I've created a Meet the Candidates forum for individuals running for office who wish to use it (and moved exiting candidate announcements to the new location).

Oops... I accidently deleted Carl Henninger's announcement when I tried o move it... Carl, please repost! Sorry.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

Great idea. I wonder how many people from the CBG will use it. Its a great way to get around their anti-democratic process that passes for an election around here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

Good morning, taxpayer. I was wondering if you had taken the time to go to the CBP web site and look into who was on the nominating committee for this year? You may be surprised to find some familiar names involved with the selection process. Go ahead and give one of them a call or go to where the process is explained in full on the website.

All residents are asked to come forward for the various openings if interested in serving. The CBP has no platform, but exists only to present qualified candidates for the election. It appears, from what I have seen, that there are many first-rate candidates from which to choose this year!

Check it out!

The CBG is essentially anti-Democratic anti-open. It does everything possible to limit participation . At both the nominating and the election.

So no I'm not surprised that there are familiar names. That is part of the problem its the list of usual suspects .

1. First this entire nominating process is a joke. They have a nominating committee of what ten or so who basically pick among people they know. Then on a very little advertised Saturday they have a meeting where surprise the candidates backed by the nominating committee are of course selected . So basically the nominating committee decides who gets the nod and generally speaking those selected by the nominating committee will win the election on November 22nd and then will in all Likelihood win again in the spring. In the entire seventy five year existence of this charade we've had one guy who wasn't selected by the nominating committee win. And that was only because he spent copious amounts of money doing so.

Look at when we have the election on a Saturday during Thanksgiving week when a lot of people will be out of town or not thinking about the election. Why not have the village election during the general election it's only eighteen days difference. Well because it would mean that more people would vote and that would upset the powers that be if they couldn't stage manage this entire process.

Let me ask you how many people voted in the last election a couple of hundred out of a population in this town of 27K.

So yeah the entire process is designed to limit participation. And you know they do a damn good job of it.

Hey taxpayer, put your time where your mouth is and Volunteer! Better yet, get all your neighbors involved, quit complaining and start doing! Go for it.

It is my right as a citizen to complain. Furthermore it is also my right to be as involved as I see fit. The view that unless I'm somehow involved in a process I totally disagree with makes my views any less valid is totally wrong.

I will show up and vote and I will vote for anyone who is does not have the seal of approval from the CBG secret handshake society.

Even if - as subjectively determined by you - they're less qualified?

Sounds like a dumb philosophy to me. But to each their own.

At least you can participate in the selection process and vote in the GE election. Since I live in prestigious (and unincorporated) Glenrise Estates, I can only sit by and watch.
I have offered my help to those candidates who I'm familiar with. Those that I know are quality (and qualified) people who are dedicated to "righting the ship" and looking to get the community engaged. Some are even part of the VLM party.

I am not sure where you find all of the secrecy and efforts to "limit participation" you reference. There have been numerous articles in local papers, including the Chicago Tribune - Triblocal section (front page, btw). The head of the nominating committee went on this very board asking for participation from any and all residents. He also invited people to visit the website to learn more about the process. If you look around town you will see scores of posters in business windows imploring people to get involved, vote and preview candidates. There will be opportunities for early voting, as well.

Your intent to not vote for any CBP-approved candidates brought to mind my mother's favorite idiom when dealing with an intractable young GEmom2 - You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

quote:

Originally posted by JRP:
Even if - as subjectively determined by you - they're less qualified?

Sounds like a dumb philosophy to me. But to each their own.

My complaint is with our process for electing the Village President and the Trustees this system might have worked or even been good seventy years ago when we had a population of say 2000 but now we have ten times that many . Maybe we should join the 20th century.

So by voting against those picked by what I consider a flawed system I believe I'm helping to open it up and maybe if enough outsiders win this entire process can be done away with.

If no one applies or shows interest, then there really is little choice, isn't there? For those too late to the game or not interested in the CBP process...you can always do an indi run as Trustworthy Trustee Pete Ladesic did.

If this is such a great idea why doesn't anyone else use it. Yes this was a great idea for the 18th century New England but it doesn't work now.

1. First the selection committee does its work behind closed doors. So how transparent or open is that. So get rid of the entire nominating process since basically all it does is limit participation, is secretive etc. The New England village model you use to defend this archaic system. Would work if we had a village of two hundred people driving around in a horse and buggies.

2. If the CBP where truly interested in having more people vote or participate. Have the election in conjunction with a primary or general election that way everyone can show up at their local polling place and vote.



For proof I offer up this Im willing to bet that every candidate nominated by the CBP is in fact members of the CBP so much for it being an open process which is why so few people don't go through it. Also I wonder how many people vote in this process out of a village of 15000 do you think you will get more that 10%. The New England town meeting format would probably get something like 80% plus.

quote:

Have the election in conjunction with a primary or general election that way everyone can show up at their local polling place and vote.

I have never understood this part of the process myself. That being said, I have also never understood the willingness of the eligible voters in the village who do not participate in these uber local elections. The one time in their lives that they have a real say in something that will affect them...and they stay away. Which, of course, backs up my theory that most eligible voters who are Americans, Illinoisans, Glen Ellynites, etc...are morons.

I think you're taking a kind of blame the victim approach. I do agree with you it is a shame that more people don't participate in local elections.

But I really believe this process limits that.

I have no problem with the CBP facilitating some of this process . My problem with it is that their nominating process is secretive and limiting. Why not have strictly open floor nominations or have anyone get on the ballot who can come up with say 100 petitions.

But I do thing the village elections should be held on the same day as the nearest primary/general election.