More False Information From Local Propaganda Page – Election Season Alive In Shelby County

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

Due to the resignation of a past Shelby County Board of Review member, numerous questions arose about the proper process to replace them.  Those questions led to a very simple process that normally removes all the political garbage, a Declaratory Judgement action, commonly referred to as a DEC action.

With numerous questions unanswered and information from the State Board of Elections indicating there is no provision for a county the size of Shelby to do what was done in a past referendum, the State’s Attorney filed a DEC action and the relief sought was very simple.

“Issue an order commanding Jessica Fox to either place on the ballot in the upcoming election a contest for Members of the Board of Review or enter an order commanding her not to place the positions of Board of Review Members on the Ballot.”

This is a process of letting the court decide a matter rather than appointed or elected officials who may or may not have a political agenda.

The current “anonymous” propagandist now known for invoking his 5th amendment rights in an election matter, has once again provided false/misleading information on this matter in what appears to be a clear personal attack on the current State’s Attorney.

“The Board of Review debacle is much worse than it appeared. In 1984, the appellate court unanimously decided that Shelby County’s 1981 referendum was constitutional. Hanlon failed to disclose the attached case to the court and the county board”

The case cited had nothing to do with the Board of Review.  It had to do with the Supervisor of Assessments.  What is ironic in this twisted attempt to bash people seeking judicial review on a matter is the fact the very case he pointed to was a person doing the same thing the current county board was seeking, a ruling from the court. Doing so takes away all the political garbage that appears to be thriving with a few more interested in following propaganda than being critical thinkers.

More laughable, though, is one of the reasons the Plaintiff in the previous case wanted a change of venue.  She alleged there were conflicts with those on the petition hearing board because they had signed the petition in question.  This was the same garbage Chris Boehm spewed at the petition election board prior to invoking his 5th Amendment rights.  Had he read just a snippet of case law, or the one he now claims was something it wasn’t, he would have known signing a petition does not disqualify them from performing their statutory duties. The very case he wants people to believe was about a board of review made his argument moot. We note that Boehm failed to disclose that information to the petition objection board during his hearing.

“We decline her request to construe the Election Code to provide for different board members whenever an objector feels a conflict is present. It is not the province of the courts to inject provisions not found in a statute. Droste v. Kerner (1966), 34 Ill.2d 495, 217 N.E.2d 73.”

We understand the Board of Review declaratory judgment case is still active and no order has been issued yet.

We do note if the petition process is found valid, there are a lot of questions that were documented in past Shelby County board minutes that may need to be answered moving forward rather than ignored for 40 years.

November 1981 Board Minutes: “The question on the November 3 ballot “Shall the Office of Member of the Board of Review of the County of Shelby be elective rather than appointive” passed by a vote of 1968 yes to 1129 no. “This leaves a lot of questions to be answered,” was the comment of Glen Wright. He said the three state agencies; namely the Attorney General, State Board of Elections, and the Illinois Department of Revenue, could have differences of opinion on how to implement the new procedure. Such questions as: how many members would be elected in the 1982 election if any, what length of term would each one be elected for, should the county board appoint members for the period of time from the expiration of their appointed term until their election, how many signatures are required for their filing petition, and numerous other related questions need to be answered. The problem will come to head when someone wants to file a petition with the County Clerk.”

December 1981 Board Minutes: “The elected term would be four years as other county officers. Other questions and problems will arise as a result of the office being elective rather than appointive such as: would the positions be full-time or part-time, would the board have power to extend the time for the board of review, the Illinois Department of Revenue may not pay part of their salary, could a referendum be passed to provide that the members be elected from districts, and etc.”