Gordy filled you in on a couple items from the Chamber of Commerce forum this morning. But I was struck by another exchange.
Steve Beckett once again decried partisanship and covered himself with the mantle of independence, fairness, and common sense. Then, he proceeded to attack Mark Randall for suggesting that the Courthouse was overbudget and wasn't completed on time. The problem with Mr. Beckett's rant is that Mark Randall was right.
Few people know this, but the promised courthouse project is not yet completed. One of the promised projects for the courthouse was to tuckpoint the old courthouse, so as to preserve it for the future. It had long been neglected and the tuckpointing was necessary if the building would survive. The tuckpointing still hasn't been done. The county has gone out for proposals to do that and the proposals have come in over budget.
What's more, the project is already over the promised cost. When the County Board first went to voters for the project, it was projected to cost $20 million. So far, the cost is $29 million, and more is yet to come with the tuckpointing. Now, Mr. Beckett will suggest that the budget has been changed and wasn't at $20 million when the project was begun. Well of course not. But the voters were told one number, they passed the referendum, and then the County Board upped the number, a few different times I believe.
Just because you have the ability to modify the budget, doesn't mean that the project is under budget. Mr. Beckett's position might have some justification, but it certainly needs some explanation. To essentially call out another candidate to a group of 200 when the candidate has the facts on his side is, well...
extremely partisan.
Mr. Randall did learn one thing today though. If you challenge any position held by Mr. Beckett, he'll treat you like a witness on the stand, and not like a colleague worthy of respect.
I have posted an article on this subject at my site as well. Please see: http://www.markrandall.us/blog/
Mark Randall
Let's see the courthouse is over budget by millions of dollars and not completed. The nursing home construction is over budget by millions of dollars and not completed. The County Board appointed MTD Board meets almost as much in closed session as open session.
Should incumbent CC Board members running for re-election be concerned?
Mark S - is it possible to get the audio of Mr. Beckett's rant against Patricia Avery at Tuesday's facilities meeting posted?
that was a pretty great exchange, anon.
Mark, I believe you have a very easy election to look forward to. I was looking forward to hearing from Michael Richards and was less than impressed. He took major shots at you about the office being "too politicized" and came out with the Frerichs fax stuff. He didn't make any case why his experience is relevent to the position or why the position is important, except that there should be a commission. He probably should have talked more about his qualifications and less about you. Just my take.
So what was Beckett's rant against Avery?
Don't worry, Richards isn't a real candidate. Tony Fabri needed to run somebody in a county race. Otherwise the Democrats would keep the right to appoint swing seats on elected boards, and Laura Sandefur wouldn't get kicked off the Board of Review. Your Democratic leadership, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give 'em a hand.
"So what was Beckett's rant against Avery?"
Avery made some accusations about Beckett not discussing/disclosing nursing home stuff, and Beckett denied them all. He got a bit indignant.
...towards Avery, who is always ill prepared and doesn't speak based on any semblance of fact. I'm surprised she was even at the meeting. Just what part of what Beckett said wasn't true?
Avery is running for Mayor. Why would she still be going to CB meetings?
By the way, why aren't the Republicans running anyone for County Board District 6? Avery withdrew, will the Democrat replacement automatically be apppointed?
Avery remains a County Board Member
But Avery didn't go to CB meetings in the past, did she?
There are two Republicans running in District 6, Becky Heller and Bruce Ratcliffe. In fact, Becky sounded very good at the Chamber breakfast on Thursday.
I saw Michael Richards speak yesterday at the UNITY march. It was a great time--perfect weather and a good emotional atmosphere with people having fun, but also moments of silence for the tragic events in that neighborhood.
I thought he came across very well. My family (not myself obviously, as Chicago is quite a ways from the election area) will probably be voting for him next because of his stance on enfranchisement.
I actually wanted to ask Mr. Shelden, whom I have a high respect for, to clarify a few of his positions.
Richards said that Mr. Shelden and other Republicans are against moving the extremely early registration deadline for two reasons, "The early date is equal for everyone" and "It would be prohibitively expensive to move it back".
If those are really Mr. Shelden's positions, I'm quite aghast--the first one smacks of "Grandfather laws and poll taxes" which were some of the most racist election policies in the history of the union, but had no race based language. The second one, which I don't really understand how it could be true, is still not compelling--can we really not afford democracy.
I don't believe that there is a line a citizen needs to cross to "earn" their right to vote. I especially don't believe that that line should be contingent on factors that are strongly influenced by socio-economic background.
Xain--Poll tax's as I understand them were actually charged to the voter which kept poor mostly black voters from voting which many people find to be illegal. It has nothing to do with making the cost associated with putting on the election to expensive for a county to run the election our county may be able afford it but some far southern counties would have a big problem paying for them. Get up off your butt and register on time like everyone else give the employee's at the clerks office a break they need to get ready for the election..
runny4cvrlib said, "Xain”“Poll tax's as I understand them were actually charged to the voter which kept poor mostly black voters from voting which many people find to be illegal"
MANY PEOPLE?!!!
How about the United States Constitution?
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What on earth is he thinking, "many people"? Sheesh.
Anonymous--maybe you should try thinking (I know it's hard for you)first look up Poll taxes before you comment. Poll Taxes were used to keep people from voting so some people thought they were legal at some Point.
Xian,
If we are going to have a registration deadline (that is no same day registration) I believe that the date we have is sufficient for everyone to be able to register. I just don't understand why anyone thinks moving it would afford greater opportunities. There is plenty of time for people to get registered. It takes an incredible amount of work to process all the registrations that come into our office. They have to be examined first to make sure that they have are correctly filled out. Then it has to be determined which precinct they are in and what districts they live in. Then, the information has to be entered into the computer. The signature must be scanned. And the poll books must be printed. In the last presidential election, we were entering data until about 11 days prior to the election. This gave us about 4 days (Saturday and Sunday included) to print the poll books. My staff was working often until 7 or 8 oclock at night. Moving the registration deadline would imperil the proper and efficient conduct of election day.
As to same day registration, I can see some possible advantages to that, but it would all but certainly have to come with an ID requirement, which is opposed by many people.
nice try, runs,
most people have to pass a Constitution test to graduate from high school, sothey can become teachers aides and pass out crayons and paste
Just admit it. You are a dunce.
Anonymous--if your the person grading the papers I am just fine you don't have a clue.
I am grading papers.
I have been a professor over 10 years.
Cuz I grad-ee-ated from the college and then got me some more of them diplomas.
You are entitlted toyour opinion,it is as valid as anyone's regardless of education, but to speak of the basis of a Constitutional Amendment is such silly terms, it is beyond acceptance.
You wouldn't be the first clueless professor who we are wasting our tax money on.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A poll tax, soul tax, or capitation is a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per individual (as opposed to a percentage of income). Such taxes were important sources of revenue for many countries into the 19th century, but this is no longer the case. There are several famous cases of poll taxes in history, notably a tax formerly required for voting in parts of the United States that was often designed to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans, and whites of non-British descent, as well as two taxes levied by John of Gaunt and Margaret Thatcher in the fourteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.
The poll taxes were instituted following the ratifying of the 14th amendment to ensure that ex-slaves could not exercise their newfound franchisement.
The problem was that they also disenfranchised poor whites. As a result, they were coupled with "grandfather clauses" which allowed someone to vote if their grandfather had been able to vote. Naturally none of the ex-slaves' grandfathers had been able to vote, and they certainly didn't have any money, so they were effectively barred from voting.
The reason why I referenced them is to show how easy it is to make a law which unconstitutionally disenfranchises Americans citizens without using overtly classist or racist language.
To put it simply, it is much easier for me, as someone who has moved rarely, and has a consistent work schedule with sympathetic employers (thanks to my strong union) to exercise my right to vote.
Our goal in every election should be for EVERY American to vote. It doesn't matter how poorly educated, or lazy, or overworked, or physically incapacitated they are, they should be allowed and encouraged to vote. Nothing less allows us to enjoy the full benefit of a representative democracy.
I'm sick of hearing justifications for why it's cool to disenfranchise poor people because they won't vote how we like and it's easy for us to discourage them from voting. I imagine that if every person in the country voted, they wouldn't come to any consensus remotely resembling my own political beliefs. I don't care. I want everyone's voices to be heard.
Mr. Shelden:
Thank you for your information regarding the realities of the registration process. I understand that the responsibilities of your position require you to do the very best you can with the budget and staff you have.
However, this is something that is more important than almost any other funded project in the county. I would rather have roads in poor repair, or no 4th of July display or defund almost any other project except perhaps schools, in order to maximize the participation of those in elections.
A later registration deadline by itself with not fix many of the problem. I know--I was going door-to-door trying to convince people to register yesterday (and hey, it's not even within 120 miles of my home) and many people were not receptive.
But I do believe that if we go the extra mile to communicate that this is a right, not a privilege, that many people will meet us part way. You have a situation where many people don't feel like their voice or votes are welcome or respected, and that contributes to their apathy.
You bring up good points Xian, but in some ways reinforce mine. The deadline as it exists now does not impede registration. In fact, many of the people you talked to would not vote even with a later deadline. I think it is also important to realize that we can not sacrifice the franchise of the majority to try to reach out to the minority who don't want to take advantage of all the opportunities now to vote.
For example, it is possible that I could perhaps send half of my staff out to register people to vote each day. But then we would be late in processing those who made efforts on their own. Those people might receive their cards later and not know where to vote. We may not have properly run polling places. Perhaps notices to voters with changed polling places might not go out. A variety of things might suffer. It is a balancing act that we play in governing all the time.
Yes, but your scenario merely deals with the current reality. I believe strongly that you are correct that with the current resources, it is a balancing act. There are certainly clerks of either party who use that balancing act as an excuse to push their own political agenda.
That's a tragedy. What we need is a fundamental shift toward doing whatever it takes to have a higher participation rate in the democratic process.
Instead what we have is a system run by two major parties that are very cynical about the American populace and quite frankly appear to be actually afraid of higher participation.
That disgusts me.
"doing whatever it takes to have a higher participation rate in the democratic process."
Xian, people still have the right to not participate. Whatever it takes is going to be a fundemental shift in how government responds to citizens. You and I can both talk all day and night about the need to participate, but when much of the public only sees the negatives, it's hard to get through to some people that their vote matters.
[...] Aside: I was at a Meet-the-Candidate Forum where Steve Beckett loudly berated Mark Randall for claiming that the Courthouse was over budget. More from the NG: Some board members ”“ led by rural Republicans Greg Knott and Ron Bensyl ”“ have complained that Inman has withheld information from them about some building projects, including a $1.7 million mold problem at the nursing home. [...]