[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.

Electoral Board Hearing 011723

Transcript