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.”
17 Comments
Anonymous because I don't trust the ECWd not to harass me or put me in an article
Posted at 13:49h, 06 MarchSeems like you guys got it wrong again… You’ve done about all you can in Shelby County. It’s time to pack up and move on. Spend those retirement years doing something beneficial to the world, not detrimental.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 14:47h, 06 MarchYou are obviously confused, which is not surprising.
Your friendly advice provider
Posted at 15:00h, 06 MarchAnd you are obviously confused that what he said differed from, you should move on, that you aren’t wanted here. He went on correctly to say, spend the few remaining years you have left doing something beneficial vs detrimental. While you’re still able that is.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 19:29h, 06 MarchYou might want to seek the advice of a psychiatrist. Don’t know if medicine will fix what you have.
Droopy: Master Sergeant
Posted at 16:32h, 06 MarchJust one more way the Democrats controlled Shelby county and had favorable assessment. Democrats in all four assessment positions.
Funny some people want the ECWD gone. Most of those signs are in Democrats or this strange group of “Republicans” yards and businesses. Tells a story.
Some people don’t want the truth out there because they will lose control over the uninformed population.
Homer
Posted at 20:51h, 06 MarchIt’s simple the w dogs are there because they got a donation to look it things
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 09:38h, 07 Marchwrong
Homer
Posted at 12:11h, 07 MarchSo you guys are spending your own money all this time in shelby county man I be broke
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 12:33h, 07 MarchYes – but the statement you made that was wrong, was your insinuation that we only write about it because we get paid by someone to write about Shelby County, which is patently false.
Michael Donnel
Posted at 20:56h, 06 MarchThe Appellate Court ruled in 1984 that the referendum was constitutional., Where was this in your story or the SA’s argument to the Court? Was it missed in the research or simply ignored? Also, here we go making these types of decisions again without all , and I mean all of the infallible facts in front of them. Have we not learned? These are the same things the current Board barked about the previous Boards doing. It’s a rinse and repeat cycle all over again. Yes, the necessity to get qualified BOR members in place was definitely required/needed; but they are to be elected in this County. Not appointed as was thought. The Referendum of 1981 gave that voice to the voting public of Shelby County, Did the Board contact the Property Tax Division at IDOR to look for initial guidance/clarification when there were questions in interpretation of the property tax code? Based on the actions taken I don’t get the warm feeling that they did, or if they did the right questions were not asked.
On another note how dare you put that on Mrs. Boehm. I watched the county meeting video and she was the only one that spoke up to the Board Chairmen and questioned that decision to appoint the BOR members. I don’t know Mrs Boehm, but what I do know, based on the videos, she spoke up and started to question the decision. Perhaps she didn’t have the exact information in front of her but she knew what was going on was not correct for the simple fact those positions are elected; and she spoke up. Isn’t that what your group preaches is if it doesn’t smell right then start asking questions? Had the Board taken a few extra moments to get the complete information we possibly would not be in the position we are now.
On another note I questioned the Board Chairman regarding the appointments and the inequitable taxing district representation based on the two selections being from the same taxing district. I also questioned him when I asked about training requirements and was told the appointees didn’t need any. Spending eight years with the Illinois Department of Revenue and working on a major project for the Property Tax Division I knew that was not correct.
Shelby County residents are asking questions as they should be.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 09:41h, 07 Marchre: Michael Donnel. NO, it did not. I will buy you dinner if you can find even ONE mention of “Board of Review” anywhere in the case you cited. The case was about the Supervisor of Assessments and that specific referendum on the SoA (Not the BoR). Period.
Kirk Allen & John Kraft
Posted at 10:12h, 07 MarchMichael Donnel
The Appellate Court ruled in 1984 that the referendum was constitutional., WRONG. The case Chis points to was not a ruling that the referendum about BOR was constitutional.
Where was this in your story or the SA’s argument to the Court? Was it missed in the research or simply ignored? Do I understand correctly you want us to point to a case that was about a Supervisor of Assessment petition objection? Had we done that I can hear the cry about how that case was not about BOR.
Did the Board contact the Property Tax Division at IDOR to look for initial guidance/clarification when there were questions in interpretation of the property tax code? Based on the actions taken I don’t get the warm feeling that they did, or if they did the right questions were not asked. -= Great question. IDOR has nothing to do with elections. The State Board of Elections was contacted and they concluded there was no provision to make them elected. That is what led to the DEC action being filed to let the courts decide.
On another note how dare you put that on Mrs. Boehm. – Put what on Mrs. Boehm? We never mentioned her at all in the article? Is your bias showing?
I watched the county meeting video and she was the only one that spoke up to the Board Chairmen and questioned that decision to appoint the BOR members. I don’t know Mrs Boehm, but what I do know, based on the videos, she spoke up and started to question the decision. Did you also watch the meeting video where Lori Nelson also questioned the process? The same person who did contact the State Board of Elections? Boehm was NOT the only person asking questions as you allege.
Perhaps she didn’t have the exact information in front of her but she knew what was going on was not correct for the simple fact those positions are elected; and she spoke up. Isn’t that what your group preaches is if it doesn’t smell right then start asking questions? Had the Board taken a few extra moments to get the complete information we possibly would not be in the position we are now. — WRONG sir! This matter was questioned by several people for weeks. Questions were being asked and according to the Statute, there is ZERO provision to make the position elected. That is undisputed. That is the information they concluded that lead to their decision. A reading of the Constitution points to a method for county offices to be created but those offices already existed. That was an underlying dispute that led to asking the court to make the determination. That is the process of getting to the right way of doing it. Now, after the fact a select few want to push a false narrative that there was something nefarious going on and that is simply not true.
On another note I questioned the Board Chairman regarding the appointments and the inequitable taxing district representation based on the two selections being from the same taxing district. I also questioned him when I asked about training requirements and was told the appointees didn’t need any. Spending eight years with the Illinois Department of Revenue and working on a major project for the Property Tax Division I knew that was not correct. — So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You KNEW something was being done wrong. Did you contact the Chairman with the applicable facts to educate him or is you understanding of the facts different from the Chairman’s? I may be wrong but off the top of my head, I thought those members had a certain time to comply with the training. Could be wrong but that is what I recall.
Shelby County residents are asking questions as they should be. — How special! Why were no questions being asked years ago? How about al the questions the former SA raised on this issue that to date have never been addressed?
Michael Donnel
Posted at 14:50h, 07 MarchMy first board meeting I attended was in May 2023. Prior to that I was not focused on politics in the County. That first meeting alone was an absolute cluster. July that same year was the FIRST time I heard about this issue. That along with a myriad of other questions were asked directly by me of the Chairman in an almost 2 hour phone call. It was a very pleasant conversation. So you can stuff it in a sock and quit insinuating I knew something and said nothing. If you read all that I wrote you would have noted I did ask questions. I did mention that IDOR would be a good first point of contact since it relates to the BOR and rules pertaining to them. It wasn’t until after that time I went back and watched the videos pertaining to this issue. I didn’t mention Mrs. Nelson but yes I know she addressed the issue early on. I am talking about your insinuation that Mrs. Boehm should have had all the information in her back pocket to present on the spot when she questioned the Chairman.. I can’t answer what the previous board/officials did or didn’t do. So
Much stuff gets kicked down the road and ignored its hard to keep track of anymore. However, we are here and now and this Board and officials are being asked. As far as bias…I have zero bias pal. You guys are the ones that seem to mention her all the time either directly or indirectly in your articles. Not me. I am simply trying to get answers to the information that is out there or not out there. I want the hemorrhaging of our County money to stop.
Brad VanHoose
Posted at 23:23h, 06 MarchKeep doing what you do. A lot of us appreciate all your efforts to stop the wasteful spending in Illinois.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 09:41h, 07 MarchThanks, we will, as always.
Michael Donnel
Posted at 11:56h, 08 MarchI looked up the current case (there are 5 entries under Shelby County on Judici for this case 2023-MR-14) that went to court and under the history information for the case (all 5 entries with same case number) it shows the following :
2/29/2024
“PLAINTIFF (COUNTY CLERK) BY SA HANLON; DEFENDANT (ELECTED MEMBER OF BOARD OF REVIEW) BY ATTY MATHIS; DEFENDANTS (APPOINTED MEMBERS OF BOARD OF REVIEW) BY ATTY JONES; MATTER SET FOR HEARING ON MSJ; DEFENDANTS ANNOUNCE AN AGREEMENT ON THE RECORD; PLAINTIFF TAKES NO POSITION; B/A, MEMBERS OF BOARD OF REVIEW TO BE ELECTED AND THE REFERENDUM OF 1981 TO BE DEEMED CONSTITUTIONAL; WRITTEN ORDER TO
ENTER PRIOR TO PRIMARY ELECTION ON MARCH 19, 2024.”
Reading this information in the case it appears that 1981 Referendum was deemed constitutional by the court on 2/29/2024.
So the question remains did the court, on 2/29/2024 deem the 1981 referendum constitutional or not? The entry would indicate it in fact did. Again, where does the County move on from this point forward and get bodies in the BOR and get the required work done to enable the SoA to summit the assessments to IDOR? It’s too late to put anything on a ballot at this point for the 3/19/2024 primary.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 12:44h, 08 MarchI understand what is in the docket, however, opposing parties to a lawsuit cannot ” by agreement” deem the 1981 referendum constitutional (except for the singular purpose of that specific lawsuit) – there has been NO OTHER court ruling on the Board of Review Referendum despite what some rogue resents insist on, even though they cannot find any mention of it anywhere in the lawsuit they claim decided that several decade ago.