[2:31] I apologize. You But I turned it on.
[5:07] Excuse me. This is the electoral board hearing
[5:11] for January the seventeenth of twenty twenty three.
[5:14] And the order of business now is to
[5:15] call the the meeting to order, which I
[5:18] have done. So madam clerk, if you do
[5:19] a roll call, please. Yes. Mayor Smith? Here.
[5:24] Madam clerk Gray? Here. Trustee Hall? Here. Okay.
[5:27] We have a call. Okay. Very good. And
[5:32] board, we need the adoption of the electoral
[5:35] board rules of procedure. Mr. Mayor, I'll make
[5:38] that motion. Okay. I'll second. Alright. Very good.
[5:43] We have a motion and a second. The
[5:47] roll call, please. Mayor Smith. Yes. Madam Clerk
[5:52] Gray. Yes. Trustee Hall. Yes. Motion passes. Alright.
[5:57] Thank you. Next is citizens' comments, and I'll
[6:01] read it as I always do. Citizens wishing
[6:04] to address the electoral board with respect to
[6:06] any questions or statements are asked to sign
[6:09] up in advance with the deputy village clerk
[6:11] prior to the hearing. Comments will be limited
[6:14] to three minutes for each speaker. Do we
[6:17] have any speakers? Yes. We have three. Okay.
[6:19] Very good. You may call your first speaker.
[6:22] Gary Wilson. Good day, Mister mayor, rest of
[6:31] the board. I've kind of used a of
[6:34] times I'll sit back listen and watch as
[6:37] a prior board member some of the things
[6:39] that are going on. Several years ago, or
[6:42] I guess three or four years ago when
[6:43] this petition came up to go into district,
[6:46] I'll be honest, I was not in favor
[6:48] of it because I don't feel that it's
[6:49] a true representation of Rantoul. And I think
[6:52] that this, going into districts is not only
[6:57] not made Rantoul better, but it's divided. I
[6:59] think that, this has divided the people into
[7:03] the who said, they said. I don't agree
[7:06] with it. On that petition that we signed
[7:09] four years ago, three and a half, four
[7:11] years ago, it asked for your name and
[7:13] your address, and that was basically it. Nowhere
[7:16] on there did it ask for your color
[7:19] or skin or your ethnic group or anything
[7:21] of that nature. And I I just you
[7:23] know, I'm tired of everything in Rantoul being
[7:25] about race. That's not what we are. That's
[7:28] not who we are. That's not where we
[7:29] came from. And I think that just further
[7:32] divides this country and further divides this village.
[7:36] Now I would ask that when we go
[7:40] to the board or go to, to the
[7:42] elections in April, that this be placed and
[7:44] let this be a democracy just like The
[7:47] United States was founded on. Let the people
[7:48] of Rantoul decide whether we should have districting
[7:51] or whether we should not. And then that's
[7:54] the way a democracy was was made and
[7:56] the way it was created. We're not a
[7:57] dictatorship or an authoritarian type leadership in this
[8:00] village as far as I know. And I
[8:02] think that, we should continue and allow that
[8:04] to be put on the ballot. Let the
[8:06] people at Rancho decide. If they decide, yes,
[8:08] we'll keep a district, so be it. We'll
[8:10] move on. We'll let the people decide from
[8:12] that point. Thank you. Next we have John
[8:24] Kraft. I'm gonna speak to the referendum. I'm
[8:40] honestly disappointed that was that it was even
[8:43] collected signatures and presented, number one, because the
[8:48] village hasn't been operating for four years under
[8:52] the district. Moving away from districts, essentially limits
[9:02] or maybe even eliminates any chance of minority
[9:06] representation that that the statute provides for a
[9:10] city. You can do that in a city,
[9:14] but it doesn't essentially provide that for a
[9:16] village other than through a districting process. And
[9:20] to get rid of the districting, especially prior
[9:24] to operating under the district System for four
[9:28] years. Does a disservice to the residents. And
[9:40] next we have Kirk Allen. Thank you. My
[9:51] name is Kirk Allen. I'm co founder of
[9:53] Edgar County Watchdogs. We're a local government accountability
[9:56] organization. And I'm just gonna speak to a
[9:59] couple things that have nothing to do with
[10:01] your referendum. They have to do with your
[10:03] public comment. On your policy, or well, actually,
[10:07] on your agenda, it outlines comments will be
[10:11] limited to three minutes for each speaker. And
[10:13] this is a village of Rantoul Letterhead. That
[10:17] may be an adopted policy you have for
[10:19] the village, but this is a public body
[10:22] separate and distinct. Has this public body ever
[10:25] adopted a public comment policy? I'm not expecting
[10:28] to answer a question. I'm just throwing that
[10:30] out there to think about it in the
[10:31] future, and I don't think anybody here is
[10:33] gonna speak more than three minutes. It's not
[10:34] like it's an issue. But this is an
[10:37] electoral board, not the village. This body would
[10:41] need to adopt a policy that would restrict
[10:44] people's time frame, and I don't think that's
[10:47] happened. The other thing on the sign up
[10:49] sheet, it referenced that the speaker has to
[10:52] address the board, not individual trustees. Well, you
[10:58] folks aren't trustees. You're electoral board members in
[11:01] this capacity. But even if you were trustees,
[11:05] the public has the right to address each
[11:08] and every board member individually. And that's clearly
[11:11] spelled out in OMA with the person's right
[11:14] to address their elected officials, not as one
[11:17] whole body. So I'd ask that you take
[11:20] a look at that in the future and
[11:21] try to clean that up. That's probably not
[11:23] been an issue, but these are things that
[11:25] we look at as an organization to try
[11:27] to focus on more transparency because when an
[11:30] issue of concern to the public does come
[11:31] up, it becomes an issue if somebody wants
[11:34] to talk for more than three minutes and
[11:35] you don't have a policy. Thank you. Appreciate
[11:38] it. There are no other speakers. All right.
[11:47] Then that ends the public comment section. Thank
[11:50] you. Item four is the presentation of a
[11:54] local election authority village clerk, Janet Gray. Janet,
[11:57] microphone is yours. Thank you, mayor. Speaking to
[12:02] the filing of the referendum that came into
[12:05] my office on 12/01/2022. Mister Terry Workman brought
[12:10] in the referendum. I certified it, and I
[12:13] took it down to the Champaign County clerk's
[12:15] office, and they filed it on that same
[12:18] date, 12/01/2022. On Wednesday, January 4, mister Jack
[12:25] Anderson, and I don't know if mister Goldston
[12:28] was with him or not, came in and
[12:30] filed three copies of an of the objection
[12:33] that we are hearing today. I was not
[12:36] in the office. My deputy clerk took the
[12:40] objection. On the next day, January 5, I
[12:43] was informed that the objection should be heard
[12:46] at the county level, And I contacted mister
[12:49] Anderson and advised him about that. He came
[12:52] in and picked up the copies of the
[12:54] objections and took it down to mister Ammon's
[12:58] office down at the Champaign County Clerk Office.
[13:02] Because I was named in that, I called
[13:05] the County Clerk's Office on Friday, January 6,
[13:08] to see what the status of it was
[13:11] and when or whether they were gonna hold
[13:14] a hearing on it. I called again on
[13:17] Monday, January 9, and they returned that call
[13:20] saying that the county clerk and the state's
[13:23] attorney had determined that this electoral body was
[13:27] the proper body to hear this objection. I
[13:31] then emailed I believe I emailed rather than
[13:34] called mister Anderson and let him know that
[13:37] they would have to pick up the objection
[13:39] packets and bring them back to us. On
[13:43] Tuesday, January 10, I sent out certified letters
[13:47] to all of the parties notifying them of
[13:49] this hearing today. I also then on January
[13:54] 13 mailed all the parties an updated agenda,
[13:58] the agenda before you now, and the rules
[14:00] and procedures that the electoral board was going
[14:03] to approve. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Very good.
[14:07] Thank you. Now ladies and gentlemen, we'll have
[14:12] the presentation of the objection from mister Jack
[14:15] Anderson. Jack? Mayor, before I begin, may I
[14:26] ask a question of procedure with regard to
[14:29] the presentations? On the agenda, there is time
[14:33] for mister Golsan and I to make presentations
[14:36] separately. Yes. I believe I'll be making the
[14:40] the largest presentation. I've worked my time as
[14:45] close as I can, and I am under
[14:47] fifteen minutes. But if it were to take
[14:49] a little longer, could I be allowed to
[14:51] continue, and mister Goldston would forfeit his time
[14:55] that I might use? We can do that.
[14:58] Very good. I didn't want the clock to
[15:01] go off, and then there'd be a question.
[15:04] Excuse me if my voice is rough. I'm
[15:06] suffering from just a dry voice, if you
[15:08] will. And as such, may pause and cough
[15:13] or take water at different times. But other
[15:17] than that, I am prepared to begin my
[15:19] statement. K. Good afternoon, honorable electoral board members.
[15:29] My name is Jack Anderson. I will be
[15:32] speaking in objection to the proposed petition to
[15:35] place on the 04/04/2013 ballot to public question.
[15:40] Shall the village of Randoll abandon the method
[15:43] of electing trustees from districts so that districts
[15:48] shall be hereafter elected on the village wide
[15:52] basis? As named objectors, mister go Wendell Goldston
[15:56] and I, both residing within the jurisdictional boundaries
[15:59] of the political subdivision of the village, and
[16:03] we are both registered voters herein. We believe
[16:07] the respondent's petition is insufficient, and as such,
[16:11] the public question should not appear on the
[16:13] ballot. For a little background, at the November,
[16:23] '1 thousand '7 hundred and '20 '5 of
[16:27] Rantoul's voters cast a majority in favor of
[16:31] abandoning the village trustee at large form of
[16:34] representation to adopting district trustee representation without change
[16:41] to the existing trustee village form of government
[16:45] as provided for under Illinois Municipal Code 3.1
[16:50] dash 25 dash 80. After the voters adopted
[16:55] the discharging referendum, Illinois Municipal Code 3.1 dash
[17:00] 25 dash 75 requires the board of trustees
[17:05] by ordinance shall divide the village into six
[17:09] compact and contiguous districts equal in population. After
[17:14] nineteen months of process and diligent preparation, on
[17:20] 06/09/2020, the trustees approved ordinance twenty six forty
[17:26] nine titled dividing the village into six districts
[17:30] for the purpose of electing one trustee for
[17:32] each district. After all the districts were established
[17:37] by ordinance, were prospective candidates able to pull
[17:45] their nominating papers, collect petition signatures, file nominating
[17:49] papers with the appropriate election authority, and have
[17:55] their names placed on the electoral ballot. In
[17:58] the 04/06/2021 consolidated elections, the first candidates running
[18:04] for the new six districts were elected as
[18:07] district trustees. Those district trustees were subsequently sworn
[18:12] into office and seated on 05/04/2021. These facts
[18:18] are not in dispute. The objectors believe the
[18:21] respondents incorrectly interpreted then applied section 3.1 dash
[18:27] 25 dash 85 prematurely in filing to place
[18:32] the public question to abandon the method of
[18:35] electing trustees by district on the ballot. The
[18:39] statute used by the respondents plainly states, quote,
[18:44] any municipality that has operated for more than
[18:47] four years under the provisions of 3.1 dash
[18:51] 25 dash 75 may abandon its method of
[18:54] electing trustees under this or that section. It
[18:59] is the objector's position that the village began
[19:03] to operate under the provisions of 3.1 dash
[19:06] 25 dash 75 when the first district trustees
[19:10] were elected and subsequently sworn into office on
[19:14] 05/04/2021. Accordingly, any petition and election to abandon
[19:21] the district trustee form of representation cannot begin
[19:25] until such time as the village has operated
[19:28] for more than four years under such representation.
[19:33] Representation by trustee districts was approved by the
[19:38] voters in the 11/06/2018 referenda under section 3.1
[19:43] dash 25 dash 80, which is which in
[19:46] its closing statement states, quote, if the question
[19:51] receives the favorable vote of a majority of
[19:54] all votes cast on the proposition, the board
[19:57] of trustees shall proceed to district the village,
[20:01] and the election of trustees for the village
[20:03] thereafter shall be in accordance with 3.1 dash
[20:06] 25 dash 75. That section makes the division
[20:12] into districts and temporal requirements for its completion
[20:17] a series of steps upon which the residency
[20:22] require requirement or qualification of for office and
[20:26] the election of officers by qualified electors are
[20:30] dependent for the election of the district trustees
[20:33] to occur. It is only after the conclusion
[20:36] of these acts that the village can begin
[20:39] to operate with district representation. As such, the
[20:44] village could not begin to operate under district
[20:46] representation until after the 04/06/2021 election and subsequently
[20:52] upon the official swearing in of the first
[20:55] district trustees on 05/04/2021. The objectives contend section
[21:01] 3.1 dash twenty five eighty five clearly prohibits
[21:07] the filing of necessary of the necessary petition
[21:11] for abandonment prior to the time district trustee
[21:14] representation has been in operation for more than
[21:18] four full years. In support of the objector's
[21:24] position, We draw upon the 1957 in Illinois
[21:31] appellate court case of Mason versus Cutclout. In
[21:36] this matter, the electors of Rock Island, Illinois
[21:41] filed a petition for a public question of
[21:44] abandoning their managerial form of government, notwithstanding any
[21:50] specific statutory provisions that otherwise or that only
[21:55] applied to the managerial form of municipal government
[21:58] in effect at the time, the appellate court
[22:00] found the case in hand hinged on the
[22:03] first sentence of the statute under their review,
[22:06] which reads, quote, any city or village which
[22:10] has operated for four years or more under
[22:13] the managerial form of a municipal government may
[22:17] abandon such in the manner provided. Excuse me.
[22:29] The language in the statute does not say
[22:34] any village which will have operated for four
[22:40] years or more. Rather, the language used by
[22:43] the general assembly is has operated. Using the
[22:48] verb third person singular has in the past
[22:53] participle verb operated. The simple past tense of
[22:57] operate indicating a completed action or time. The
[23:02] language in the statute is clear. Four years
[23:05] or more must have passed before the abandonment
[23:08] process may begin. The appellees in the Rock
[23:12] Island case, as is the same with the
[23:16] objectors before this electoral board, urged the intent
[23:20] of the language, quote, is clearly to provide
[23:23] a full four year trial period, which the
[23:27] citizenry have an opportunity to observe the managerial
[23:30] form of your municipal government in operation without
[23:34] unrest, expense, or excitement that would necessarily accompany
[23:39] a petition or election. In its essence, the
[23:45] appellate court in Mason versus Cutclout instructively provides
[23:49] an overview of the statutory construction and ascertaining
[23:54] the intent of the legislature by considering by
[23:59] consideration of the language employed. The appellate court
[24:02] filed, quote, it seems apparent the general assembly,
[24:07] by the language it employed, intended the abandonment
[24:10] of the city manager government, including the filing
[24:14] of the petition and holding of an election
[24:17] on the question not be permitted until the
[24:22] municipality has operated for four full years or
[24:25] more under the managerial form of government. The
[24:30] matter before this electorial board today is the
[24:33] legislative intent of the language of 3.1 dash
[24:38] 25 dash 85, where any municipality that has
[24:42] operated for more than four years under the
[24:44] provisions of section 21 I'm sorry. Three three
[24:48] point one dash 25 dash 75 may abandon
[24:51] its method of electing trustees. When questioning whether
[24:55] the words of a statute or ordinance are
[24:57] are of necessary clarity, a court looks to
[25:02] the language of the law itself for interpretation
[25:06] of the legislative intent in support of case
[25:09] law precedents. Two years after the appellate court
[25:13] decision in Mason versus Cutclout, the same court
[25:17] heard the case of De Donker versus City
[25:22] of East Moline. In the De Docker case,
[25:25] the appellate court recounted its findings in Mason
[25:28] versus Cutclop and that the court had narrowly
[25:31] addressed the question of whether the filing of
[25:33] a petition to abandon could occur before the
[25:36] four full years had passed. The court restated
[25:39] the acts of the petition, election and abandonment
[25:43] or retention, were all part of a series
[25:46] of acts which cannot begin or be considered
[25:49] separate, where the petition is not a preliminary
[25:54] step, but is part of and inclusive of
[25:58] a series of acts towards abandonment. The court
[26:02] additionally found, quote, that none of the various
[26:06] steps in that series of acts, including the
[26:08] petition to abandonment, may proceed the expiration of
[26:12] the four years period of time set out
[26:16] in statute. The this electoral board, in its
[26:20] consideration of the objection before today, will find
[26:24] the clarity of the statutory language and the
[26:27] weight of the appellate court's decision in Mason
[26:30] versus Cutclop, presidential, and the merits germane to
[26:35] in regard to the meaning of the language
[26:39] has operated for four years or more. And
[26:42] thus, after such time has passed, can the
[26:46] petition be filed for abandonment? The objectors so
[26:49] far have addressed so far the intent of
[26:55] the statute from its unambiguous language and the
[26:59] presidential judicial statutory construction of the appellate court.
[27:03] Lastly, with regard to the legislative intent of
[27:07] the general assembly I'm sorry. With regard to
[27:12] the intent, the general assembly has not changed
[27:15] the language after three score and five years
[27:19] since the Mason versus Cutclop decision. Section 3.1
[27:25] dash twenty five eighty five of the municipal
[27:28] code was amended by public act 87 dash
[27:32] one one one nine on 09/16/1992, '30 '4
[27:40] years after the decision of the Cutclop Place
[27:43] in 1957. If the general assembly here in
[27:48] Illinois had intended to allow the preliminary steps
[27:52] of the petition and the election of a
[27:55] referendum to begin before any municipality had operated
[28:00] for more than four years, they would have
[28:03] done so when they amended the code. The
[28:07] language that has operated for four years or
[28:10] more remained intact after the Mason versus Cutclop,
[28:14] Illinois Appellate Court ruling in the meaning and
[28:19] legislative intent of the language, now having served
[28:23] as legal precedents for sixty five years. The
[28:27] objectors believe that 3.5 section 3.5 dash twenty
[28:31] five eighty five was designed to allow the
[28:34] voting public a minimum of four years and
[28:37] no less during which the electorate could experience
[28:40] and evaluate having trustee representation district trustee. We
[28:46] are here today because only twenty months have
[28:50] passed since the first district trustees were sworn
[28:53] into office. Your objectors state that the petition
[28:56] for abandonment of the election of trustees by
[28:59] district is insufficient for the reasons previously stated.
[29:04] Wherefore, objectors pray that the petition papers of
[29:08] respondents on the public question for abandonment of
[29:11] electing trustees by district be declared by this
[29:15] electoral board to be insufficient and not in
[29:18] compliance with the laws of the state of
[29:20] Illinois, and that the referendum be stricken, and
[29:25] that this electoral board enter its decision declaring
[29:28] that the public question not be printed on
[29:31] the official ballot at the general municipal election
[29:35] to be held on 04/04/2023. And that concludes
[29:40] my statement. Thank you. Deputy clerk, please note
[29:46] the time and what would be the remaining
[29:50] balance for Mr. Wendell. Wendell, are you speaking?
[29:55] He has the full 15. Okay. The reason
[30:01] I said that is because he relinquished some
[30:03] of mister Wendell's time. K. Thank you all.
[30:14] I believe if I chose to continue to
[30:16] speak, I would get fifteen minutes. Alright. Sounds
[30:20] good. I concur with mister Anderson and the
[30:26] rest of us who worked on this, I
[30:30] will reserve any further comment until the rebuttal.
[30:37] Thank you. Alright. Now we're moving into the
[30:50] respondent comment from mister Terry Workman. Thank you
[32:27] for everyone that showed up this afternoon for
[32:30] support of this petition. I'd also like to
[32:35] mention I've been contacted by many other people
[32:37] that couldn't be here to express their support
[32:41] for this petition and to put it on
[32:44] the ballot. I also thank mister Paul Wilson
[32:47] for his time and effort in the research
[32:50] and the legal aspects of this petition. The
[33:03] first thing is Here's a proof of service
[33:39] under the response and objection to the Village
[33:45] of Rantua Board and Jack Anderson Windis Goldstein
[33:48] for not providing all the information necessary under
[33:54] the objection against Janet Gray, Aaron Emmons, Terry
[33:59] Workman, Sherry Johnson, and then et al. I
[34:03] don't know who et al is. That includes
[34:06] others. I don't know who others are. But
[34:11] under the rules that were adopted just right
[34:18] now, All others are to be provided with
[34:22] all the information and all the objections provided.
[34:28] So, all these others haven't been provided any
[34:31] of that information. So that's for future reference.
[34:37] Alright. Response to this petition. There are several
[34:48] things that are obvious in this, and Mr.
[34:51] Anderson has pointed them out. So I'm going
[34:57] to go through them fairly quickly. Redistricting took
[35:02] place. The dates at which he provided are
[35:06] accurate. The referendum was put on the ballot,
[35:14] and it was done so in 11/06/2018. And
[35:26] we divided into districts. That was the starting
[35:31] date of when districts started. And that was
[35:39] all done following the proper procedures. The first
[35:50] trustees were voted on and and elected by
[35:54] the public 04/06/2021. That is correct. The statement
[36:03] of abandonment of district trustees which is 65
[36:12] ILCS dash 5Dash 3.1 dash 25 dash states
[36:19] that they have to be operating for four
[36:24] or more years. Any municipality has operated for
[36:29] more than four years. The keyword here is
[36:32] operated. When did the operation start? When we
[36:40] did this petition, we started and we followed
[36:45] these procedures. And I will say more on
[36:50] that later. In the court case, mister Anderson
[36:57] has brought up he has brought up two
[36:59] court cases, Mason versus Kutkamp and also the
[37:08] Dunkirk court case. Both of these court cases
[37:14] have to do with managerial form of government
[37:18] in which mayors were going to lose their
[37:22] jobs. They don't have to do with districts.
[37:28] They don't have to do with districts and
[37:30] trustees being reelected. They have to do with
[37:34] mayors losing their jobs. So that doesn't pertain
[37:40] to us as trustees. Stupid watch. I'm not
[37:55] gonna reiterate a bunch of the facts that
[37:57] mister Anderson has just reiterated, but I do
[38:01] wanna point out some specific things. In the
[38:17] Donker case, it is very similar to what
[38:21] we have here. In the Dunkirk case, the
[38:27] managerial form of government commenced on 07/01/1952, the
[38:41] managerial form of government was established by the
[38:44] election 04/21/1953, And a petition to abandon was
[38:52] filed 12/19/1956, and the election was held 04/16/1957.
[39:02] And this is what the case is all
[39:04] about. And what mister Anderson failed to mention
[39:14] about in the Dunker case, the decision, court
[39:23] noted that the decision there was no determination
[39:26] as to the point in the Mason case
[39:30] as the beginning of the operation. In the
[39:35] Dunkirk case, the decision having been that the
[39:44] mayor would be have been cut off or
[39:46] terminated from his full term from being elected.
[40:20] The proceedings in the Dunkirk case were that
[40:33] the managerial formal government was the salient point,
[40:38] and therefore, the city of Moline were appropriate
[40:44] and within the four year guideline. In other
[40:47] words, the July 1 commenced when they voted
[40:59] to go to to abandon the districts when
[41:06] they voted in the Donker case. This is
[41:09] what mister Anderson failed to clarify. The decision
[41:14] was that the operation of the government was
[41:18] started when they voted to go to districts,
[41:27] not when it was to be the election.
[41:34] So they were within the four year guidelines
[41:36] set by the statues. The Mason case, there
[41:42] was no determination. Both of these cases and
[41:53] decisions are really not applicable to the village
[42:00] of Rantoul traditionally. We have been in the
[42:04] fourth district appellate court, and approximately a year
[42:08] ago, we moved to the fifth district appellate
[42:11] court. Both of these decisions emanated from the
[42:17] second district in Northern Illinois. The Dunker decision
[42:22] emanated from the Second District. To that extent,
[42:28] Dunker's spirit from Mason and Mason is overruled.
[42:35] And the guidance we received from Dunkirk is
[42:38] that at least in the district, we established
[42:41] a starting point or a calculation. Only cases
[42:46] coming out of the fifth district appellate court
[42:49] of Illinois Supreme Court are binding on the
[42:52] Fifth District. Mason and Dunker are somewhat limited
[42:59] guidance, but Mason would happen to be a
[43:06] mayor's election. Dunker is dispositive of an issue
[43:10] as to when the full period four year
[43:13] period commences. The fact that was completely ignored
[43:17] in the Mason decision. Statute herein is fully
[43:28] different from dealt with in the Mason and
[43:31] Donker cases and that the provisions and continuation
[43:35] of trustees participation in government as opposed to
[43:40] removal of mayors in the Second District. Unfortunately,
[43:53] in the Mason Court improperly decided to rewrite
[43:57] the statute by making the filing of a
[44:00] petition to abandon ballet of a four year
[44:03] prescription of a statue. The objectors seek to
[44:06] have this board rewrite the statue as set
[44:09] forth in '80 to include the filing of
[44:12] a motion to include a petition to abandon
[44:16] ballots violates a four year limit. If the
[44:19] legislature had intended to do so, it would
[44:23] enact into statute regarding petition for abandonment of
[44:27] districts. We assume the legislature did not intend
[44:32] of inconvenience or injustice by implanting additional requirements.
[44:40] There are several court cases which also imply
[44:44] that. If the legislature had wanted to put
[44:48] those things in place, limiting those things, they
[44:53] would have done so. And they have not.
[45:10] Pursuant to only statutory provisions which should be
[45:15] made applicable by this board is found in
[45:18] 85, which sets forth that there may be
[45:21] an abandonment of the district approach to trustees
[45:25] after it is operated for four years. The
[45:28] legislature is not clear as to how four
[45:32] years is to be determined. The only case
[45:34] which talked about the date is Dunker decision,
[45:38] which makes appropriate dates, the date of election.
[45:43] The election will not occur until April 23.
[45:49] Of the utmost important is the actual abandonment
[45:53] will not occur until terms of the duly
[45:55] elected trustees, which will occur in April of
[46:04] twenty twenty three. Consequently, it's arguable that the
[46:08] abandonment will not take effect for at a
[46:11] minimum of two years after the election. Certainly,
[46:16] the abandonment will not occur within the four
[46:19] years since election creating the districts. April 2021
[46:26] is long past. Consequently, an election may have
[46:31] occurred in February '20 authorizing the abandonment of
[46:35] the village will not abandon the method of
[46:38] electing trustees until years after. This sets the
[46:46] current situation which this board is considering wholly
[46:50] independent of the roadblocks of the objections intended
[46:55] to place upon the village. Reading the statue
[46:59] as a whole, the legislature has addressed the
[47:02] continuation in terms of trustees. Again, we should
[47:09] let the voters decide for reason that is
[47:14] respectfully submitted that the board overruled protests and
[47:21] objectives and require the placement in the ballot
[47:24] of the petition to submit the issue and
[47:29] let the voters decide. Thank you. So now
[47:47] mister Anderson and mister Goldston, remember there be
[47:50] any rebuttal? How much time do we have
[48:04] for rebuttal, sir? Still have your fifteen minutes.
[48:07] Pardon? You still have your fifteen minutes. Oh,
[48:09] well, I shouldn't need that. So good. Thank
[48:12] you. Okay. I'm ready to begin. Thank you.
[48:31] Although I'm not sure how I want to
[48:33] start, so bear with me if I I'm
[48:35] a little clumsy. I I hadn't anticipated the
[48:39] that rebuttal. Because it's not compliant with the
[48:44] law. That's why. It was said that the
[48:55] doctor case Get the mic up, if you
[48:56] would please, It was said that the doctor
[49:00] case has nothing to do with Just twist
[49:03] down at the bottom. At the very bottom,
[49:06] Jack. There you go. Right there. Oh, here
[49:08] and lift How do you get that? Want
[49:10] to be able to hear you. That is
[49:13] important. Thank you. With regard to the the
[49:20] Dockler case having nothing to do with this
[49:25] matter, it's basically true. With the exception of
[49:31] when the appellate court speaks back to Mason
[49:35] versus Cutclop. Speak up. Get it closer to
[49:39] you, Jack. When so when the court in
[49:47] the doctor case goes back and addresses Cutclop,
[49:50] that's when it becomes relevant because I'm really
[49:53] basing our whole affirmative on the cutclop place,
[49:58] the Mason versus cutclop. So allow me to
[50:02] try to address some of things that were
[50:06] said here. The let me go over this
[50:13] with the cut clot or the the doctor
[50:15] case. The matter involved the city of East
[50:19] Moline. This is the case that came after
[50:23] Mason out of city of East Moline, which
[50:28] had an aldermatic form of government. In July,
[50:36] by favorable referendum, the city would be changed
[50:39] to a managerial form of municipal government. In
[50:44] April and May of fifty three, the mayor
[50:46] and four councilmen were elected and took office
[50:50] under the managerial form of government. In December
[50:55] 1956, citizens of the city of West Moline
[50:58] filed a petition to abandon the managerial form
[51:02] of government. This was four years after four
[51:07] years and five months after the passage of
[51:09] the July fifty two referendum and three years
[51:13] and seven months after the the election of
[51:15] the mayor and the four trustees. With no
[51:20] objections, the petition was placed on the April
[51:24] ballot and passed with receiving the majority of
[51:27] the vote, 52%. At that time, the state
[51:31] of Illinois revised cities and villages act, the
[51:35] predecessor to today's Illinois municipal code under article
[51:41] 20 dash 13, allowed the abandonment of a
[51:45] managerial form of government only after it had
[51:49] operated for four years or more. And we're
[51:52] used to that language because that's what we've
[51:54] been talking about today. The city took the
[51:57] position that even though there was a vote
[52:01] in favor on a referenda, the city took
[52:04] the position that the abandonment petition was premature.
[52:09] Having taken a place before the passing of
[52:11] four years, contending the city began operating as
[52:13] a managerial form of government only after the
[52:16] election of the municipal officers and their taking
[52:19] office. The city then adopted a resolution not
[52:24] to abide by the result of the election.
[52:26] Imagine that. And to abandon and declare the
[52:30] results void and of no effect. So off
[52:34] the court we go. Right? Because that is
[52:37] the step. There is no electoral board when
[52:39] you're dealing with managerial forms of government. It
[52:42] goes strict straight to the circuit court. And
[52:45] in this case, it did go to the
[52:46] circuit court, then the next step was, of
[52:48] course, the appellate court. The matter before the
[52:52] appellate court, which found that under existing specific
[52:56] revised city and village act statutes at the
[53:00] time applicable only to the managerial former government,
[53:04] the city had rights, powers, and authority by
[53:08] statute to vest itself through adoption and be
[53:12] enforced. Thus, the clock for when the the
[53:16] city begins operating as a managerial form of
[53:18] government was upon the favorable election of the
[53:22] referenda. So that was absolutely right. When they
[53:27] voted in '92 or I'm sorry, '52, and
[53:34] there was an approval. Hold on. Was it
[53:36] '52 or '50 yeah. Fifty two. That's when
[53:39] that clock began. And then when they came
[53:41] up with their referenda, it was actually four
[53:45] years after that. It was not three months.
[53:47] Three years and some months. That's because we're
[53:51] talking about the city of East Moline, and
[53:55] the city of East Moline was a under
[53:57] the managerial form of government. It has an
[54:01] entire different section within the statutes that says
[54:05] it becomes a city. Or I'm sorry. The
[54:09] effects of the election are effective then. And
[54:12] that's what the appellate court pointed out. But
[54:16] while the appellate court was looking at that
[54:18] and made that decision rightfully in accordance with
[54:21] the statute, and today that statute still exists.
[54:24] It exists under section five of the municipal
[54:28] code. Allow me to read to you what
[54:35] the appellate court said in De Dunker, which
[54:38] had nothing really to do with De Dunker.
[54:40] They went back and started talking about Mason
[54:43] because they had they're ruling different now, aren't
[54:46] they? In Mason, they said the clock starts
[54:49] once you have elected those officials and they've
[54:53] been placed in the office. They begin functioning.
[54:58] In the docker, they're saying, well, no. There's
[55:01] existing statute under municipal managerial municipalities that say
[55:11] it becomes effective upon the election or upon
[55:15] the referenda that goes into that. So allow
[55:19] me to read real quick. The court says
[55:21] this in the DACA. The sole issue before
[55:27] us was this and they're talking about Mason.
[55:30] The sole issue before us was the sufficiency
[55:32] of the petition, and the precise question was
[55:36] whether paragraph 20 dash 13 permits the filing
[55:40] of such a petition before the municipality has
[55:43] had a full four years of city management
[55:46] government. We held it did not, that the
[55:50] petition, election, abandonment, or retention of the city
[55:55] government are parts of a series of acts,
[56:02] that it was not intended that the petition
[56:04] or election be mere preliminary steps of abandonment
[56:10] and that none of the various steps in
[56:13] that series of acts, the petition to abandon,
[56:15] may proceed the expiration of the four years
[56:19] of time set out in the statute. There
[56:21] is no issue before us here, and we
[56:24] did not determine that or when was the
[56:28] point of the beginning of the operation of
[56:29] the city under the managerial form of government
[56:33] form, which we required for the four year
[56:36] period. In essence, the doctor has nothing to
[56:41] do with what we're doing today except when
[56:43] the court reaffirms what it said in Mason.
[56:47] And in Mason, they said, it does not
[56:50] start. The clock does not start until the
[56:54] officials are elected, not when the referendum was
[56:57] passed. Because in this case, it was passed
[56:59] back in 02/2018. It's when the the representatives
[57:06] district representatives are elected, and they are sworn
[57:10] into office twenty months ago. And the court
[57:13] specifically says it was the legislature's intent that
[57:18] that go unchallenged with a referenda or a
[57:23] petition until that time had expired. And they're
[57:26] very specific about that, and I read through
[57:28] all that. And let me see. I made
[57:33] a few more notes on Mr. Working's comments.
[57:36] I think I covered most of them. Oh,
[57:40] I did want to say this. I thought
[57:41] it was of interest. Today well, under at
[57:46] the time of the the DACA case or
[57:48] for managerial forms of government, they started the
[57:52] clock when the referenda passed. Right? That's what
[57:55] the decision was in the DACA. However, if
[57:58] you look at today's statutes under the municipal
[58:01] code under section five pertaining only to the
[58:05] managerial form of government, it specifically reads I
[58:12] could pull it up, but to the effect,
[58:14] it says that the clock the under the
[58:18] managerial form of government, it begins to function
[58:22] as a managerial form of government if that's
[58:24] adopted once they have appointed a manager, not
[58:29] when the referendum was passed. Because, obviously, you
[58:31] can't start a managerial form of government until
[58:34] you have a manager, and you start functioning
[58:36] as a managerial form of government. And that's
[58:38] the argument here by the objectors. You cannot
[58:41] begin to act as a village rep with
[58:44] district representation until you have gone through the
[58:49] steps, which were done, and then you elect
[58:53] your representatives by district, and then they are
[58:57] sworn into office, and they begin to act
[59:00] in their official capacity. Now you are engaged
[59:03] in district representation. And according to the appellate
[59:10] court, which is not binding, but it's guidelines.
[59:15] And I'm sure any other court would look
[59:17] at that, and I'm sure they have over
[59:19] the years and said this makes sense. You
[59:21] cannot be something until you start till you
[59:24] have all the components present and you begin
[59:26] to function in that manner. And as far
[59:32] as his closing statement, let the voters decide.
[59:35] It's not the voters' decision on whether or
[59:38] not this gets on the ballot. It's a
[59:41] matter of statute and case law. That opportunity
[59:46] for the voters to decide existed back in
[59:50] November of twenty eighteen, and the voters spoke.
[59:55] And the statutes allow it to return, not
[59:59] today, in the future. And that concludes my
[1:00:05] responses. Thank you. Mr. Gelson? I think there
[1:00:40] is some information that we're overlooking, and we
[1:00:48] keep talking about letting the voters decide. 1,725
[1:00:54] people did decide. However, that was done in
[1:00:59] November of twenty eighteen. This is January 2023,
[1:01:07] and we are looking forward to an election
[1:01:10] that's coming up. And right now, the four
[1:01:13] years is not being put in place as
[1:01:17] it should be. Will have, shall has, have
[1:01:25] different until it has operated for four years
[1:01:33] is what we're looking at. Mister Rutman stated
[1:01:39] that we think that it's going to automatically
[1:01:44] drop out in those persons who are in
[1:01:48] position automatically come out. That's not what's before
[1:01:54] us. What's before us is the four years.
[1:01:59] This is what we worked on the four
[1:02:01] years for the people. The decision that they
[1:02:06] made at that time, they ought to be
[1:02:12] able to see that out. A lot of
[1:02:16] this is it's not working. It has to
[1:02:22] be given the opportunity first to work before
[1:02:26] you say it's not working. It has to
[1:02:31] be given the opportunity to work before you
[1:02:35] say it's not working. When you say it's
[1:02:40] not working right now, you're telling us that
[1:02:42] you do not want it to work, which
[1:02:45] I don't think anyone would say that out
[1:02:48] and out. Great things come with great thought.
[1:02:57] Four years is four years. We have to
[1:03:01] look at that, the four years. April, May
[1:03:08] four, May four, two zero two zero was
[1:03:16] it. So we're looking at the four year,
[1:03:21] not the two year. The four. As far
[1:03:25] as operation and operate, we're talking about people
[1:03:33] that were voted for, who are in position,
[1:03:38] who are doing the work for the constituency,
[1:03:43] and this is being appended because we don't
[1:03:51] see it working. And it is working, but
[1:03:59] there are steps that's involved in this for
[1:04:04] it to work for the four years, not
[1:04:08] stopping it in midstream and say the current
[1:04:11] is going five miles an hour, and we
[1:04:15] want it to go four, three, two, one,
[1:04:18] or even more so standing still. We are
[1:04:22] looking at what is happening. No. We are
[1:04:27] not putting up roadblocks for the village. That
[1:04:33] was stated. There are no roadblocks for the
[1:04:37] village. We, as the constituency, as the citizenry
[1:04:44] of this community, don't want roadblocks. Forty six
[1:04:52] years, I've looked at Rand Tool as a
[1:04:56] kaleidoscope. We wanted to be a kaleidoscope. There
[1:05:05] are no corn tosses on who gets to
[1:05:12] decide. The people decide. But today, on this
[1:05:18] date, seventeen January, it's just a decision of
[1:05:24] the board, this electoral board, to decide whether
[1:05:30] it's been twenty months or forty eight months.
[1:05:39] Further down in here, it says forty six
[1:05:42] months. Whether it's been twenty months or forty
[1:05:47] six months, many educators are in here. That's
[1:05:53] not arithmetic. That's common sense. Forty six months
[1:06:02] if you don't want the 48. That's not
[1:06:06] mathematics. That's arithmetic. That's common sense. We're talking
[1:06:13] about the operation of it. They could not
[1:06:18] have been seated. We had to do the
[1:06:22] districting for the maps. All of that had
[1:06:25] to be drawn up. That took time. The
[1:06:30] election had taken place. They got their petitions.
[1:06:35] They got their signatures. They turned them in
[1:06:38] to the clerk. That took time. But in
[1:06:43] April, the election and May 4, that's when
[1:06:50] the clock started, not February. You may want
[1:06:58] it to have started there, but the statute
[1:07:00] does not say that. It says, given the
[1:07:05] opportunity for four years without interruption. This is
[1:07:10] interruption. This is interruption. I'm asking that the
[1:07:17] board, as you are seated, would vote to
[1:07:23] not place this on the ballot in April.
[1:07:32] And I pray god's will on each of
[1:07:33] you. And that ends the rebuttal part. Now
[1:07:49] we have the sir rebuttal. Mister Porkman? The
[1:08:19] process for producing this petition has been carefully
[1:08:24] followed. The first step was to produce documents
[1:08:29] following the Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS section
[1:08:36] five slash 3.1 dash 25 dash 85 with
[1:08:42] the proper wording, which we did. Second step
[1:08:46] was to circulate petitions and get signatures of
[1:08:50] not less than 5% of the electors of
[1:08:53] the village. 5%. The only number we have
[1:09:00] to go by right now is the election
[1:09:03] of two thousand twenty one, which was 7,097
[1:09:09] registered voters. That's the only number we have
[1:09:13] right now because the county clerk has not
[1:09:17] released or publicized the November election results by
[1:09:22] districts, which we've tried to get several different
[1:09:27] times and have not received yet. That 5%
[1:09:32] equals 355 signatures. We attained 550 plus signatures
[1:09:39] in a short period of time that I
[1:09:41] gave people to get signatures. We could have
[1:09:44] attained a lot more signatures have I given
[1:09:47] people more time to do that, but we
[1:09:51] have more than enough signatures. We then filed
[1:09:55] the petition on 12/03/2022 as miss Gray has
[1:10:01] pointed out the procedures that we followed. The
[1:10:07] petition will go on to ballot for the
[1:10:08] election of April 2023. If voted in by
[1:10:20] the people, some things will happen. First of
[1:10:24] all, when Dell's is worried about trustees not
[1:10:29] being able to fulfill their obligation, trustees will
[1:10:38] not be removed from the board because of
[1:10:42] this petition that have been elected at districts.
[1:10:47] They will be allowed to fulfill their term.
[1:10:51] The first election that this petition would go
[1:10:56] into effect would be 2025 at which time
[1:11:02] it would go into effect. And then the
[1:11:08] electorate would elect trustees at large. The trustees
[1:11:15] elected in the spring will be district trustees.
[1:11:23] So for the next two years, all the
[1:11:26] trustees on the board will be district trustees
[1:11:31] still for two more years. So we're not
[1:11:37] getting rid of the people off of the
[1:11:45] board that have been elected as district trustees
[1:11:49] for four more years for two more years.
[1:11:56] As is the case in these two cases
[1:11:58] that have been brought up, which are talking
[1:12:01] totally about getting rid of mayor positions and
[1:12:05] not trustee positions, which is why they really
[1:12:11] do not apply to the situation that we're
[1:12:15] in. The last ordinance to form districts for
[1:12:24] the village of Rantoul was voted on and
[1:12:26] passed on November 2019. The statement that the
[1:12:37] managerial form must have operated for four years
[1:12:41] before a petition can be filed to abandon
[1:12:46] is true. The keyword that has been bannered
[1:12:52] around is operated. The only court case that
[1:13:03] has dealt with that term operation has been
[1:13:07] Donker. The Mason case didn't address that at
[1:13:14] all. And the last case, the Mason case
[1:13:23] was filed and and entered and done on
[1:13:27] October 1957. The Donker case, the decision was
[1:13:33] made on December 1959, '2 years later. Their
[1:13:43] decision stated that the operation started when the
[1:13:48] ordinance to form district was voted on. Period.
[1:13:55] Plain and simple. That's what the law is.
[1:13:58] That's what the decision was and is. Period.
[1:14:10] Dunkirk versus East Moline has stated that the
[1:14:13] operation started when the ordinance to form districts
[1:14:17] for the village was voted on. The last
[1:14:25] ordinance to form districts for the village of
[1:14:27] Rantua was voted on and passed on November
[1:14:32] 2018. The operation started when the ordinance was
[1:14:40] voted on and passed on November 2018. The
[1:14:50] filing date of our petition was 12/03/2022. That's
[1:14:58] obviously more than four years. The election will
[1:15:05] be April 2023. The petition says trustees shall
[1:15:25] be hereafter elected. That means in 2025. The
[1:15:41] petition should go on to ballot. We should
[1:15:52] let the people decide whether we should have
[1:15:57] districts or not. Time has passed. All the
[1:16:01] trustees will serve their time. End of discussion.
[1:16:11] Alright. Thank you everyone for your participation. Alright.
[1:16:20] Alright. Board, is there any items that you'd
[1:16:24] like to talk about in consideration of this
[1:16:25] case? It's now open for your comments. Mr.
[1:16:34] Mayor, I have a question or comment or
[1:16:38] I guess both. Sure. Let me get your
[1:16:41] mic closer. Yeah. And I'm kinda hoarse too,
[1:16:44] so excuse my excuse my voice. The, I
[1:16:47] guess, and this is probably directed toward our
[1:16:50] legal counsel. Can you explain a bit of
[1:16:54] the proof of service in regards to what
[1:16:58] we're dealing with here today? I think I
[1:17:01] can, also I think it's just the season,
[1:17:05] is I think it's relative to the idea
[1:17:07] of the board rules that were adopted. And
[1:17:09] just as a quick background, if you recall
[1:17:12] a few years ago, there was another, electoral
[1:17:15] board hearing that was relative to nominating papers
[1:17:18] for a candidate. Some rules were adopted at
[1:17:21] that time, but those rules were really categorized
[1:17:23] as specific to that particular issue, which was
[1:17:26] a candidate's nominating papers. In my review of
[1:17:30] that, I felt the rule should account for
[1:17:33] both possibilities, which is either candidates nominating papers
[1:17:35] or exactly why we're here today, which is
[1:17:37] a petition for a public question. The certificate
[1:17:40] of service, I think, is driven to, what
[1:17:43] may be described in there in terms of,
[1:17:44] like, preliminary motions. Right? So we know this
[1:17:46] is gonna get scheduled. Maybe one side or
[1:17:48] the other wants to file a preemptive or
[1:17:50] preliminary motion on the idea of what they're
[1:17:52] going to argue about or maybe what the
[1:17:54] board should address right up front before anything
[1:17:56] else happens. And so, realistically, that would be
[1:17:59] driven to the idea of I I I
[1:18:01] need to make sure I've served the other
[1:18:02] side with it because this is what I
[1:18:03] wanna argue about first. Right? And so appreciate
[1:18:07] mister Workman, I think, providing a certificate of
[1:18:09] service indicating service today, think, really within the
[1:18:11] hearing of his written, response to objections. But
[1:18:15] I think that's, I don't know. I wouldn't
[1:18:17] say that that was an absolute necessity here
[1:18:19] because here, the hearing is both sides get
[1:18:21] to say their piece. They get to submit
[1:18:22] whatever they like to submit, during the hearing,
[1:18:25] and that's why you have rebuttal and surrebuttal
[1:18:27] is to address maybe things or points that
[1:18:30] are brought up within the hearing itself. And
[1:18:33] so, again, I hopefully that kind of answers
[1:18:35] the question. Yeah. Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you.
[1:18:40] Ms. Gray, you have anything? I do not
[1:18:43] have anything. No. Okay. In consideration of this
[1:18:49] case, I'm hearing that at the I can't
[1:18:51] hear you. It's not going Let's just get
[1:18:53] this thing real close. In the consideration of
[1:18:56] this case, I'm hearing that it's the servitude
[1:19:01] of the four years that all the trustees
[1:19:04] were originally elected to is what's in question.
[1:19:09] So I don't see where there would be
[1:19:16] an objection to that. I'm having trouble with
[1:19:18] that because everybody's going to get a chance
[1:19:20] to see their four years out before this
[1:19:23] comes into play. Is that from mister Wesner,
[1:19:28] is that how your inter your interpretation is
[1:19:31] then of that also? I I guess, mayor,
[1:19:36] what I'll say is this again. Not as
[1:19:38] an advocate for either side of this question.
[1:19:41] I understand that. That ultimately kind of is
[1:19:43] the issue. You know, both sides have commented
[1:19:45] about a couple of cases that come from
[1:19:47] a district a different appellate court district. What
[1:19:51] I will suggest is, mister Workman suggested that
[1:19:53] they don't apply period because they're not within
[1:19:55] this district. That's not exactly accurate. You know?
[1:19:58] And both of those cases really are more
[1:20:01] driven to the idea of statutory interpretation rather
[1:20:05] than the nature of the position that's involved
[1:20:07] in that particular case. Or mister Workman was
[1:20:09] pointing out, well, that's the mayor, so it
[1:20:10] really doesn't apply here because we're talking about
[1:20:11] trustees. I I would suggest I'm not sure
[1:20:14] that really is an argument to be made
[1:20:15] about this because it's driven to interpretation of
[1:20:18] statute. And I think you've hit on ultimately
[1:20:21] the issue, and it's not really driven by
[1:20:23] whether the currently elected trustees or those who
[1:20:26] would be elected at the April would serve
[1:20:28] out a particular amount of term. It really
[1:20:31] boils down to what starts the clock for
[1:20:34] the statutory reference to a four year period
[1:20:36] of operation. Okay. And so that that's kind
[1:20:39] of the issue that you have. Okay. Alright.
[1:20:41] And miss mister mayor, that would be my
[1:20:43] only comment. In here, state statute is has
[1:20:48] some cases that have been reviewed, but none
[1:20:51] of them definitely have stated when the district
[1:20:55] ring begins. What is the mechanism that creates
[1:20:58] it? Is the referendum that says it's going
[1:21:01] to happen that way occur? Is it an
[1:21:05] ordinance adopted by the municipality stating here are
[1:21:09] districts? Or is it the first election where
[1:21:11] district trustees are elected? Mhmm. I'm picking up
[1:21:15] on that as well. Yeah. Okay. Alright. If
[1:21:19] I if I may add. Yes. I'm take
[1:21:21] my math off again. Sorry. Yeah. If I
[1:21:23] may add, you know, the the the the
[1:21:25] question of, like you say, that when the
[1:21:27] clock starts, and and both sides made some
[1:21:31] compelling compelling arguments toward that to, you know,
[1:21:35] you know, foreign against and so forth. You
[1:21:38] know, so in action, in this case, the
[1:21:42] action of the ordinance taking effect, it doesn't
[1:21:47] seem that it can take effect without people.
[1:21:50] Right? We're talking about government, which is people.
[1:21:55] So if the action started, let's say, and
[1:22:00] it took three years to elect people, then
[1:22:07] from how I see it, that's when the
[1:22:09] action start, that three year later. Yeah, that's
[1:22:15] just, I'm thinking, I'm just talking out loud,
[1:22:17] thinking out loud, whatever the saying is. Yeah,
[1:22:19] you're just hearing it now. Yeah, yeah. So,
[1:22:23] yeah. That's I just felt the need to
[1:22:25] say that. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. Okay.
[1:22:29] Any other comments from the electoral board? No,
[1:22:33] sir. All right. Then board, I'm going to
[1:22:37] ask you to make a decision. So I
[1:22:41] need a motion to entertain or I need
[1:22:43] to entertain a motion to uphold the objection
[1:22:46] before you. Well, mister mayor, I'll make that
[1:22:50] motion to entertain the motion to uphold the
[1:22:52] objection before us. Alright. I will second it.
[1:22:55] Alright. Madam Clark, we have a motion on
[1:22:59] the floor with a second. Would you do
[1:23:01] a roll call, please? Mayor Smith. I vote
[1:23:11] not to go forward with the objection. I
[1:23:13] vote no. Madam clerk, right? No. Trustee Hall?
[1:23:20] I vote to go with the objection. Mister
[1:23:28] clerk? It does not take unanimous clerk. If
[1:23:34] you would please read what the vote was
[1:23:36] then. Yes. The vote is two to one.
[1:23:39] Alright. Very good. Thank you. Alright. Okay. Alright.
[1:23:47] The vote the motion was to uphold the
[1:23:56] objection before you. Upholding the objection before you
[1:24:00] would mean that it would not go on
[1:24:02] the ballot. The vote was two to one,
[1:24:07] so the motion was did not pass. It
[1:24:10] was not approved. So therefore, the petition goes
[1:24:15] on the ballot. Am I correct, mister attorney?
[1:24:19] Did I explain that correctly? Okay. Very good.
[1:24:23] Goes on the ballot. Yes. Alright. Board, I
[1:24:27] need a motion to adjourn. Mister mayor, I'll
[1:24:30] make that motion. Okay. Second. Second. If you
[1:24:37] would, please. We're we're not done yet, folks.
[1:24:42] There will be a record of decision signed
[1:24:44] by the electoral board. It will not be
[1:24:46] immediate because we did not know what the
[1:24:48] outcome of this meeting would be. But when
[1:24:51] it is available, it will be sent to
[1:24:53] all parties that were involved with the objection.
[1:24:56] Okay. I have a motion on the floor
[1:24:58] to adjourn, and you'll start with mister Hall,
[1:25:02] please. Okay. Trustee Hall? Yes. Mayor Smith? Yes.
[1:25:06] And and madam clerk Gray? Yes. Okay. Very
[1:25:08] good. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming.
[1:25:10] We are now adjourned.