Kudos to the Champaign County Board Republicans for nominating their own candidate for Board Chairman (John Jay of Mahomet).
Without delving too deeply into the history, County Board Democrats are currently split between at least two candidates: incumbent County Board Chair Barb Wysocki and current Champaign County Democrat Party Chairman Tony Fabri.
To date, there's been lots of talk about a Dem candidate needing some GOP votes for Chair. I hope the GOP nomination of Jay puts an end to that.
For my part, I can think of no conceivable reason that any Republican County Board members should support the Democrat Party Chairman for County Board Chair. It should be a non-starter, and though Fabri attended GOP caucus this morning to gauge the possibility of GOP support, he was firmly rebuffed. Fabri is, first and foremost, a partisan - he's his Party's Chair - and any Party chair who can't secure the unanimous support of his own Party's members certainly shouldn't be looking for votes from the people he is working to keep in the minority.
As for Wysocki, I know that she was elected Chair two years ago with the support of all 12 Republican members who were, in their own words, simply trying to get rid of former Chair Patricia Avery. After her election two years ago:
Wysocki urged board members "to embark on a new experiment in county government - an experiment where, no matter what our party affiliation, we begin to put the interest of the citizens of the county of Champaign uppermost in our minds ..."
I am hopeful that, after witnessing the last two years of problems with the Board Leadership, that most Republican members of the Board have realized that things have not worked out as well as they had hoped.
The right thing to do for County Board Republicans is to remain unanimous in their support of John Jay, regardless of how long the Democrats remain split over their own choice for Chair. There are at least two good reasons for Republicans to stand steadfastly behind John Jay:
- Republicans need to stand for something. Voting for Democrats to lead the County Board blurs whether Republicans stand for anything
- With a Chair from one party elected by a different party, accountability is impossible. This current vote for Chairman is the first opportunity either Democrats or Republicans have had to hold Wysocki (and Vice-Chair Steve Beckett) accountable for their leadership. Because of the unique circumstances of their ascension, they've really been answerable to no one.
Finally, the current Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board have talked for two years about bipartisanship, after being elected by Republicans. At this point, if Wysocki and Beckett find that there are no other Democrats who are acceptable candidates for Chairman, they should reciprocate the bipartisan gesture made by Republicans two years ago: they should support Republican John Jay for Chairman.
But under no circumstances should Republicans support either Wysocki or Fabri for Chairman.
And if any other Democrat is elected Chair due to the support of Republicans, I'll be highly disappointed.
John Jay is the best choice for County Board Chairman - he's the only candidate from either party who enjoys, at a bare minimum, the trust of at least 15 members. I hope the GOP members remain firmly committed to his candidacy throughout the selection process.
Just out of curiosity, how does the voting work? Does the clerk call roll and each county board member states his or her choice for chair? Or is a candidate nominated with each member then voting yes or no on said nominee? As far as I know, a winning candidate must recieve a majority (14 votes), not just a plurality, is that correct? And if there is a stalemate on the first ballot (as seems highly likely), do they just keep voting indefinitely until some compromise is reached?
Pundit, you and I don't agree often, but you are right on with this one.
Thanks. For some reason, I thought this would spark a discussion. But maybe people are still burned out?
the GOP cannot support Wysocki, after running campaign ads trashing current "leadership". And it seems fairly logical that you couldn't support the Dem party chairman.
I suspect that the Dems will find someone to support, but if not Mr. Jay would make a great Chairman.
A candidate is nominated and the roll is called. The first candidate to receive 14 votes wins.
Who gets to nominate? In what order are nominations taken?
John Jay would be an excellent chair. He has respect from both parties and would be fair. He is level-headed and would have the best interests of the county. Now, if the level-headed Dems would go for him or make a compromise, this could all be resolved....... I know that's asking a lot!
John Jay is a fantastic choice for chair. Hopefully two Democrats will come to their senses before midnight and cross over.
Two years of actually getting something done in a bi-partisan manner would be amazing given the last six years.
The County Board rules state the following:
"2. Biennial Organizational Meeting
Unless otherwise required by law, the Board shall hold an organizational meeting on the first Monday in December of each even numbered year, being the first meeting in the month following the month in which Board members are elected. Said meeting shall be chaired by the Board Chair, if still a member of the Board, otherwise by the Board Vice Chair, if still a member of the Board. If neither the Board Chair or Vice Chair are then members of the Board, the
meeting shall be chaired by a temporary Board Chair, selected by majority vote of the members present. At that meeting, the Board, by majority vote of the members present, shall first select from among its members a Board Chair, who shall preside over the remainder of the meeting. The Board shall next select from among its members a Vice Chair, by majority vote of the members present. The Board Chair shall then appoint, subject to the advice and consent of a majority of the members present, the Chairs, Vice Chairs and members of the standing committees, which shall be composed of members of each of the political parties represented on the Board, in approximate proportion to those political parties' representation on the Board."
The board does follow Roberts Rules of Order, but I don't have a copy handy to reference the procedure. I don't remember exactly, but I believe the floor is opened to a nomination, a vote is taken, if 14 votes are recorded in favor, the newly elected chair takes control of the meeting. If 14 votes are not recorded, another nomination is taken from the floor and the process continues.
In an unrelated county government question, rumor has it that Champaign County State's Attorney, Julia Rietz is offering the jail guard accused of aggravated battery, obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct in an incident that involved torturing an inmate with a taser in November of 2005; all charges dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, punishment would be 2 years of conditional discharge. There will be no jail time, and the plea bargain will be agreed upon this Friday, December 1 at 2:00p.m. in Courtroom A.
The question is, does Julia Rietz have a conflict of interest in prosecuting a county employee of criminal activity? Isn't the State's Attorney of our county also the attorney of record who defends the county against civil lawsuits? Would that explain why she would drop the aggravated battery for illegally using the taser in order to spare the County government from a potential civil lawsuit?
Excellent assessment, IP. I couldn't agree more. And Jay is a tremendous choice for Republicans.
John Jay would be a voice of reason. Unfortunatly he is still just one vote. WE will be stuck with a minority that will face an unreasonable majority that has an extreme ideological agenda. Woe is us. If the interest of the citizens is the issue, it must remain within the frame work of justice and fairness to all. The most recent attempt by the dems to put the screws to the landowners of this county should demand an explanation, instead they have postured to continue this same assault. If John as Chair can corrall some of this extremist crap, wonderful. Realistically, its hard to have dialogue with those who have an agenda at the heart of their commitment. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist, we are screwed, till the next election. The Socialist Republic of Urbana has made great inroads to our County Board. Someone really needs to remind them that this is AMERICA.
Perhaps JOHN JAY is the man for this gargantuan task. He has my vote.
Here is how I'd rank my choices from either side.
Jay, Bensyl, Knott (in that order from the R side)
Betz, Fabri, McGinty (in that order from the D side)
Ractivist: Get it straight, According to most of the invective I have heard its, "The Peoples Republic of Urbana."
I agree with j-dub. Betz is the best choice for dems.
NO WAY on McGinty though.
Mr. Langenheim is right it's "The Peoples Republic of Urbana" they keep the whole county safe from Nuclear Attack because they have made it illigal in Urbana.
The D side is pretty slim pickings, hence putting McGinty on my short list. I'd leave B & W off, they have a few newbies, and the rest of the members being retained aren't as appealing. Weibel would be a thought, but he seems to have trouble making his mind the way it is now, let alone if he has THE deciding vote on an issue.
I could expand the R list to include James or Tapley as reasonable options, but Tapley seems too busy and James seems to like his current role.
Betz for chair, toss up among a few for vice. Jay, even though from my district, was pretty set in his thoughts and not really intrested in others opinions.
How about real names on this here blog thing. Stand behind you thoughts.
Word on the street is that Fabri claims to have found three Republican county board members who will vote for him for chair.
Jay is Mahomet Township supervisor and fire chief of Corn Belt FPD. Isn't he busy enough?
Too bad Fabri didn't work as hard studying for the Bar Exam (multiple times) as he has trying to get a $30k a year part time job.
As I have commented before but it needs to be repeated, the voters of Champaign County deserve better service from their public servents than the political parties of the county have shown they support.
Anyone who has lived here easily observes there is an inordinate amount of political discussion, politicial positioning, political i-o-u's and u-o-me's which literally impeded progress and increase cost in meeting the needs Champaign County.
I see no need for partisen politics at this level.
Don't you agree?
I totally agree w/Local Voter!!!
...Word on the street is that Fabri claims to have found three Republican county board members....
No way. To pick the democratic county chairman? In charge of appointments? And what about the Farm Bureau? They LOVE Barb and Steve.
IP you've really got to stop kowtowing to the national Republicans and correctly refer to the Democrats as the Democratic Party.
And Betz has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want the chairmanship.
"IP you've really got to stop kowtowing to the national Republicans and correctly refer to the Democrats as the Democratic Party."
Huh?
"And Betz has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want the chairmanship."
I never stated he wanted the chair; I was ranking CB members based on who I'd want to be chair. Not who has the best chance of becoming chair.
It's a shame Betz doesn't want the Chair. I think he would serve well as Chair.
Republicans said they're all supporting Jay, and they aren't supporting any Democrat. That's bad news for Wysocki/Beckett, if you ask me.
If Republicans won't save her (again), then she's toast.
I heard (I wasn't there) that Beckett stood up at a Rotary meeting and said he was making his donation on behalf of unity in the Democratic party. Does that mean he will vote with his party?? I guess we'll see if he truly meant it.
IP have you been hanging out with that DC gang again. If you go Kowtowing again can I go I like harassing those Dem's.
I was there and I think that is what he said. There was a lot of chatter going on at the tme. so I may have misheard him.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It all depends upon what unity is.
I agree with the goal of unity in the Democratic Party. How is "unity" most often expressed? Majority rules. When Beckett and Wysocki "won" the March "Democratic Primary", which is the election that allows affiliated Democrats to nominate their Party's candidates to go on the ballot for the GENERAL EVERYBODY GETS TO VOTE election, I accepted the results because, majority rules. Oh wait, I guess for Lisa Bell, it was, "a coin toss rules." Yikes.
Majority should also rule in the election of the county board chair. If Barbara Wysocki cannot, after two years of leadership, earn the endorsement of her colleagues, then she must not be a very effective leader. If she cannot earn the endorsement of the majority of her colleagues, and is unwilling to support ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT for the job, as she indicated in the first caucus meeting as reported in the News Gazette, then she is once again holding the Democratic caucus hostage by her refusal to accept the fact that her bid for chair has been rejected.
If Wysocki has such contempt for her fellow Democrats, particularly Fabri, why do she and Beckett think the Democratic party should unify behind them? They labeled all criticisms for the many problems occuring during their leadership tenure as "political" and "partisan", instead of accepting responsibility and being accountable. How many FOIA's were filed? How many closed sessions were held? A $4 million cost overrun, (25% increase) on a project that is still not complete.
If Beckett wants unity in the Party, he should recognize that the most effective leaders inspire unity--by being respectful instead of condescending, by seeking opinions instead of trying to close down discussion, by providing all members with complete information needed for effective decision-making, and by realizing that your fellow board members were also elected to office and are equally responsible for decisions in the county's best interest.
"If Beckett wants unity in the Party, he should recognize that the most effective leaders inspire unity”“by being respectful instead of condescending, by seeking opinions instead of trying to close down discussion, by providing all members with complete information needed for effective decision-making, and by realizing that your fellow board members were also elected to office and are equally responsible for decisions in the county's best interest."
Gerri is absolutely correct.
And I was at the Urbana Rotary meeting today (I sat with Curt Deedrich, Matt Gladney, Tony Fabri and Claudia & David Gross - I was honored to be able to join them for a little lunch and conversation), and Steve Beckett did indeed make a $20 "good news" donation towards "unity in the Democrat Party."
I don't, however, think that is any indication of how he's going to vote for Chairman. I took it as more of a polite gesture to all the Dem CB members in the room (Langenheim was also there, and I could have missed some others...).
Gerri Kirchner summed it all up perfectly.
Wysocki needs to realize that she has failed. She won her leadership with the support of the Republicans and now the Republicans are hanging her and Beckett out to dry. Did they really think the Republicans were their friends and didn't have ulterior motives? Wysocki's original approach to having the board be less partisan and work toward common goals is a good one. But she needs to do that with the Democrats.
It's a pretty sad day when the Democrats hold a majority on the board and may have a Republican chair because they can't get along. Wysocki needs to concede and support her party.
How can we expect the board to work as a whole when we can't even get people in their respect parties to work together?
Unity is the key and right now Beckett, Wysocki and McGinty hold that key.
"She won her leadership with the support of the Republicans and now the Republicans are hanging her and Beckett out to dry. "
Actually, I look at it exactly the opposite - the current leadership hung everyone else out to dry, both Republicans and Democrats. That's what I mean when I say that accountability has been impossible under the current leadership situation.
I see your point also. Either way--nobody wins.
If the issue of electing a County Board Chair goes unresolved, or is resolved in very messy way, will this revive talk of having an Chair who is directly elected? (Note: this may or may not overlap with the idea of having an elected County Executive).
So were right back were we started. The Peoples Socialist Republic of Urbana is still a majority. Unfortunately there is a real need for partisan politics due to the agenda of the aforementioned leftists. We have no choice, but to combat them politically because this is the battle ground they have chosen. It is their decision to promote ideals that do not, I repeat, do not reflect the majority(albeit outside their republic). In doing so, political quagmire is the result. It is not as simple as differing opinions over coffee, it is radical differences that will change the face of this county. Our Republican members are very solid, just outnumbered. They will represent us well given the cards they have to play. (no reference here to MOLD GATE)
Gerri is right on with her description of an effective leader.
I also agree with Gerri on Wysocki specifically. Wysocki had her two years as chair, and now she can't get a majority of either party to vote for her. Not only that, but she couldn't even win enough votes in her own primary to advance without the benefit of a coin toss going her way. I think she's got a lot of nerve holding up the dem chair given both of these points. Whether you like her bi-partisan pitch or not, she has proven herself ineffective as a leader, and has presided over some of the biggest blunders the board has seen in years---all while withholding information from the public they had a legal right to see. I can only presume at this point it's either arrogance or stubbornness (or both) that is keeping her from dropping out of the chair race.
Be patient. It looks as thouh pragmatism and realism are coming into play. There will be a compromise.