Ignorance, Stupidity, or good old Arrogance?

Edgar Co. (ECWd):

Mr. Patrick when will the lies stop?

Yet again Chris Patrick makes claims that are so inconsistent with the truth it makes you wonder if there is not a total mental disconnect.  At what point is his actions, as well as others, a reckless failure to perform their mandatory duties?

Yet again Mr. Patrick states the Airport board is NOTHING but an advisory board, which is totally false based on his own actions on that board for years.  All you have to do is read 5 years worth of minutes to see the truth.  If that is not convincing enough read 5 years of expenditures and see how many of those expenditures are even referenced in the minutes.

April 15th 2013 County Board Study Session Audio

48:00 minute mark is where the most interesting discussion begins as it relates to Mr. Patrick and his arrogance and ignorance of the law.

Patrick Claims the Airport Advisory board takes straw votes, and then takes those results to the full county board.  A major problem with his claim is the Airport minutes for 5 years do not reflect anything even remotely close to his claim.  The truth is the Airport Board has done what ever it wants up to the point where Mr. Patrick was no longer on it.  Now he has to control it, or try to, from the county board level.

At the 52:42 Patrick states : “I’m a voting member but only to break a tie.” 

WRONG again Mr. Patrick!

55:35– Patrick states: “Where does it say I can’t vote?”

55:26-Patrick claims the airport board is following the same format as the county board, as it relates to the county board for voting.  He continues to claim he does not vote except to break a tie.

Time for a lesson to the County Board, Chris Patrick, Mark Isaf, and all the others in Never Never land who think they can do as they please, the law be damned.

As it relates to a chairman of a county board only voting to break a tie, that is totally false and not supported by law.  In fact, the law is so clear it’s amazing anyone would make such a claim, let alone a County Chairman.  Sadly, even our State’s Attorney has made such a statement.  I can only assume Mr. Isaf has not had the time and energy to research the matter.

There are only two references in the county code that provide direction on a chairman only voting to break a tie.  Both of those references are specific to an Elected position of Chairman, which is not the case for Mr. Patrick.  He is an elected board member, then nominated by the board as chairman.  Here and here it states the Chairman does not vote except for a tie and those cases don’t apply to Mr. Patrick and Edgar County.

What does apply?

<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=005500050K2-1005" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">55 ILCS 5/2-1005</a>- .....</span><span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;">all questions which shall arise at meetings <strong>shall be determined</strong> <strong>by the votes</strong> of the majority of the <strong>members </strong>present, except in such cases as is otherwise provided.</span>

You only have the powers granted, and the law clearly states the county business is determined by the votes of the majority of the members present.  Mr. Patrick is present and is counted towards a quorum, thus he is a voting member.  His claim that he only votes when there is a tie is totally false and without any legal foundation to support it!

This county board adopted Robert’s Rules of order and even those rules outline that the president of the voting body has the exact same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions.

Not convinced yet? 

Illinois Supreme Court case: Prosser v. Village of Fox Lake.   “If a quorum is present, elected officials cannot avoid their voting responsibilities by refusing to vote when present at a meeting.”

Did you catch that Mr. Patrick? 

Illinois Supreme Court case law proves you not only can’t avoid your voting responsibilities, but it also spells out you can’t refuse to vote!  So much for your recusal letter having any legal standing!   (stay tuned for more on that subject)

55:45 – Patrick states:  “You can do what ever you want to”

No Mr. Patrick you cant!

You can only do what the law says you can do!

55:45 – In reference to the Chairman of the Airport Board voting, Ben Jenness acknowledges you “can’t do it for a vote tomorrow night”, which was when the airport board was going to have their next meeting.  Well I guess Ben forgot what he said at this meeting because one of the very things the Airport board did was vote on the Chairman being able to vote, which was not on the agenda.

If all of this circus act isn’t enough to convince you to vote these people out of office, we again were not let down with the brilliant mind of Mike Heltsley, as it relates to his question to John Kraft, when the question of what statute the airport operates under came up yet again.  22 second mark of the audio

Mr. Heltsley do you really not know where to look to find out what statute the Airport is operating under?  Are you really that stupid or is that really a stupid question to ask?

For all those that can’t seem to find out what statute the airport is suppose to operate under, this should get you started in the right direction.  Air Transportation Statute.   Of those statutes, the county must comply with all applicable statutes.  If your not bright enough to know which statutes that might be, go to your legal council and find out.  It’s called doing your job and since they have made it very clear they don’t know what statute the airport is to follow, it’s a safe to say after 4 months of asking with not even an attempt to figure it out they are recklessly failing to perform their duties.  That is official misconduct!

 Mr. Patrick’s scheme of refusing to perform his statutory duties clearly deprives the electors of their intangible right of honest services.  

“Such nonvoting member should be recorded either as ‘yea’ or ‘nay,’ for there is no provision in the statute to record or enter the  inaction of a member of council who attends meetings and then refuses to vote.  A councilman is elected for the purpose of expressing an opinion.  Action, and not inaction, is a duty that he
assumes with the office”!

More to come!  We promise!