Algonquin Township

Algonquin Township – How can the local paper get it so wrong? “CLARIFICATION”

McHenry Co. (ECWd) –

In what appears to be another misinformation hit piece by the Northwest Herald reporter Ed Komenda, we find once again key facts just can’t seem to quite make the reporting when it comes to Algonquin Township & Road District matters.

The current Road District Highway Commissioner refers to the Northwest Herald as the Northworst Herald and points to them as Fake News.  According to the Editor John Styf, fake news is when an entire story is fabricated.  While that may be a common definition in the journalism industry, it appears to not be the case with your average everyday citizen.

It is becoming clear across the country that publications who print slighted information and/or conveniently leave out key facts are commonly being referred to as fake news.

The Algonquin Township held a special meeting last night pertaining to an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), between the Township and the Township Road District.  The NWH has run several articles related to the IGA issues that all appear to cast dispersions against the current Highway Commissioner Andrew Gasser.

Today’s story was no different and possibly worse.

According to the NWH, “The document is not valid until Gasser signs it”, referring to the IGA.

Not so Mr. Komenda.

The reporters claim that the document is not valid until Gasser signs it and that claim is 100% false.  Some would say that constitutes fake news.  Making such a claim leads readers to believe Gasser is the only holdup, which falls into slanting of other stories where they attempt to make Gasser the problem while conveniently or intentionally leaving out key facts that tell a much bigger story.

The reporter failed to mention the vote taken was to approve the IGA as presented and since there was no motion to approve the amendments made to the IGA, Roberts Rules of Order were not followed.  When the Clerk properly pointed out the error, the Township Attorney and ethics instructor said there was no need to change anything in the record.  The Clerk clearly disagreed and informed the board the IGA would have to be amended to reflect the changes they made to it and that would not happen until the next day.

Since changes were going to be made to the IGA, why would the paper report a completely false narrative?

As we understand it, Gasser signed a final version today and provided that copy to the Township Supervisor, Chuck Lutzow.  Lutzow will be taking it back to the board for yet another vote due to changes from the original.

“CLARIFICATION”

As we understand it this morning after speaking with Andrew Gasser and his attorney, changes were made to the IGA by both parties, the board during the meeting and the Road District the following day. Once Gasser’s attorney approved what is now believed to be a final version, Gasser states he misspoke about it being signed but actually meant that he is in agreement with it and will sign it after the board once again votes to approve the latest version.  As stated before, Lutzow will be taking it back to the board for yet another vote due to changes, by both parties, from the original.  This clarification is provided to ensure the fine details of this matter are reported accurately. The fact Gasser’s attorney made changes to the IGA has no effect on the misinformation provided by the local paper. The version voted on by the board was NOT signed by the Township Supervisor nor could he sign it due to changes made during the meeting.    That being the case, to imply it’s not valid until Gasser signed it is simply not true.  

Keeping it simple, the IGA is not valid until all parties to the IGA sign it, just as Trustee Lawrence said during the meeting.   

So what do you call it when a reporter fails to provide key facts pertaining to this agreement?  Is it proper to point to Gasser as the person everyone is waiting on to sign the agreement when in fact that is not true?

The fact of the matter, as of this reporting, the IGA is not valid until Charles Lutzow signs it and he can’t do that until the board approves the final version.

As of today’s reported clarification, the IGA is to be placed on the next agenda for a board vote.  Upon board approval, Gasser stated he would sign the version that he and Lutzow verbally agreed to be the final version. 

Was it really that hard to tell the whole story so the public is properly informed, or is misleading the public and casting aspersions towards Andrew Gasser the real agenda for the NWH?

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.

1 reply »

  1. Rachael Lawrence said the exact same thing at the meeting, Are they going to “call out” what she said?

    “I also must say that I am disappointed, given my previous conversation with highway commissioner Mr. Gasser and what appeared to be his expression of how important this was for him, I am disappointed that he is not here tonight to sign it and I want to remind the board and the public that this intergovernmental agreement is not valid without his signature. So wile we may pass it tonight or make our approval of it, it actually will not be effective unless it is signed by both independent, uh, bolt the road district and the township.”

    https://youtu.be/WC_YYmi3yjQ?t=4m26s

Leave a witty comment