REVIEW BY TAZEWELL COUNTY CLERK OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SIGNATURES SUBMITTED BY OBJECTORS

Petitioner Roger Greer watches as County Clerk employee Donna Faichney goes over Petitions that were objected to by Carol Shields


Story and Photos by Publisher Ed Emmons


Pekinite Roger Greer who collected 1060 signatures from citizens wishing to repeal Pekin home rule, sat most of today in a chair along with two other observers chosen by him to watch County Clerk employees go over the petition he turned in on December 19, to repeal home rule.

Pekin resident Carol Shields, who waited until the last day to contest the petitions, December 27, was not present, and neither was her attorney Luke Taylor. Instead Andrea Burt, a paralegal from his office monitored the events at the County Clerks Office.

The Process got underway around 10:05 a.m. this morning, and ended around 3:45 p.m. this afternoon, with the group taking a little over an hour for lunch around noon. The setup was simple, with the County Clerks office having 3 employees checking names on the petitions into 5 categories. Greer had 3 observers, including himself monitor the County Clerks office employees and could object if they did not agree with the decision of a name not meeting the standards.

The categories included: Not being registered by name. There were 226 names on that list. Signature or name not matching addresses, 164. Names not legible, 122. Inconsistent address with registration, and blatant false names, 4.

Left: Tazewell County Clerk employee Judy Lacey checks over names, while Greer observer Brad Kobishka looks on.

The proceedings were monitored by Jack Teplitz, Board Attorney. If the employees had questions, they were answered by Teplitz and Christy Webb.

Personally I was a little surprised at how this system works. I thought that the burden of proof would be on the Carol Shields camp to show that the names should not be on the petition, and therefore not be counted, but from I could tell by watching for 2 hours, the burden rest on Greer's camp to provide proof that the names should be on the petitions. Maybe I'm wrong in my thinking, but I did not believe that Democracy was being played out today.

Left: Tazewell County employee Moira Hartley looks over names, while Greer observer Mark Saban looks on

After the proceedings were over, Greer told me that one the names in question was Pekin Attorney Gerald Hall. In question was that his signature did not look like it did from his voter registration card from some 20 years ago. His name was knocked off the list.

I was also surprised by Board Attorney Jack Teplitz trying to speed the process up, to me this causes mistakes. I was also told that after I left Teplitz made the remark that their was too much talking going on between the employee and the observers. In my opinion why go through all this process, not to mention money, if fairness will not prevail. Don't get me wrong I believe Christy Webb and her employees did their jobs as they were  told, I just don't agree with the way the process was handled.

PEKIN TIMES TRIES TO MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF COUNCILMAN CODY HENDRICKS SIGNING PETITION TO REPEAL HOME RULE

Story by Publisher Ed Emmons
Photo from: City of Pekin Website


For the Pekin Times to make a big deal of Pekin City Councilman Cody Hendricks signing the petition to put the issue of home rule on the ballot, again proves their ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Do they think that the 1st Amendment only applies to newspapers?

By trying to paint Cody Hendricks as doing something wrong, shows they have no respect for individual rights that the constitution guarantees, and they don't understand that outside official gatherings of the city council.

Cody Hendricks is a private citizen. Or maybe they do understand, but because of their rush to protect their city hall buddies, they don't mind trampling on the Bill of Rights, and attempting to trash the reputation of a very good person in Cody Hendricks.

By divulging petition information before the official hearing on the validity of the signatures may be legal, but is also shows how one sided the Pekin Times is, in trying to sway those having to make an official decision on the petitions. By prematurely divulging the information , the Times has sought to influence an official government commission and public officials. Just because something is public information, doesn't mean good judgment shouldn't be used in printing it.

The Times would have lost nothing by printing the signature problems after the hearings on Tuesday, but that would have required professionalism and would have allowed officials to reach a fair decision without pressure from a seemingly biased press.

But, it must be pointed out, that once again, Roger Greer has proven to be his own worst enemy. For someone in charge of gathering signatures on the petitions not to check them for clear and obvious errors, is unbelievable. If the Repeal home rule is not  allowed on the ballot, that will be a shame, and Mr. Greer's hard work and good intentions, will once again have failed due to poor judgment.

MUNICIPAL ELECTORAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF PEKIN, ILLINOIS CONVENED IN REGARDS TO OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONS FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL HOME RULE

Story and Photo by Publisher Ed Emmons

Left: Roger Greer ( The Emmons Chronicle file )

The City of Pekin convened a Municipal Electoral Board on Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. in the chambers at City Hall.

Attending the meeting were Pekin Mayor Laurie Barra, City Clerk Sue McMillan, Pekinite Roger Greer, representing himself, Attorney Luke Taylor, representing Carol Shields, board attorney Jack Teplitz, and Angela Jones who was hired by the City of Pekin's Attorney Burt Dancey for the purpose of reporting the meeting. Senior Councilman Tom Blanchard was absent.

The meeting was short and sweet. This all stems from Pekinite Roger Greer's attempt to get a referendum on the March 20, 2012 primary ballot to Repeal Pekin's long standing home rule status. Greer collected more than 1041 signatures, he only needed 764. Carol Shields of Pekin has challenged the validity of the petitions. Greer filed his petitions December 19, 2011, Shields waited until the last day December 27, 2011 to challenge them.

This is not a short process by any imagination, with several meetings taking place. Please see the following schedule of activity involved in this process.

In a story in Today's Pekin Times, Mayor Barra made the following statement: " The City cannot by law take a stance on the petition to repeal home rule. It cannot make statements favoring either side of the question nor use any City resources to promote one side or the other".

So what this means to me is that Pekin voters should be prepared for the dirty tricks the City will be using behind the scenes from many of their insider friends, including their friends at the Pekin Times, to help indoctrinate voters against repealing anti voter home rule. Proof of the anti voter campaign started with City insider Carol Shields contesting Mr. Greer's petitions. How did Ms. Shields know about the petitions if not given insider information from City Hall. Interesting to note, that at yesterday's hearing, Ms. Shields didn't show up, but had a lawyer representing her. People have a right to wonder who is paying the attorney? And right the meeting Ms. Shields attorney was seen privately conversing with a resent long time City Council member, who just happened to be head of Mayor Barra's campaign fund raising.

Those of you who have been on this website and seen what I had written about the Pekin Times, please note this. After doing some thinking on what I written, I decided that it took away from my story on what is really important, getting home rule repealed. Everyone already knows how the Times works, I will no longer criticize the Times because they are not worth my trouble. I believe that getting home rule is a very worthwhile subject, so I will concentrate on that.

GOVERNMENT ONCE AGAIN INFRINGES ON OUR FREEDOM AS AMERICAN CITIZENS

Story by Publisher Ed Emmons


As many of you know by now, Illinois instituted another new law requiring anyone in a car to be seat belted. As of January 1, 2012, our legislators who cannot even run their own house,( Springfield ), have told the rest of us that we must by law have everyone seat belted, even in the back seat.

Seat belt laws have been in effect for years but not for passengers in the back seat. Does anyone see how ironic this new is? Passengers riding in the back of a pick up truck are not required to wear seat belts, neither are motorcyclist. Motorcyclist are not even required to wear a helmet in the State of Illinois.

So why are motorcyclist not required to wear helmets? Mostly because motorcycle groups spend a lot of money to send lobbyist to Springfield to lobby our elected officials and give money to candidates who support them not having to wear helmets. Is this fair? NO! Laws should be made for everyone not just those who can afford to buy candidates.

According to The Safety Choice Coalition, the first seat belt law was passed in the United States in 1963. This law merely required that new cars made after 1964 be equipped with seat belts. In 1966, congress established the NHTSA, which is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Since their inception, their job has been to promote whatever congress and the Administration ordered them to promote, regardless of whatever merit. or lack of merit, it might have had.

How did the NHTSA respond to a report that people were not wearing seat belts after the law was passed? Instead of repealing the law, they passed legislation offering states millions of dollars to pass laws requiring people to use these devices, and ordering NHTSA to use all its powers to lobby states to pass these laws and to engage in propaganda campaigns to persuade the public that seat belts were a good idea.

In 1984, New York was the first state to pass a law requiring automobile occupants to wear seat belts. Of course after this other states followed suit, thus putting us in the position we are today.

According to Buckle Off, The Government has no right to make laws mandating the use of a seat belt. Think of this scenario. You and a friend are driving along the highway having a perfectly normal day. You are obeying most traffic laws and safety regulations. This means you are staying at or under the speed limit, and you are not driving like there is a swarm of bees in your car. Your friend is wearing his seat belt, but you are not. It is a sad truth, but not everyone likes to go the speed limit. Your legal speed annoys the driver of the tractor trailer following you. The driver attempts to overtake you, but while you are neck and neck, a mighty gust of wind sweeps the trailer into the side of your car and knocks you over an embankment. Your car goes rolling down the side of the hill, ejecting you through the already broken windshield and sending you flying through the air until you hit the windshield and are thrown out of the car, you are hurt but still alive. Your friend who was wearing the seat belt, cannot unbuckle is seat belt and is burned to death as the car catches fire.

I can see the Government mandating that infants and small children be in car seats, but not adults who are able to think for themselves. What you do for your own safety should be dedicated by you and not by the Government. If you believe that the State and Federal Government have over stepped their authority on this issue or any other for that matter, please call, email, or write your legislators.

For the record 46th District State Senator Dave Koehler, voted YES, in favor of the new seat belt law,  House Bill #219. He can be contacted via his email site: www.koehlerforstatesenate.com. You may also write him at Senator Dave Koehler, # 13 S. Capital St., Pekin, IL. 61554. Or call his Pekin office at 309-346-4646.

91st District State Representative Mike Unes, voted NO, against the seat belt law HB #219. He can be contacted via his email site: www.mikeunes.net . You may also write him at Representative Mike Unes, #19 S. Capital St., Pekin, IL. 61554. Or call his Pekin office at 309-620-8631.