly basis to request copies of committee meeting minutes and agendas.





This is indicative of government run by invitation only. Yes, all relevant information is available to the public, as required by law, but why shouldn't it be equally available to all citizens with the same ease of access? Why shouldn't I know that the information I'm getting is the same information that someone else is getting because its available to everyone online?

In this system, you'll know about something happening if county leaders decide to inform you. You'll know that it's important to show up early for the caucus meetings only if someone tells you about them. You can go to the county offices in person to ask for information and they'll remember what meddling person asked for it. Press outlets that don't have the resources to attend every committee meeting will cover something when they're invited to do so.

Its not to hard to figure out why they want settlements to be voted on in committee only. The Sangmaon county board has perfected running government out of the spotlight and "under the radar." It should be the goal of any public body to inform and engage the public as much as possible and not merely when it suits their needs. County board leaders have an outdated and fundamentally dysfunctional mindset about how elected bodies should operate.

Bad harvest for Waverly ethanol plant

I've gotten many google searches about the Waverly ethanol plant since I wrote about it several times and I've been contacted by people fighting similar plants in Wisconsin and Indiana. The SJ-R reports that Heartland Ethanol dropped plans for the Waverly plant and six others.





The plant was controversial for the odd zoning change to place it in a rural, non-industrial area; the company's reputation for hiring cheap, non-union labor from out of state; few details from the company about the environmental impact; and unanswered questions about where the massive amounts of water needed to run the plant would come from and how local wells might be effected.

If the press listed the names of local investors it might tell us why the county board was in such a hurry to approve the plant despite opposition from neighbors. The fact that it was rushed through with so many critical question unanswered was a case study in poor planning.

Sanitary board appointments smell funny

The State Journal-Register reported on Sangamon County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter's new appointments to the Springfield Metro Sanitary District Board. Previous appointments were part of a patronage sharing agreement between the two parties and presumably the new application process is meant to open up appointments beyond those cashing in on political favors.

With that in mind I decided to look up the political contribution history of the appointees at the Illinois Board of Elections website. When I've done this in the past it was rare to find an appointee or county contractor who hadn't donated to one party or the other.

Has the new application process changed things? Not at all.

One gave large donations to Davlin, Libri, Hasara and others.
One appointee made major contributions to several state and local Democrats including $500 to Tim Timoney's political fund.
At first I didn't find anything on John Pasko other than old donations to Al Salvi and George Ryan (plus a few other contributions by his business) until I discovered that he was the immediate past President of IMSCAPAC, which is a political PAC that represents the "Mechanical Service Industry." IMSCAPAC is a prolific donor giving to both parties across the state including local Republicans Poe and Brauer.

The Board of Elections website doesn't allow links to specific search results but you can find the same information I found by searching for the names and committees. Of course, its always possible that these donations are from someone else who happens to have the same name and lives in Springfield.

Its unfortunate that after all of this controversy Van Meter couldn't find one qualified person who doesn't have strong political ties. At the least it gives the impression that the patronage sharing agreement and pay-to-play politics continue at the county despite the dog-and-pony show of an application process. Perhaps the application should say, "Non-political donors need not apply."

This took me less than 10 minutes of research so there's probably more to find. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned in the news article. They could have at least asked Van Meter to explain himself.

Populex redux

I've written so much about the lack of public involvement in the process for picking new voting machines in Sangamon County that I feel almost obligated to post my thoughts about the story on problems with the Populex voting system. I know my fans in the county building must be eager to find out what I'll write.

I'm impressed that the paper put two documents on their website and I uploaded them here in case the story is eventually archived on the SJ-R website. Both documents are worth reading in full. They raise many issues I don't recall seeing in the local press including a long list of problems found by two people on election day after visiting only 32 precincts.

The document from the State Board of Elections includes a list of security concerns with this paragraph:

"The administrative access to the system is inadequately password protected. Access to the system to change files, delete and add files and passwords, activate a wireless network, etc. would not be difficult. In fact, a simple Windows log in is better protected."

I'm not going to suggest that the voting system is vulnerable but it's worth pointing out that major vulnerabilities weren't found in other systems until they were audited by independent experts outside the normal state certification process. Has the obscure Populex system undergone that level of examination? If so, why hasn't the public been made aware of it? If not, then why?

When reading the response from Populex you can almost smell them lose control of their bodily functions. What really bothers me about their letter is the fear they repeatedly express over the public finding out about any potential concerns over the system because it might undermine voter confidence. Considering how few clients Populex has, I can understand why they would be deeply worried about public opinion turning against their system in the county of their biggest vendor.

What Populex, and apparently Ron Michaelson and the County Board, fail to understand is that public confidence is earned by having a thorough open discussion of all concerns, not by attempts to conceal issues and using heavy handed tactics to dismiss anyone who asks questions. Getting friendly reporters to keep those questions out of the public eye and ridiculing dissenters as conspiracy theorists merely gives rise to greater voter concern in the long run. If the voting system is secure then let the County Clerk make all relevant information easily accessible to the public and put the issue to rest.

The State Board of Elections document also mentions problems caused by the voting machine asking people to insert their ballot after its already inserted. That confused me too the first time I used it. Some people damaged their ballots by trying to stick it in further.

I wonder if there was any way to discover and resolve that issue before election day? I know! Maybe if the county had presented and tested the voting machines with the public before making a final decision they could have acted on public feedback before election day. Believe it or not, the public can sometimes play a useful role in decision making, which is why it wasn't such a great idea to keep the process in the hands of a few insiders, as the county did with the Sanitary District rate increase and the new voting system.

This is one more example of the mindset that needs to be changed in county government. When local governments fail to engage the public its the government decision makers who eventually suffer as much as the general public.

Trouble in the Sewers

I give the State Journal-Register grief sometimes for going easy on certain local political leaders and the Republican county board, but I have to give them credit for surprising me over the past few days. I didn't expect them to publish a highly critical editorial asking the county chairs of both parties to resign their positions on the Sanitary District Board.

I was a little surprised to see a story Wednesday that reminded people of the patronage sharing deal I wrote about last Saturday. The article states that,

...local Republican and Democratic parties worked out a deal whereby Democrats hold the majority on any city board or commission, while Republicans get the majority on any county-controlled board, such as the sanitary district...

While there is an unwritten deal between the parties, Sangamon County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter still formally appoints the sanitary board members, and they are confirmed by the entire county board.

This is a problem that involves all committees appointed by the county board. Given the investigations of the Governor regarding political appointments to state boards and commissions, I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it was acceptable to have the two party chairs make these appointments or why it hasn't received more news coverage in the past. If the press wants to do more stories on this they could start with the zoning board of appeals.

I was happy to see the Monday editorial which made similar arguments to what I've written repeatedly about the county's lackadaisical approach to public involvement. Sure, the county board will hold a big public hearing on rare occasion, but only on issues of their choosing when they're trying to build support for something controversial. Most of their work is done in committees that almost everyone ignores.

I'm not sure why the local press chose to ignore these same issues in relation to the selection of the new voting system, which was done without any serious effort at public involvement or outreach. At the time, the County Clerk defended it as an "open process" because insiders from both political parties were involved. Yet, my FOIA request produced no evidence of public notices, press releases, or attendance by the general public at any of the selection committee's meetings. It says a lot about what their idea of an open process involves. It's a decision that effected every voter in the county, but I suppose a big rate increase that hits people in the pocket book is a sexier issue.

What I hope people get from this episode is that it's not just about the voting machines or the Sanitary District Board. Those are merely two examples of a mindset in county government that desperately needs to change. Maybe change will happen now that the decisions of one committee are being put under the microscope.

My long-time readers will find parts of Schoenburg's Thursday column familiar because he writes about another cookie cutter mailing done for Republican county board members. Identical mailings were signed individually by each board member as though it were their own words. He mentions this happening in 2004, but I don't recall the SJR reporting on the same thing happening in 2006 after I wrote about it here. Obviously, this is a pattern in every election.

Let's review. Many (I've lost count of the number) of the county board members were appointed by Andy Van Meter. Their campaign funds are then funneled through the Republican Sangamon County Board Election fund chaired by Van Meter, which seems to violate the spirit of campaign finance reporting laws, if not the letter, because it prevents us from knowing where each individual candidate is raising their money. Van Meter has reported personally donating tens of thousands of dollars to this fund over the years.

Campaign mailings are written principally by Van Meter rather than individually by the candidates. Board members vote for his appointments to committees such as the Sanitary District without fail. Recent articles have included quotes such as this one from a Republican member, "I don’t know enough about what they do and what’s involved. I’m sure (Sangamon County Board Chairman) Andy Van Meter is going to look into what’s going on." I don't know Van Meter personally but I respect the work ethic he shows by doing the job of 25 Republican board members.

So far, one Democratic board member has shown signs of independence. Will any of the Republican members do the same? Is this a representative body or a one party dictatorship?

Old breaking news and pay-to-play in Sangamon County

Today the State Journal-Register broke a ten month old story about the Springfield Metro Sanitary District trustees giving themselves a raise. This "revelation" could have been reported on at the time if not for the failure of the paper and other local media outlets to turn a critical eye on county government and the committees they appoint.

This is one of the issues I raised during my county board campaign, including a letter to the editor about appointments to the Sanitary District. These are the kind of stories that get ignored for too long when the press has a cozy relationship with political leaders.

It was not long before that letter that county board chairman Andy Van Meter began nominating people for county commissions that were given to him directly by the Chairmen of the local Republican and Democratic parties as part of their plan to share patronage appointments. When a few county board members complained that they hadn't even been given the chance to look at the names in advance to find out anything about the appointees, Van Meter shrugged his shoulders and admitted that none of the appointments came from him. I'd like to link to the minutes of that meeting but in typical fashion, the county doesn't keep old meeting minutes online.

When I attended county board meetings I made the habit of looking up political contributions made by those who got committee appointments and contracts. I found at least one contributor who got an appointment or contract almost every time with only five minutes of research. What could an investigative reporter uncover if they made a thorough effort?

The Metro Sanitary District has long been known as one of the most sought after appointments in the county. I have a hard time getting upset at the people currently on the board because they're only doing what has been done for years. Changing those individuals won't change the fact that the Sangamon county board has made every county committee part of a pay-to-play patronage system.

If you want things to change then you need a new county board that doesn't owe their appointment to Andy Van Meter or depend on him to fund their re-election campaign. Half of the county board is running for re-election this year so now is the time to ask if they dutifully vote for Van Meter's appointments that come from the political parties or if they ever spoke up against it. Do you want a county government that is run for the people or run for the benefit of political party leaders who need patronage to hand out?

I literally laughed out loud when I read Van Meter's quote in the article suggesting that the Sanitary District could have done more to reach out to the media. This is the same person who brags that the county board takes care of things quietly in the committee process, which the press and public rarely attend, and for which no minutes or agendas are ever placed online for easy public access.

The story today is the direct result of a reclusive mindset in county government that doing the bare minimum to obey the open meetings act is enough to engage the public. The pay increase is only one item in a long list of things done in open meetings that the county hopes no one will notice or report on. It's the same issue I wrote about in regard to the way the new voting machines were selected. The SJR ignored that story as well. This is what happens when 25 out of 29 board members belong to the same party and answer to a party leader instead of the public.

The political appointments and pay-to-play politics going on in Sangamon county government make Rod Blagojevich look like an amateur. Maybe this event will encourage the local media to start covering county government with a more investigative approach but I'm not holding my breath.

Republican Conspiracy Theorists

One of the things that made me decide to run for county board last year was an article about the selection of new voting machines. The first newspaper article I could find about the selection process for the new voting system was published a few days before the final vote by the county board when it was already a "done deal." That was too late for the average voter to play a meaningful role.

I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the lack of public involvement in selecting the new voting system. My letter received a defensive response letter from a member of the voting machine selection committee that, among other things, accused me of spreading conspiracy theories. I found that response odd because my letter never suggested anything remotely resembling a conspiracy theory or a plot to steal elections. The same "conspiracy theorist" name-calling continued to come from county Republicans whenever I raised the issue of public involvement with a decision that affected every voter in the county.

My concerns were later validated by documents I received after filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the County Clerk's office. The voting system selection committee made a deliberate choice to not involve the public until after their decision was made because it might "confuse" voters to present them with multiple options. Also, I received no copies of press releases or public notices of the committee meetings, which I requested. If there really were no public notices its possible that the committee violated the open meetings act since it included elected officials and county employees.

Far from being a conspiracy theory, this issue was about county governments' relationship with the voters and the paternalistic attitude that runs rampant in county government. The responses to my criticism was for the county clerk to repeatedly call it an open process (because the committee included a few Democrats) and for others to repeat the "conspiracy theory" accusations.

Clearly, the conspiracy theorist labeling was an attempt to de-legitimize the issue I raised and avoid a meaningful response. Given what I've heard from others, the reaction by local Republicans to any critical question about the new voting system is to immediately label the questioner a conspiracy theorist. So, I'm not surprised to see the same tactic used by Bruce Stratton in today's State Journal Register article about a serious mistake involving the new voting system.

I spoke with Mike Ziri about this issue recently and I heard no conspiracy theories of any kind. He seems to be raising a serious issue, documented by facts from the Clerk's office itself and concern from the board of elections, that should be discussed openly and publicly.

I find Stratton's comparison of this issue to 9/11 and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories ironic when he said, "As far as I know, nobody devoted any time or thought to any of that." Yet, earlier in the article County Clerk Joe Aiello says he spent time studying what happened and that, "a mistake that was made, and one that we take very seriously." So which is it? Is this something crazy not worth spending time on or is it something to take very seriously? Stratton and Aiello apparently disagree on that point.

The repeated use of the cynical "conspiracy theorist" name-calling tactic should raise a red flag with the public and reporters that some county Republicans are trying to deflect attention from the central issue and avoid answering questions. It also hints at the broader trend among some local officials who seem to think their work should be above questioning by outsiders.

Stratton is trying to erode the credibility of Ziri and Tim Bagwell, but the more local Republicans resort to that cheap shot, the more it erodes their own credibility. How many times can they cry wolf before the public and press stop buying it? There's a real issue here and it should be discussed honestly without the name calling.

Ziri-ously

Schoenburg's column in the SJ-R today tells about an issue raised by newly elected SMEAA member Mike Ziri.

Ziri's beef is that Stratton, whose firm Stratton and Reichert is paid $1,250 per month by the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition & Auditorium Authority for the legal work, also represented candidates for SMEAA who were seeking to stay on the April ballot. Ziri, whose objections led to removal of three candidates from the ballot in his subdistrict, thinks that's a conflict of interest.

Stratton is also Secretary of the Sangamon County Republican Party. This is pretty typical in local public bodies controlled by Republican leaders who are still complaining about losing their patronage jobs with the state.

My experience running for county board, and with this blog, is that there's a group of Republicans within local government (certainly not all) that react to any fair comment about policy with defensive, angry responses as though they are above being criticized. That doesn't apply to my county board opponent who was always civil. But there are some who have the hate-radio mentality that any discussion of policy should be responded to with personal attacks.

I expect that Mike Ziri will get the same sort of response I received and we already see that happening in Mike Coffey's speculative quote in the SJ-R claiming that Ziri would never have gotten elected without others being removed from the ballot. Besides being impossible to prove, there's no good reason to respond to a critique on policy with a personal swipe like that. You can see more of that attitude in the nasty online comments to the story.

There aren't many elected officials in either party who speak out against the corrupt buddy system of patronage and pay-to-play in Sangamon County. I hope Mike keeps it up and doesn't let people lacking in civility and maturity keep him down.