
Freshman Follies
Rookie alderman Scott Waguespack faces his first minefield: the 32nd Ward committeemans race.
By Ben Joravsky December 13, 2007
There’s a peculiar tango being danced in the 32nd Ward committeeman’s race.
Back in April freshman alderman Scott Waguespack beat incumbent Ted Matlak in an upset, but though most aldermen are also committeemen, Waguespack isn’t in the running. Instead, he’s endorsing John Fritchey, who announced his candidacy over the summer. He’d already done so in October, when independent Roger Romanelli entered the field. While Fritchey, a state rep with powerful connections in the ward, made no endorsement in the aldermanic race, Romanelli was one of Waguespack’s strongest supporters. Now the alderman’s in no position to return the favor. An independent himself, he’s backing the candidate with strong machine ties.
Committeeman is an unpaid party position that has lost a lot of its clout since the 70s and the age of the Shakman decree, when a series of court rulings eliminated (well, tried to eliminate) political hiring. Yet the position still has its perks. Committeemen appoint election judges and slate candidates for office, playing a particularly influential role in judicial races and other obscure campaigns. The job gives resourceful politicians an easy way to raise money and build up favors. Perhaps most important, it’s how aldermen consolidate their local influence, cutting off potential rivals in their wards. Other than Eighth Ward alderman Michelle Harris, whose committeeman is Todd Stroger, Waguespack’s the only City Council rookie not running for committeeman.
After Waguespack won last spring, edging out the remnants of the 32nd Ward organization formerly controlled by Dan Rostenkowski and retiring committeeman Terry Gabinski, supporters in the know urged him to run for the position. But soon after being sworn in, Waguespack announced that he had no plans to. “I wanted to focus on the job I had just been elected to do, and I didn’t want to have to deal with running another campaign,” he says.
Almost immediately, Fritchey began preparing to run. It wasn’t the first time: in 2004, after Gabinski announced that he was stepping down and tapped Matlak as his replacement, Fritchey astonished many by bucking the machine and jumping into the race himself. That little foray ended after a back-room meeting brokered by Mayor Daley. Matlak and Fritchey both withdrew, and Gabinski wound up filling the post for another term.
In July Fritchey announced his new campaign. “I have a lot of ideas to invigorate the party,” he says. A few days later, before any other candidates had declared their intentions, he had Waguespack’s endorsement.
Some of the alderman’s backers say that Fritchey bullied him to get his backing, taking advantage of the freshman’s need for allies and lack of comfort in his new office. Waguespack says that’s not so—the endorsement was a defensive tactic. “At the time I didn’t know if anyone else was going to run and I didn’t know if Matlak or Gabinski were going to run for committeeman,” he says. “I didn’t want them to run without strong opposition. So I endorsed John.”
Waguespack and Fritchey make a curious pair. Waguespack ran as a reformer, slamming Matlak for overdeveloping the ward by routinely approving zoning changes with little public input. Fritchey, in addition to his statehouse job, is a zoning lawyer married to the niece of 36th Ward alderman William Banks, chair of the City Council’s zoning committee. True, Banks recuses himself on Fritchey’s zoning requests. For his part, Fritchey maintains he never uses his family connection to win favors from the council: “I’m probably the last guy who would attempt to benefit from my position,” he says.
Politically, Fritchey’s something of a hybrid. As a legislator he’s been a vocal proponent of progressive causes, championing stem cell research and abortion rights and leading the fight against mandatory prayer in public schools. But on the local front he plays things close to the vest. Neither he nor Matlak has any love for the other, but Fritchey never came out and publicly supported Waguespack during his aldermanic challenge. And over the years he’s developed a cozy relationship with house speaker Michael Madigan, most recently serving as house leader on the speaker’s home owner’s exemption bill.
The Madigan connection has led some in Waguespack’s camp to express concern that Fritchey might use the committeeman’s post to promote machine-minded hacks. But the big scuttlebutt in the ward is that Fritchey’s angling to get himself slated for Illinois attorney general when Lisa Madigan, the speaker’s daughter, leaves the post to run for governor.
Romanelli, meanwhile, has assumed Waguespack’s mantle of reform even without the alderman’s express support. He points to his past campaign work for “independent candidates” like former state senator Jesus Garcia and Senator Barack Obama. Then, without skipping a beat, he notes that Fritchey supported machine candidate Dan Hynes over Obama in the 2004 Senate primary race.
“I understand why Scott says he’s backing Fritchey, but I believe I’m the true reformer,” says Romanelli, who’s executive director of the Randolph/Fulton Market Association. “I was there for Scott. We had a historic election in the 32nd Ward, and where was John Fritchey? He was sitting on the sidelines.”
Fritchey disputes this, insisting that he helped Waguespack behind the scenes. “Everyone in Scott’s campaign knows what I did for Scott,” he says. So why didn’t he endorse him? “I didn’t want Scott to be an afterthought,” he says. “I didn’t want this to be seen as a battle between Fritchey’s guy and Gabinski’s guy.”
Romanelli laughs at that explanation. He thinks Fritchey chose not to endorse Waguespack for fear of trouble with Matlak’s big-name supporters, among them Madigan, Daley, Banks, and congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Rahm Emanuel.
Now Fritchey has pulled out the oldest trick in the book, challenging Romanelli’s nominating petitions on the grounds that some of the signers didn’t live in the ward and that other signatures were fraudulent. “I’ve always been a big proponent of open access to the ballot,” says Fritchey. “I would not be challenging him on a technicality. But a review of his signatures shows that 80 percent of them are bad. It shows a reckless effort.”
Romanelli concedes that some of his signers may live outside the ward. “Come on, you know that’s bound to happen,” he says. But he says the vast majority of his signatures are legitimate, and accuses Fritchey of tampering with the race: “How can John call himself a reform Democrat when he’s trying to deny the public an opportunity to have an election?”
The growing fracas leaves Waguespack feeling a little sheepish, particularly now that Michael Kasper, Madigan’s go-to guy when it comes to election law, is handling Fritchey’s challenge. “I’m disappointed that the challenge is happening,” the alderman says. “If Madigan is sending in people to work against Roger, it’s wrong. He did that in the last election. It didn’t work then.”
Waguespack’s miffed at Fritchey on another count. One of his first moves in office was to mandate that developers consult the local community before seeking zoning changes. In November Fritchey bypassed this step, filing directly with the city a request to change the zoning of a lot on the 1400 block of West Lill. When Waguespack found out, he had to call Banks, Fritchey’s uncle-in-law, to ask him to hold the request until it could be brought before a neighborhood group.
Fritchey dismisses the matter as an oversight, and despite the zoning dispute, Waguespack says he’s not about to rescind his endorsement. Then again, he’s not exactly campaigning hard against his former precinct captain, Romanelli. Call it a quiet endorsement—having spoken to Waguespack, I get the distinct impression this campaign can’t be over fast enough for him.
“I’m still endorsing John,” he says, but “anyone who wants to run should be allowed to run.” Send a letter to the editor.
From the Reader blogs Clout City Mick Dumke: Aldermen hold another hearing on the parking meter lease deal. Their conclusion: it still stinks. Thursday at 7:49 pm
|
Flag as inappropriate
Brian Daley at 6:44 AM on 12/13/2007
Ben,
As a friend of both Scott Waguespack and John Fritchey, I was among the very first volunteers to join Citizens for Waguespack. During the nearly 1,000 hours I committed to the Waguespack campaign, I participated in countless meetings, conference calls, and strategy sessions.
So it is with complete authority that I tell you that Roger Romanelli was an only occasional volunteer to the campaign. And while his efforts—however small—were appreciated, they hardly rise to the scope and scale of Roger’s current claims. Scott’s campaign manager, Patrick Botterman, has already issued a public statement confirming these facts.
Moreover, had Roger been involved half as much as he claims to have been, he wouldn’t now be bearing false witness against John. For you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone from the Waguespack campaign who wasn’t fully aware of all that John Fritchey was doing on Scott’s behalf. That’s why it is no exaggeration to say that, had it not been for John’s efforts, Scott’s candidacy and his subsequent victory would have been impossible.
That Roger should now attempt to wrap himself in the Waguespack flag in order to cast stones against John is—like much of Roger’s behavior since Scott’s victory—contemptible.
Roger’s well-known propensity for dissembling reveals itself again when, rather than simply acknowledge that his paid workers collected two illegal signatures on his nominating petitions for every legal one, he attacks John for blowing the whistle on his shenanigans. That’s like the bank thief blaming the police for not letting him get away with the crime.
Should Roger be knocked off the ballot, it will be due to his own inability to obey the laws designed to ensure fair and honest elections. If Roger thinks that constitutes "disenfranchisement" then I’m happy to buy him a dictionary with which he can look up the meaning of that word.
Finally, lest there be any doubt, Roger could no more have "assumed Waguespack’s mantle of reform" than could he turn water into wine. As executive director of the Randolph/Fulton Market Association, Roger has long been a tireless proponent of TIFs, which, as your own reporting has revealed, Ben, is one of the greatest public financing scandals ever perpetrated against Chicago’s taxpayers.
Roger Romanelli is a poseur who’s false and shallow claims do not stand up against John Fritchey’s 10-year record of pushing real reform through the Illinois legislature.
Sincerely,
Brian Daley
Chicago, Illinois
Flag as inappropriate
Obama fan at 8:42 AM on 12/13/2007
Isn't it funny that Romanelli touts his support for Obama for Senate while decrying Fritchey's petition challenge, when Obama won his state senate seat after challenging the petitions of the incumbent senator?
Flag as inappropriate
47th Ward at 11:42 AM on 12/13/2007
This isn't correct: "Other than Eighth Ward alderman Michelle Harris, whose committeeman is Todd Stroger, Waguespack’s the only City Council rookie not running for committeeman."
Is Brendan Reilly running for committeeman in 42? Um, no he isn't.
Flag as inappropriate
Yellow Dog Democrat at 1:43 PM on 12/13/2007
I have nothing to add to Brian Daley's post -- having been recruited by Fritchey to help get Waguespack elected -- other than I'm deeply disappointed in Waguespack for his half-hearted support of Fritchey, after everything Fritchey did for him. Brian is not exaggerating when he says that Waguespack would not be alderman if not for everything Fritchey did for him.
Flag as inappropriate
Ben Joravsky at 3:07 PM on 12/13/2007
"Um, no he isn't"--as of yesterday, according to his office. Brendan Reilly filed his nominating petitions on November 5, and was in the 42nd Ward committeeman's race when I wrote this story.
Flag as inappropriate
Another Obama/Fritchey fan at 3:31 PM on 12/13/2007
Never mind that Rep. Fritchey has been an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Obama's campaign - a quick glance at his blog shows several promotions of the Obama campaign. Just shows that this Romanelli has nothing to run on. Sad, if it weren't so irritating.
Flag as inappropriate
Bucktowner at 3:36 PM on 12/13/2007
Congratulations on what could be the most clueless off-base article to run in this paper in a long time. Fritchey stood up in our ward when nobody else would and without him, a campaign like Waguespack's never could have happened.
He has always been there for constituents and is one of the most accessible officials around. He's a leader and has never shied away from standing up for taxpayers. A machine guy? Get real. And to try to infer guilt on him by virtue of his marriage is cheap journalism.
Actions speak much louder than words, and his actions as a legislator have been top notch.
The rest of the city and state media get it, but the Reader flubs it when it's right in their back yard.
Did you guys even interview anybody not associated with Romanelli?
Flag as inappropriate
47th Ward at 3:39 PM on 12/13/2007
Sorry Ben, and I say this as a fan of yours, you could have dug a little deeper than reading the Clerk's filing page.
Reilly is backinng John Corrigan for Committeeman. This is from October: http://illinoisdemnet.com/node/4137
To quote Olberman, use the Google.
Flag as inappropriate
Dave Clarkin at 4:51 PM on 12/13/2007
Ben should be forgiven for getting the Reilly part of it wrong. Reilly just filed his official withdrawal papers yesterday, and the Cook County Clerk's office hasn't updated their website yet.
The rest of the story I do take issue with, starting with the idea that Fritchey is in any way a machine guy or cozy with the machine.
Fritchey has been one of the most outspoken advocates of government reform in Springfield. Period.
No doubt Madigan and Fritchey have become closer allies recently, but that has much more to do with the fact that they share a common enemy in Rod Blagojevich, and, to be honest, Fritchey has proven himself to be a dedicated, honest, intelligent and effective lawmaker throughout the years, all traits that Madigan admires.
But anyone who uses "Madigan" and "cozy" in the same sentence clearly doesn't know Madigan. Lots of words have been used to describe Madigan's long public life, but "cozy", "warm", and "fuzzy" are words you'll never here.
Lest we forget, ten years ago Madigan and Fritchey were on the serious outs. The reason? Lisa Madigan was running for the Illinois Senate against a lawmaker that Fritchey greatly admired, Sen. Berman.
Flag as inappropriate
Kate Schmidt at 6:52 PM on 12/13/2007
The point is, he didn't get it wrong: Reilly was in the race when the paper went to press.
Flag as inappropriate
47th Ward/Fritchey Fan at 7:19 PM on 12/13/2007
The point is everyone who knows anything about Reilly and this race knows that Reilly has always been backing Corrigan. Period.
Why would Reilly circulate petitions, file them, and then withdraw? Maybe to keep any Natarus allies from running. Kind of obvious, especially if you understand anything about this race.
Most politicians don't sponsor fundraisers for their opponents and a simple Google search revealed that Reilly hosted a fundraiser for Corrigan back in October. And if this basic and easily uncovered fact is wrong in Ben's story, what else did he miss?
Yes, I'm a Fritchey fan, and for reasons I don't understand, Ben gets flummoxed when Mike Kasper's name is mentioned. He's Madigan's "go-to guy" for a reason Ben. He's very good at what he does. That doesn't make him sinister. And it clearly shouldn't cloud the whole story.
47th Ward
Flag as inappropriate
Joseph at 7:56 PM on 12/13/2007
Without Fritchey, Waguespack would not have beaten Matlak?
If Fritchey did such heavy lifting what was it?
How much money did Fritchey donate to Waguespack? Answer, none.
How many fundraisers did Fritchey host for Waguespack? Answer, none.
Did Fritchey ever denounce Malak? Answer, no.
How many stops door-to-door did Fritchey
go on with Waguespack? Answer, none.
Flag as inappropriate
To Joseph at 9:10 PM on 12/13/2007
Nice try, but I'm pretty sure that I know you and that you know the truth. Be honest with yourself and everybody else.
Forget about Waguespack, the real issue here is that Romanelli can't begin to compare to Fritchey in talent, record or ability. The 32nd Ward is lucky that they are going to have him as a committeeman.
Flag as inappropriate
what did Fritchey do for an Independent 32? at 9:42 PM on 12/13/2007
The issue is after 15 years Fritchey is trying
to claim he fathered an independent 32....
so what exactly did he do to stand up to
Matlak/Gabinski? The 32 Ward is lucky to
rid of the backroom dealers. Keep Fritchey
in Springfield. Let the people have a chance.
Flag as inappropriate
Fess Up Fritchey at 10:14 PM on 12/13/2007
Look, either State Rep. Fritchey helped get
our new Alderman elected or he didn't.
I never saw his name anywhere during the
campaign. There is no record of his
donating any money. I don't recall seeing
him at the campaign office and I worked there as a regular. So cut the crap. Waguespack made a premature decision to
bow out of the race for committeeman that
he is sticking with. Pleeeeeese- a practicing zoning attorney who profits off the system
is a reformer? Scott Waguespack's win was
a surprise to the old cabal....now they are
scrambling to retain power. LOL
Let Romanelli run.
Flag as inappropriate
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm at 10:42 PM on 12/13/2007
Ummmmmmm, Senator Burman retired, and the seat went to Ronen I belive, I may be wrong...
Lisa ran against Bruce Farley who was Ed Kelly's Guy
Please, know your history
Flag as inappropriate
Yellow Dog Democrat at 12:40 AM on 12/14/2007
Look, Fritchey knows what he did for Waguespack's campaign, and Waguespack knows it too. One of these days, some reporter will just ask Waguespack, and then they'll ask his campaign manager.
What this is really about is Scott Waguespack not wanting to tell Roger Romanelli -- who wrote him $500 in campaign contributions -- that he's with Fritchey. Or not wanting to tell Fritchey -- who recruited volunteers and raised money for his campaign -- that he's with Romanelli.
Half of me wishes that Waguespack WOULD withdraw his endorsement for Fritchey, endorse Romanelli instead, and THEN watch Fritchey clean his clock.
BTW, dragging Mike Kasper into this is like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Mike Kasper is the Election Lawyer for the Democratic Party of Illinois, headed by Party Chairman Mike Madigan, because MIKE KASPER IS THE BEST ELECTION LAWYER IN THE STATE.
I don't know a Democrat in Illinois who wouldn't want to have Mike Kasper as their election lawyer if they could get him. I bet if Joravsky or anyone else checked, they'd find that Mike Kasper probably has DOZENS of cases filed.
It's not a plot to take over the world when the election lawyer for the Democratic Party of Illinois is representing incumbent democrats in election disputes.
Now, when Jim Thompson, former GOP Gov of Illinois and lawyer for George Ryan is defending Democrat Rod Blagojevich, that merits some attention.
Flag as inappropriate
Message to Fritchey-run a clean race at 9:14 AM on 12/14/2007
I still don't know - what did Fritchey do all those years to oppose Matlak/Gabinski? When a true reformer surfaced he was AWOL
while Scott and his loyal band did the work.
Attorney Fritchey should call off his
blog attack dogs and stop paying machine
lawyers to keep his opponent off the ballot.
Run a clean race on YOUR record. Stop
trying to use Waguespack. You did not put
him in office, the people did.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:26 AM on 12/14/2007
Here's a very thorough accounting of Chicago's democratic committeeman races:
The Most Important Race You Never Heard Of
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
http://politrack.blogspot.com
http://politrack.blogspot.com/2007/11/most-important-race-you-never-heard-of.html
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:40 AM on 12/14/2007
"For his part, Fritchey maintains he never uses his family connection to win favors from the council: "I’m probably the last guy who would attempt to benefit from my position," he says."
Uh, huh, sure.
Fritchey for AG, huh?
Will Fritchey give up his zoning lobbyist day job then, or will he keep it & stick to his "no conflict of interest" story?
Flag as inappropriate
moot point at 1:02 PM on 12/14/2007
hugh, joseph, et al - despite some of your complete lack of understanding, all of your complaining is moot. an INDEPENDENT hearing oficer just ruled that Romanelli's signatures were insufficient and that he will not appear on the ballot. (see CapitolFax). game over.
Flag as inappropriate
Expecting Democracy from a Zoning Attny at 1:14 PM on 12/14/2007
If zoning attorney Fritchey succeeded in
keeping an average citizen off the ballot
by using machine lawyers because he was
scared of facing a no-name in a low level
race then we all can keep our eyes on this
guy. He is a disgraceful example of clout gone mad. Fritchey still has to answer for
where he has been for a decade, the deals
he's made and just who he'll really answer to.
This guy for AG - come on...or maybe hell
fit right in.
Flag as inappropriate
ward 32 at 3:05 PM on 12/14/2007
Funny that Brian Daley, who doesn't live in the 32nd ward, would call someone contemptible after he made the YouTube video which blasted Matlak yet claimed it was made by a 32nd ward resident. He knows all about contemptible behavior. Oh, yeah, and Waguespack didn't know who made it. Only one of his "1,000 hour" volunteers.
Flag as inappropriate
...with liberty and justice for all.... at 3:30 PM on 12/14/2007
Brian Daley is a a blow hard who thinks he
knows EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING....
just ask him. There is nothing funny about
Brian Daley except that he helped elect
an independent alderman in 32 (not his Ward) and now that alderman is acting
independent. Brian is sooooo enthusiastic
about Fritchey he was willing to try to throw
Waguespack under the bus to pressure
an average guy off the ballot. Not hard
to see old Brian in a smokey room yucking it
up. Sorry Brian, you missed the party. You're
about 50 years too late. 32 has broken free.
Find some other stomping ground.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 3:32 PM on 12/14/2007
"Fritchey, in addition to his statehouse job, is a zoning lawyer ... "
should be
"Fritchey, in addition to his zoning lawyer job, is a state representative ..."
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 3:38 PM on 12/14/2007
" ... despite some of your omplete lack of understanding ... "
yeah, like if I only understood this better, I'd realize there's no problem with a state rep working as a zoning lobbyist
Flag as inappropriate
get real at 3:46 PM on 12/14/2007
the "average guy" got himself thrown off the ballot. 70% of the signatures the guy turned in were bad. yeah, he'd be a great party organizer for the ward. right.
Flag as inappropriate
What did Fritchey do for an Independent 32? at 3:52 PM on 12/14/2007
Many thanks to Ben Joravsky who reported
on the election that wasn't. High- priced
machine lawyers went to work on their
prey, a novice. I'd love to hear from the
people who absolutely signed Mr. Romanelli's
petitions and then saw them successfully
discounted. Who appointed those election
judges? Who was Fritchey's step-father?
Who is his father-in-law?
I hope, for the voters sake, that Mr.
Romanelli will expose what happened to
turn the lights out so quickly in 32.
Flag as inappropriate
it's not attractive at 4:35 PM on 12/14/2007
Craig, quit whining already.
Flag as inappropriate
lon at 4:38 PM on 12/14/2007
What's wrong with Fritchey doing zoning work in the 32nd ward and the city? He has a right to practice law and so what if his relatives operate the zoning committee, its not like they did him any favors. Shows you how weak the democratic party is if this is the best there is to offer.
Flag as inappropriate
Getting what you deserve at 4:50 PM on 12/14/2007
if the Party had more guys like Fritchey, we'd all be better off. Why don't you try talking about his record rather than spouting accusations with nothing behind them?
And maybe if Romanelli spent more time circulating petitions instead of relying on Craig's paid out-of-ward flunkies, he'd still be on the ballot.
Instead they now want to blame everybody else for their mistakes. Phonies.
Flag as inappropriate
32 deserves better and we almost got it at 5:13 PM on 12/14/2007
"it's not like they did him any favors."
Seriously? You think this guy has not
benefited from being on the inside of
zoning/development deals? You think it
is coincidence he sat back during the
Rostenkowski-Gabinski-Matlak operation
and stayed mum but sweeps in to "reform"
the Ward? He didn't say squat during the
first real election in 32 in 50 years. Nothin.
His record locally is getting zoning deals
for himself and others. His record locally
is doing what party bosses told him. His
record locally is waiting til he got the nod
from City Hall. How did he come by such
perfect timing?
The party is full of guys like Fritchey.
I signed a petition for Roger and it was
thrown out. I was disenfranchised.
It didn't matter to me who the gentleman was
circulating the petition.
Flag as inappropriate
but you didn't at 5:34 PM on 12/14/2007
Fine, Craig, you feel "disenfranchised" (interesting choice of words, btw.) What about the 400 voters who signed that don't even live in the ward? Next time you pay a guy to circulate, give him a better map.
Flag as inappropriate
Patrick Botterman at 5:47 PM on 12/14/2007
From the Chicago Journal - Game Over
Romanelli thrown off committeeman race ballot
Board of Elections rejects nominating petition signatures
By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Editor
Web Extra!
Thirty-second Ward Democratic committeeman candidate Roger Romanelli was rejected this week by a Board of Elections hearing examiner for failure to collect the requisite 247 signatures to get his name on the ballot for the Feb. 5 election.
State Rep. John Fritchey (D-11) is the only other candidate running for the position.
Elections hearing examiner Lynne Ostfeld concluded Thursday that only 227 of the 719 signatures Romanelli submitted were valid. Romanelli lawyer Nick Kefalos said Ostfeld also rejected 45 of 49 sworn affidavits submitted to prove the validity of the signatures.
The hearing examiner's decision is expected to be reviewed by the Board of Elections next week, but Kefalos said Romanelli is considering taking the case to Cook County Circuit Court or federal court.
"We decided not to go to the board of elections [to appeal]," Kefalos said. "We felt that might be a waste of our time and resources. They pretty much rubber-stamp what the hearing examiner does."
Kefalos said the board is required to accept the affidavits "unless there is shown clear and convincing evidence that the affidavits are fraudulent."
"The judge clearly did not follow the law," Kefalos said. "What she did is decide by fiat to declare whose signatures were genuine or not."
Romanelli released a statement on Friday saying he believes he was rejected because of an effort by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan to prevent him from running in the election. Michael Kasper, an attorney for Madigan, has represented Fritchey in his objection to Romanelli's nominating petition.
"Dismissing these affidavits with incomprehensible logic, Ms. Ostfeld is violating my right to due process and disenfranchising 32nd Ward voters," Romanelli said in a prepared statement. "I call on [U.S. Attorney Patrick] Fitzgerald and [City of Chicago Inspector General David] Hoffman to investigate her actions and whether she is a political operative of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan."
Flag as inappropriate
my name is not Craig at 5:53 PM on 12/14/2007
I am one of 45 people whose signatures were
not acceptable to Ms. Ostfeld. I signed
a second petition to authenticate my
name. What I want to know is who is Ms.
Ostfeld and why did she reject this particular
number of names? I was disenfranchised.
Are not election officials in Cook County
choosen by Committeemen? It seems to be a
very nice set-up for party insiders.
Flag as inappropriate
Dave Madlener at 9:14 PM on 12/14/2007
I notarized most of those affidavits. Elections hearing examiner Lynne Ostfeld was way out of line with her decission.
Personally, I have had people kicked off the ballot by challenging their petitions. Some were kicked off but Illinois Election Law, (to para-phrase) gives the benifit of the doubt to the candidate.
Politics was never designed to be fair, but Elections Hearing Examiners are sworn to be fair
Take it from me, as long as a candidate has one signature over the limit they should remain on the ballot, but so many bad ones also sends a message.
I have circulated many many petitions, It isn't easy getting people to sign exactly like they did when they registered to vote. Mike Kasper is one of the best in the business so Romanelli has it tough enough let alone dealing with that elections hearing examiner.
Flag as inappropriate
A different thought at 10:38 AM on 12/15/2007
No, the hearing officers are not chosen by Committeeman, they are independent of politics and for a reason.
The limit to get on the ballot is pretty low. These guys did a terrible job and tried to subvert the rules and the law.
Dave, while her reasoning seems based on legal technicalities, the Romanelli people on this board love to focus on the 44 affidavits that got rejected, but ignore the over FOUR HUNDRED other signatures that got tossed because the signers either didn't live in the ward or weren't registered to vote. Allowing those signatures to be used would have been the real travesty here.
If an incumbent turned in those types of petition signatures, they'd be accused of abusing election laws. Now a challenger does it, and gets caught, he cries foul. I'm not buying it.
If legitimate voters got removed because the lawyer improperly drafted the affidavits, that's the lawyer's fault, not Fritchey's, not the hearing officers, not anybody else's.
Had Romanelli actually spent time going door to door to get signatures, this would have never been an issue. If he wants to find somebody to blame, he should look in the mirror.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:41 AM on 12/15/2007
"What's wrong with Fritchey doing zoning work in the 32nd ward and the city?"
What's wrong is, when Fritchey charges his zoning lobbyist customers to guide them through the zoning game, he is also responsible for the rules of that game. he is a sitting state legislator. Our City's zoning process is regulated be state law. Our City's zoning laws are very minimal in terms of compliance with state law. Fritchey is profiting from running a game he sets the rules for.
It would be a serious conflict of interest even if his wife was not who she is and his uncle is not who he is.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:45 AM on 12/15/2007
"[Fritchey] has a right to practice law ... "
OK, but is it prudent? There's lots of branches of law, WHY ZONING? Zoning in Chicago is a dirty rotten filthy business, no springboard for an ambitious young man.
If it's OK for Fritchey to earn a living as a zoning lobbyist while sitting in the state house then it's OK for his opponents to talk about it.
Flag as inappropriate
Poof at 10:46 AM on 12/15/2007
Don't mess with mike madigan Roger. He is way out of your league, way out of your price range, way out of your political savvy. Leave it to John fritchey and go home with those affidavits. Challenge Mr. Madigan and his pals and poof, you are off the ballot. THe democratic party of illinois doesn't open its doors to outsiders.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:47 AM on 12/15/2007
" ... so what if his relatives operate the zoning committee, its not like they did him any favors."
You'd think a young man with an eye on higher office might want to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
Flag as inappropriate
Lonny at 10:51 AM on 12/15/2007
Hugh, are you referring to Romaneli or fritchey?
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:51 AM on 12/15/2007
What's wrong with it?
Let's illustrate this way.
Recall that one of if not THE single most important issue in the ouster of Matlak was constituent discontent regarding community process in development decisions.
Suppose a group of residnets dropped by Fritchey's office, "John, we are fed up with the lack of communication on development issues, and we are in dispair of the City ever reforming itself. Will you help us through the state zoning codes? We want notice. We want community meetings. We want disclosures."
How far do you suppose they would get?
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:54 AM on 12/15/2007
"Why don't you try talking about his [Fritchey's] record ... "
Ok. Let's.
Fritchey's record on reforming zoning processes, the number one issue in the 32nd, is zero, zilch, nada.
Fritchey's record is one of taking cash from his zoning lobbyist customers and spreading it around the City Council and the Zoning Committee in particular.
You can look it up.
Flag as inappropriate
sten at 11:10 AM on 12/15/2007
No one can reform zoning if these people run it like a family business. Illinois is one of the most unethical states in the union when it comes to these issues and zoning is another piece of the very clear puzzle we ignore, because we don't want to upset the apple cart.
Flag as inappropriate
Roger Romanelli at 12:25 PM on 12/15/2007
Dear 32nd Ward Voters,
We have reached a crisis point in our Ward, and I call on you to help restore our basic democracy.
In a new low in our Ward history, John Fritchey, his henchmen from the Chicago Machine and a politically-appointed Board of Elections officer are rejecting the validity of 45 PERSONALLY-SWORN AFFIDAVITS from 32nd Ward voters who signed my petition and want me on the ballot.
This derailing of our democracy is outrageous. John Fritchey and henchmen from Mike Madigan's office are dismantling democracy in our Ward, and I will not stand for it.
Join me for a 20-minute press conference tomorrow Sunday, December 16 at 3 p.m. at The Ashland Restaurant at 2824 N. Ashland Avenue. We will call on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the rejected sworn-affidavits and unacceptable political chicanery at the Board of Elections to make John Fritchey the sole candidate in this race.
All of the evidence will be on display.
I hope to see you tomorrow.
Regards, Roger Romanelli
Flag as inappropriate
Brian Daley at 12:25 PM on 12/15/2007
Ben,
For you and whoever else might be reading this comments section to your article, I am happy to correct the misstatements made about my participation in the Waguespack aldermanic campaign.
My support of Scott Waguespack (and, for that matter, John Frtichey) is a result of my long-standing involvement in the affairs of my neighborhood, including six years on the board of Roscoe Village Neighbors (www.RoscoeVillage.org).
Roscoe Village, it should be noted, spills over into three wards: the 1st, 32nd, and 47th. Approximately 90% of the Village is located in the 32nd Ward. Consequently, what affects that ward affects ALL of Roscoe Village. That I live one block beyond the boundary of the 32nd Ward, in the narrow slice of the Village included in the 47th Ward, hardly constitutes my being a carpetbagger as "ward 32" would have one believe.
Throughout my tenure on the RVN board, I enjoyed successful working relationships with all the elected officials who represented Roscoe Village – including Mayor Daley, then-State Sen. Lisa Madigan, State Sen. John Cullerton, State Rep. John Fritchey, and the five aldermen who respectively held the three aldermanic seats.
However, my working relationship with Ted Matlak rapidly deteriorated once he began his corrupt practice of selling zoning changes in exchange for campaign contributions. He earned not only my enmity and disdain, but that of virtually every other resident and business owner in the Village.
So, when Scott Waguespack announced his intention to run against Ted, I, along with droves of my fellow Villagers, cheerfully signed on to assist.
Also contrary to what "ward 32" stated above, I did not make the much-acclaimed YouTube video "Won’t Be Matlak-ed Again!" although I wish I had.
Nor did I ever state or imply that the video was made by a resident of the 32nd Ward. For, as Blair Kamin reported in the May 20th edition of the Chicago Tribune, "The anti-Matlak ad was produced by two ad agency professionals, but was not controlled by the campaign hierarchy of winning candidate Scott Waguespack, who will be sworn in Monday, according to Brian Daley, a campaign volunteer. Daley, no relation to Chicago's mayor, declined to identify the producers, but said that one lives just outside the 32nd Ward and doesn't like the ‘incompatible’ new buildings there."
Moreover, "ward 32" wrongly casts aspersions on Scott Waguespack. Indeed, he never met the video’s producers until I introduced the three of them to one another at a volunteer thank you party held the evening of May 21st, the day he was sworn in as 32nd Ward alderman.
As regards the dyspeptic rant of "…with liberty and justice for all…" it is more amusing than coherent. But the writer may rest assured that, (a) I had no part in the many deficiencies that caused Roger Romanelli to be disqualified from the ballot—Roger managed that on his own; and, (b) no one is more delighted than I that the 32nd Ward, once burdened with the suffocating incompetence and corruption of Ted Matlak, will now be vigorously represented by Alderman Scott Waguespack and Democratic Ward Committeeman John Fritchey.
These two smart, honest, hard-working and independent individuals—each his own man--bring complementary skills to their respective roles.
Like everyone who supported their candidacies, I look forward to watching them continue their close working relationship that laid waste to the morally-bankrupt remnants of the Rostenkowski regime and unleashed a bright new future of open, honest and transparent governance in the 32nd Ward.
Sincerely,
Brian Daley
Chicago, Illinois
Flag as inappropriate
Hey Roger at 2:08 PM on 12/15/2007
You sound like Peraica when he stormed the Board. If you want to appeal the decision based on legal grounds, you should.
Your desperate allegations that everybody was conspiring against your long-shot candidacy for a relatively meaningless office smacks of black helicopter stuff.
And an earlier poster raises a good point, what are your comments about the 400+ signatures which were found to be invalid, and that you're not contesting?
Flag as inappropriate
Let me add to the last posting at 2:26 PM on 12/15/2007
With absolutely no factual basis other than not liking the outcome of a 15 page detailed ruling in his case, he's calling for a federal investigation? That's not just desperate, it looks silly and amateurish.
Maybe, just maybe, if there was no basis given for her decision, you could start to speculate, but the ruling is laid out in extraordinary detail.
What if you appealed and the judge upheld it? Is he or she involved too? The appellate court? Supreme Court?
And try as you might Roger, trying to paint Fritchey as a 'machine' guy just doesn't hold up to the facts. Go to his website page and look at his endorsements and awards,http://fritchey.com/awards.html.
Are all the papers and good government groups in on the conspiracy too?
And one more thing, while everybody on this board is making statements about who did what on Waguespack's campaign, there is a letter from Waguespack's OWN campaign manager, Patrick Botterman, stating that Romanelli was an occasional volunteer and that Fritchey was an essential to Scott's campaign and victory. I'd sincerely like to hear Roger or his supporters respond to Botterman's statement.
Flag as inappropriate
...and justice for all at 6:04 PM on 12/15/2007
Brian Daley can blah, blah blah all he wants about how "essential" Fritchey was to getting Waguespack elected. Prove it. Botterman too.
No one heard a peep from Fritchey til after
Matlak left. I can't find any contributions properly recorded. For people who want to
hammer Romanelli for not folloiwng the rules
you sure seem vague about claims Fritchey is the great Reformer. He was silent and never said a word about reform in 32 when Matlak
was in because that's what the machine wanted. Fritchey is the one who is paranoid.
He can't even let one person run against him
just like Gabinski never had any opposition either. Roger Romanelli deserves to be on the ballot no question.
The behavior of John Fritchey to eliminate any oppositon and avoid a fair campaign is
a stain on his already questionable image.
We'll see how foolish it is to shine a spotlight
on political muscle in Cook County elections. You should have just let Romanelli have his
shot.
Flag as inappropriate
Dave Madlener at 6:09 PM on 12/15/2007
Sounds like Peraica when he stormed the Board ?
Let me clear something up about that for everybody.
There was only one, non-employee, member of the public in that back room after 11pm for quite a while. That person was myself. I quietly observed and took notes as the uncounted precincts were counted. I took note of the Township and precincts. As townships were completed Tony was called at the hotel and we were able to forecast the percentage of victory or loss in that township. The vast majority of those Townships wound up heavily in the Peraica victory column. The gap was closing quickly
At one point, an employee spotted me………as soon as that employee spotted me, they turned 180 degrees and left the room. 20 minutes later The Stroger campaign stormed the back room, yelling and cussing. Not a single person had credentials. They screamed obscenities at both David Orr and Clem Ballenoff. They, 20 or more including prominent reverends for the African American Community, disrupted the entire counting process and demanded that the counting stopped. Trust me, the language used by the Stroger people would never be heard in any church.
It was only after the Todd Stroger campaign stormed the back room was Tony Peraica called. Seeing that Stroger disrupted and stopped the ballot counting process, Peraica was not about to let that continue unchallenged.
I have a great deal of faith in David Orr’s office and I feel that the employees there do a great job. The Cook County Clerk and the Cook County Board of Elections is very different than the Chicago Board of elections. Two separate election jurisdictions with-in 1 County. I have heard many many horror stories about the Chicago Board of Elections. (My personal experiences, on the other hand, with both jurisdictions have been positive.)
Flag as inappropriate
to Justice at 6:23 PM on 12/15/2007
Botterman was Waguespack's campaign manager and you think he's making it up too? Come on.
From Botterman's statement:
"I was the campaign manager for Scott Waguespack in his successful campaign to become 32nd Ward Alderman. In that role, I oversaw every aspect of the campaign in both the first round and the run-off election. It is for that reason that I am writing this letter.
Roger Romanelli, who is running for 32nd Ward Democratic Committeeman against State Representative John Fritchey, has made repeated public comments regarding the involvement, or lack thereof, of both candidates during the Aldermanic elections. Romanelli’s comments are factually inaccurate and should be retracted by him.
Not only has Mr. Romanelli claimed leadership in the Waguespack campaign; he has compounded this misstatement by stating that Rep. Fritchey ‘stood on the sideline’ during the race. Neither statement is even close to true.
Roger was a passionate, but occasional, volunteer whose efforts were appreciated just as we appreciated the efforts of the countless other volunteers who helped us win a historic election. But as important as door-to-door work is in a campaign, his efforts were far from integral or extensive.
By contrast, Rep. Fritchey was an invaluable resource without whom our narrow victory would likely not have occurred. If Roger had had any real involvement in the campaign, he would have known this fact.
Rep. Fritchey’s passion and commitment to the 32nd Ward were self-evident, and he never once wavered from those principles."
Does this help clear it up now?
Flag as inappropriate
32 deserves better at 6:32 PM on 12/15/2007
Does anyone know who Lynne Ostfeld is
or where she came from?
Flag as inappropriate
....justice for all at 6:44 PM on 12/15/2007
No. Vague pronouncements of Botterman,
a hired hand who probably wants to work for Fritchey if he runs for state office, are lame.
Those of us who worked on the campaign
from the very beginning and also
"friends" of Ald. Waguespack ( sorry
Brian you are not his BFF) know different.
But this is very easy to settle. Please
send us ONE reported campaign contribution
or a copy of one mailer that Fritchey's
name appeared on, or one day he went
door to door with the candidate, or send
us the reports done by any blog or
news source where John "The Reformer" Fritchey endorsed Waguespack...you can't
because he did NOTHING. He came out when
it was safe. Like ten years too late. Give it up.
Fritchey needs to quit riding on Scott's reputation.
Flag as inappropriate
LOL at 6:53 PM on 12/15/2007
The campaign manager is now a hired hand?
Fritchey riding on Waguepack's reputation?
I have now heard it all.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 7:01 PM on 12/15/2007
In Chicago, there's no right or left, there's just the machine and the faux reformers.
Flag as inappropriate
He Who Laughs Last at 7:38 PM on 12/15/2007
Keep on Laughing -request remains -one campaign contribution, one fundraiser,
one mailer to show Fritchey did anything
to bring reform to 32 in the aldermanic
race. Then go back 4, 5, 8 or 10 years
and show us Fritchey's reformer crendentials
to change the Ward. Never saw an esteemed "veteran" refer to a Freshman alderman so
much. Never saw campaign manager stay
so personally involved to knock a
former volunteer off the ballot. They sure
liked Roger when he was among a small
group of supporters. Hey Fritchey, you
still paying Botterman?
Flag as inappropriate
Sten at 12:17 AM on 12/16/2007
Look at the last sentence...wageuspack still endorsing fritchey. Romanelli should just forget about it. Hugh says it best, bigger problem in 32 ward was "constituent discontent regarding community process in development decisions" meaning the new guy did his job and someone else did not. This doesnt sound like freshman follies.
This sounds like Fritche follies.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 1:54 PM on 12/16/2007
Fritchey and Matlak are in the same line of work: legislative consultants to real estate developers, with cover jobs as representatives of the people. Voters took Matlak's cover job away.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 2:25 PM on 12/16/2007
It won't be sudden or dramatic, what Ben is reporting is we are watching as Waguespack makes enough little compromises until eventually he becomes what he ran against.
Flag as inappropriate
All Hugh does at 5:14 PM on 12/16/2007
is complain on every thread about every elected official at every level of gov't. I agree that a lot of them should be gone, but if you have all the answers, then do some public service yourself, leave your keyboard and run for office.
Flag as inappropriate
...and justice for all at 5:33 PM on 12/16/2007
It will take a long time and miles of compromises for the new alderman of
Ward 32 to remotely become like the slime
he defeated. A green politician got roped
into an endorsement that Fritchey should not have needed at all. Pathetic that John "The Reformer" Fritchey had to trounce any
oppostiion and tried to pressure Waguespack
so early. Our eyes should be on the job
each of the does. So far Wags is lookin good.
As for Fritchey -well, leopards don't change
their spots. Let's see what he does-the deals,
the alliances, the issues he dares to get
involved in. He is a professional - he knows
how to wait til things are made safe to
take a stand. All I can say is he better treat
Waguespack well-the alderman was put in a
lousy situation because of this control freak.
And Fritchey for AG? A joke.
Flag as inappropriate
...shall set you free at 6:27 PM on 12/16/2007
justice - you whine with the best of them.
Ask your friend the Alderman when he agreed to endorse Rep. Fritchey and why.
Another big talker from behind his keyboard.
Flag as inappropriate
Matlaks the reason at 10:23 PM on 12/16/2007
Why did waguespack endorse fritchey? maybe because Fritchey was running against matlak for committeeman.
Flag as inappropriate
...justice for all at 10:54 PM on 12/16/2007
Still waiting to see proof of a donation or a fund-raiser with his name on it or even
one mailer that shows John "The Reformer"
Fritchey did anything IN THE LAST TEN YEARS to bring change to 32....let alone stick his
neck out to get Waguspack elected.
We all know Fritchey saw his big chance
right after Waguespack was elected.
And we all know everyone at the time
thought Matlak was running.
John "The Reformer" Fritchey did nary a public thing to oust Matlak or anything prior
to oppose the Gabinski-Matlak regime. But
Fritchey probably knew Matlak wasn't running. So, it was a beautiful thing wasn't it?
Fritchey backed down once before from running after a meeting at City Hall. So we
know he got the Mayors blessing this time.
The big talkers are those trying to create
a track record of Ward leadership around a spineless, ambitious hustler who is first and
foremost out for himself 100%. We won't
hear a peep from Fritchey when he lines
up to support machine hacks . It'll be good
to watch "The Reformer" lead change
between zoning deals.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:24 AM on 12/17/2007
Fritchey sat out the Waguespack campaign out of professional courtesy to Matlak. Fritchey and Matlak are professional colleagues in the pay-to-play sector of the real estate development industry in Chicago.
meet the new ward boss,
same as the old ward boss
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:03 AM on 12/17/2007
"So far Wags is lookin good."
Yeah, Waguespack scrambling up to the podium at the final gavel of the passage of Daley's property tax increase, making sure last second his name was on the "aye" list, that was a proud moment.
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 11:17 AM on 12/17/2007
In reality Wagspack is doing a fine job.
His vote on property tax would not have
turned the tide. He is making a difference
where he can and taking heat for it. Do not
underestimate this young man. He is a breath
of fresh air and has Ward Bosses plenty worried. Keep at it alderman.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:28 AM on 12/17/2007
"His vote on property tax would not have turned the tide."
so are you ADMITTING he voted aye after seeing that passage of Daley's property tax bill was inevitable?
that he did NOT vote his conscience?
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:42 AM on 12/17/2007
"He is making a difference where he can ... "
Waguespack is picking his battles and Daley's property tax increase wasn't one of them?
Flag as inappropriate
47th Warder at 11:57 AM on 12/17/2007
Don't forget that Wags also voted for Schulter's outrageous eminent domain land grab when it was up in committee. And that was before Schulter watered it down.
A few months in office and he's ready to take away people's property rights. If that's fresh air, it sure does stink.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 12:35 PM on 12/17/2007
Waguespack: 100% Rubber Stamp Rating on TIF Expansion
6/13/07: LITTLE VILLAGE TIF
Waguespack - AYE!
CJP 2532
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/061307meeting/02Finance/pgs2490-2539.pdf#page=43
7/19/07: ELSTON/ARMSTRONG TIF
Waguespack - AYE!
CJP 4077
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/071907meeting/02Finance/pgs4052-4101.pdf#page=26
9/5/07 PERSHING/KING TIF
Waguespack - AYE!
CJP 6320
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/090507meeting/02Finance/pgs6294-6343.pdf#page=27
9/27/07: AUSTIN/ COMMERCIAL TIF
Waguespack - AYE!
CJP 8863
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/092707meeting/02Finance/pgs8858-8907.pdf#page=6
11/7/07: Hollywood/Sheridan TIF
Waguespack - AYE!
CJP 13771
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/110707meeting/02Finance/pgs13722-13771.pdf#page=4
TIF reform proposals introduced by Waguespack during the same period: 0
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 1:02 PM on 12/17/2007
This presupposes any TIF is a bad one.
Where do you live Hugh? Austin and Little
Village and Sheridan and Pershing have
need of help. Or do you just want the same
old feeders getting fed?
Look at the projects under this alderman's
control and reflect back on what was getting
rubber stamped a year ago. That is a realistic
measurement. He's doing pretty well.
Flag as inappropriate
Mike Noonan at 1:14 PM on 12/17/2007
How can John Fritchey use Mike Kasper?
Mike Kasper is unethical. He is the lawyer for the criminal Hispanic Democratic Organization.
He is the hatchet man for Madigan doing frivolous challenges. He is in business with Victor Reyes co-schemer A in criminal indictments. Mike Kasper was the lobbyist for the Venezuelan company that brought us the fraudulent voting machines.
Kasper is a criminal who should be thrown out.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 1:33 PM on 12/17/2007
"He's [Waguespack's] doing pretty well."
What do you mean?
His term is 1/8 over.
What would you cite as the highlights of the 1st 180 days of the Waguespack administration?
In your reply, please cite specific legislative initiatives of Waguespack, if possible.
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 2:15 PM on 12/17/2007
Hugh you are amusing. While it is true that a
whole 180 days have gone by, it
might be just as entertaining to do the
numbers on how that drop of water splashes
into the 75 years of pay- to- play that
preceeded it. It is not clear if you live in our
Ward. If you did you would probably know of
one or two faulty developments this new guy
has stopped cold. In our area he has killed a
few thank heavens. He did not get a single
file from his predecessor and had to set-up
an office from scratch with new employees.
I think you can stop hyperventilating and give
this alderman a fair shake. He is a tremendous improvement. In 4 years he will have to stand on his record. Let him get going. Ease up and be glad we finally elected
an honest man.
Flag as inappropriate
Not so fast 32nd at 4:30 PM on 12/17/2007
You're the one that said he's doing well. So quit changing the subject. Matlak's gone, it's no longer about him. It's about the job that this Alderman is doing.
So how do you defend the eminent domain vote?
And the fact that he ran as a property tax reformer, but each of those TIFs, while not in the 32nd Ward, will raise the property taxes of the people who do live in the 32nd Ward.
And what about Hugh's question about specific, any?, legislative initiatives of Waguespack's?
And you bring up pay to play politics, did I miss him speaking out about Daley's son's latest inside deal?
Don't change the subject, answer the questions. They're fair and direct.
Flag as inappropriate
new 32nd ward at 5:03 PM on 12/17/2007
We went to a meeting Waguespack had on the Mayors budget before the tax vote. It was the first time anyone had ever had a public meeting on the city budget in teh 32nd ward and we were allowed to comment and talk about property taxes. People asked him to vote against the Mayors property tax increase and as far as we know he did.
as far as TIFs, why don't you draft legislation to ban all TIFs and ask someone to carry the banner. hugh sounds like a whiner without solutions to anything.
Flag as inappropriate
Please answer the questions at 5:28 PM on 12/17/2007
If you admit TIFs are flawed, then why did Waguespack vote for ALL of them?
And why hasn't Waguespack filed an amendment to open up the accounting?
Or an ordinance to tighten up the standards?
What happened to being a leader? 180 days and now his new position is that he's waiting for somebody else to lead?
And what about my earlier questions?...
And what about Hugh's question about specific, any?, legislative initiatives of Waguespack's?
And you bring up pay to play politics, did I miss him speaking out about Daley's son's latest inside deal?
I'm not being difficult, I'm sincerely interested in the answers to these questions.
And you're calling Hugh a whiner? What, whining only okay when you're doing it?
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 6:05 PM on 12/17/2007
If anyone has a problem with TIF's by all
means make that known to your alderman.
Hugh, still don't know if you live in 32. If
you do then express your feelings directly.
Oh, and be sure to provide some solutions.
You are opposed to TIF's but I am not.
Unless the alderman proposed a TIF in
your neighborhood, then you can't blame him
for not changing the entire TIF system in a
whopping eight months he's been in office.
Unless the alderman proposed a land taking
in your neighborhood then you can't blame
him for not abolishing the cherished right
every alderman keeps to decide what goes
on in their Ward. Again, don't know where you live. Waguespack stopped wholesale
demolitiion on Milwaukee Avenue in a pretty
big showdown. My friends in other areas
tell me he has stood up to inappropriate
development in their areas. In a whole
8 months he did not turn City Council
upside down. Tell me, which other new alderman has? Waguespack will bring his
skills to bear when he gets in a position to
work with allies to pass law. You ever had
a new job? How much did you get done to
revamp the office in under 12 months?
Unless you were a CEO or posessed unilateral
authority, you couldn't. Council is made of
lots of CEOs. But at least this alderman
is not doing the bidding of carpetbaggers like Matlak did. He is reaching out.
Yes, Hugh seems very much like an unrealistic whiner. You are not doing
Ward 32 (if this is your Ward) any good.
Got anything helpful to say? Tell your
alderman (if Waguespack is your alderman)
Flag as inappropriate
Not a Survivor at 6:52 PM on 12/17/2007
Actually, I'm curious as to who is Hugh's favorite alderman (in the last, say, 65 years) and a list of his/her accomplishments in the first 180 days. It's terribly naive to think that a politician doesn't need to form relationships and the like with his/her cohorts to get their agenda pushed through. It's as though reality television has everyone thinking that alliances are built in a few hours. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.
So, who is everyone's favorite 180 day alderman and what is the list of accomplishments?
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 8:29 PM on 12/17/2007
"Waguespack will bring his skills to bear when he gets in a position to work with allies to pass law."
that's been Moore's song for going on 20 years now
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 8:33 PM on 12/17/2007
"In a whole 8 months he did not turn City Council upside down. Tell me, which other new alderman has?"
benchmarking against peers in the Chicago City Council is a pretty low standard of expectation
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 8:42 PM on 12/17/2007
"Let him get going."
Waguespack was one of the few freshmen with actual municipal govt expereince. I guess it would be too much to ask he hit the ground running, you know, with an actual agenda or something.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 8:48 PM on 12/17/2007
so you get elected as a reformer, but then, no need to actually reform anything, just put your feet up, wait for the reform coaltion to coalesce around you, meanwhile deliver go-along-to-get-along votes, call it relationship building
nice work if you can ge it
Flag as inappropriate
Nice work at 9:04 PM on 12/17/2007
hugh sounds like an anarchist at his best, no TIFs, no development, no nothin.
Frithcy is not all bad, apparently the mamas in 32 say he and the new alderman are working on funding schools. Gotta put their money to work somewhere. Of course if Hugh doesn't pay taxes, who cares?
Flag as inappropriate
Why won't you answer the questions 32nd? at 9:05 PM on 12/17/2007
First of all, Hugh might not live here, but I DO live in 32.
And since you obviously don't get it, every TIF Waguespack votes for raises OUR property taxes in 32.
He said he would fight for taxpayers, now he's hiking our taxes. That's not a learning curve, that's a bait and switch.
The eminent domain issue - the guy ran as a REFORMER, now you say not to blame him for going along with the system of Alderman getting their way over the rights of property owners? What a hypocrite.
With respect to other Alderman, how about Ald. Reilly who went toe to toe with the Mayor on the Children's Museum, and who has negotiated the Childrens Memorial relocation?
For what it's worth, your 'defense' of Waguespack is making him him worse than he looked before.
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 9:41 PM on 12/17/2007
You are entitled to your opinion ofcourse.
I am very satisfied with our alderman as
is most everyone who has knowledge of
what we had before and the changes he
is making now. If you have ideas share
them with your alderman. If you want to
return to what we had that's an option.
Another way to go would be to give Waguespack a chance. Your choice.
But spare us your razor sharp insights because you sound just awnry. Ald. Reilly,
a seemigly good man, did not go after
the Mayor's son, or try to overturn TIFS,
try to tell Schulter how to run his ward. DITTO on other freshman on your pie-in-the sky agenda for the first half year in office.
Developers know its a new game in 32.
Waguespack is doing a good job and many
people agree with me.
Flag as inappropriate
One more try at 9:49 PM on 12/17/2007
No need to go around in circles.
You obviously can't/won't answer the very direct questions. People can draw whatever conclusions they want.
Are you sure you don't want to try these two though? They really are straightforward and should be able to be answered very directly without looking to what other Alderman did or didn't do....
How do you campaign on fighting escalating property taxes and then vote for every TIF that has come before you?
Why shouldn't he be held accountable for voting to forcibly acquire the property of viable business owners?
No finger pointing, no 'but look at how bad Ted was', just answer the question as if he is responsible for his own actions.
Flag as inappropriate
The honeymoon is over at 10:28 PM on 12/17/2007
If all that Waguespack's people have to say is that he's better than Matlak was, that's not going to cut it for long.
The previous questions seem reasonable enough. Sounds like the 32nd went from an Alderman that was a hack to one that can't hack it:)
Flag as inappropriate
32ND AND PROUD OF IT at 10:40 PM on 12/17/2007
You assume everyone thinks as you do.
Not everyone opposes TIF's. Not everyone
thinks Schulter's attempt to stop big boxes
was wrong. Most people see a difference
in approach and intent with what has gone
on for half a century. If you do not think
things have moved in the right direction you
can team up with carpetbaggers (developers
and zoning attorneys) I am sure they'd love
to get rid of this new alderman. But they
can't get rid of him for four years and that
is enough time to clean out the rats . Waguespack is doing a great job by any
unrealistic standard you wish to impose.
Sorry. Many people agree with what he is
doing and how he is going about it. And the
majority are willing to give him time.
Obviously you are not. C'est la guerre.
Flag as inappropriate
Now I get it... at 11:07 PM on 12/17/2007
You support TIFs and the higher property taxes that they cause;
You support the taking of viable commercial property to replace it with different commercial property;
Expecting Waguespack to follow through on his campaign promises is an 'unrealistic standard';
Your best argument in support of Waguespack is that he can't be voted out for 4 years;
And you consider this to be reform.
Ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est un blague.
Flag as inappropriate
Remember Property Rights? at 11:18 PM on 12/17/2007
"Not everyone thinks Schulter's attempt to stop big boxes was wrong."
WHAT?!?
It's an attempt to force out existing businesses for a retail/residential development, and the PROPERTY OWNERS oppose it. That's the whole point dimwit. He wanted to use eminent domain powers, supposedly for blighted areas, to force them to sell their property.
AND, surprise surprise, it's in a TIF.
Too bad Waguespack wasn't already in office, he could have voted for the TIF and the eminent domain. But he's still 1 for 2.
Maybe this one doesn't affect you personally, but the next one could. Or is that concept beyond you?
Stop while you're behind.
Flag as inappropriate
...and justice for all at 10:26 AM on 12/18/2007
I agree with 32. Allienating allies and then proposing reform is the work of a fool.
Pretend "reformers" continue to do machine business and profess change. This
new alderman is quietly turning the ship around. I am with him. Let four years
go by and then vote. You can be sure of one
choice in 2001- a machine wolf in a lambsuit.
Thanks for the forum Ben.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:38 AM on 12/18/2007
" ... an unrealistic whiner."
Let's keep it real.
Waguespack's entire record in City Council is available online:
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/
You have 8 meetings and hundreds of votes to choose from. Surely you can quickly tease out a couple few votes in support of your contention that Waguespack is a "tremendous improvement."
Then why don't you peruse the "New Business presented by Aldermen" sections, and educate us about a couple few of Waguespack's most notable legislative initiatives?
Thanks.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh, the sound you hear at 11:02 AM on 12/18/2007
is the Waguespack supporter(s) throwing in the towel on this debate.
Flag as inappropriate
and here I thought... at 2:23 PM on 12/18/2007
... it was the sound of a bell tolling. Ding dong, Alderman.
Flag as inappropriate
he voted no on property taxes. at 9:31 PM on 12/18/2007
After searching around on the City Clerks site, it appears he voted no on property tax increases. http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/rollcall/index.html#14999
Flag as inappropriate
but yes on all the other taxes at 10:42 PM on 12/18/2007
He just took it out of one of our pockets instead of the other.
Flag as inappropriate
Bill at 9:38 AM on 12/19/2007
You north side nreds really crack me up!
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:48 AM on 12/19/2007
"Go to his website page and look at his [Fritchey's] endorsements and awards ... "
I guess if you get enough awards you don't have to stand before the voters.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 11:00 AM on 12/19/2007
"It's terribly naive to think that a politician doesn't need to form relationships and the like with his/her cohorts to get their agenda pushed through."
What agenda? Looking at his record Waguespack has no discernible agenda. When will we start seeing it? Year 2? Year 3?
Waguespack's vote on the eminent domain action was one of those "relationship building" votes?
Wrong answer. Didn't you mean to say, "Waguespack had a community meeting, something Matlak would have NEVER done, and a clear majority of the residents are in favor of using the City's power of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another."
Sometimes Waguespack votes to represent his constituents, and sometimes he votes to "build relationships?"
How does Waguespack decied when to represent his constituents, and when to "build relationships?"
Looking at this voting record, he must have some REALLY ROCK-SOLID relationships built by now. When will he be making his move?
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 12:03 PM on 12/19/2007
" ... 75 years of pay-to-play ... "
before you declare the end of the pay-to-play era you need to liberate your state rep seat
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 12:31 PM on 12/19/2007
"he voted no on property taxes"
ok, that's one
how about a 2nd highlight from the 1st 7 months of Waguespack's voting record?
Flag as inappropriate
Stanley at 7:32 PM on 12/23/2007
Hugh, that's a might big one you made a deliberate mistake on. Why don't you get your facts straight before you go off on any more of your anarchist rants. Better yet, pull up your shorts and go sign up to run for office, or at least vote.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 4:49 PM on 12/24/2007
so what's your 2nd favorite vote or legislative intiative from Waguespack's 1st 8 months?
Flag as inappropriate
Stanley at 11:47 AM on 12/25/2007
Legislative initiative would be the development program he set up to stop rampant development in the 32nd ward. Those guidelines are policy for all community groups and stopped the destruction of the North ave tower, the building of the monster garage for Orloff Motors, stopped other ridiculous developments and has actually helped the 32nd ward more than ever before. Our community group loves it because it gives us a cance to be part of the process that didn't exist before.
That is called legislative initiative. Too bad Hugh can't understand it.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 12:20 PM on 12/26/2007
it is NOT a legislative initiative
Waguespack is a LEGISLATOR, he is not ward development czar
a legislative initiative would be an ordinance introduced into City Council, like maybe going City-wide with new ideas for community-oriented development planning
I sure hope Waguespack is doing all sorts of wonderful stuff in the ward because he is doing NOTHING notable in City Council, he is a back-bench machine tool rubber stamp
Flag as inappropriate
Who is your alderman? at 6:36 PM on 12/26/2007
You don't even live here in 32 and you are the tiny percent who doesn't get the point. Anyone who wants to develop has to follow the law of the LEGISLATOR and if you want approval, you have to get it from your Alderman, who has a development program you have to follow.
Hugh, instead of hiding behind message boards, why don’t you go up to City Council meetings and voice your opinion?
Do you really know Chicago politics and believe good can overcome evil (corruption) so quickly (8 months)?
By the way, many other 32nd residents know the real back-bench machine tool rubber stamp was Matlak. Compare his votes and initiatives to Waguespack’s? 8 years to 8 months. And since you are so technical why don’t you distinguish between those as LEGISLATIVE initiative, initiatives and votes? Then provide a list of every other alderman and their accomplishments over the past 8 months which has done something worthwhile for the City. And please be careful to check your facts, YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG already.
Like someone already said, Waguespack has had plenty of issues Matlak left behind to resolve and that will probably take longer than 12 months. We care about the City getting better overall but we want our ward taken care of first. At least we have an Alderman who listens/responds to and works with the residents and is representing our ward and city in a good way.
Why don’t you come back in a year and see if you have anything to complain about, until then your silence would be welcomed by many.
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 9:00 AM on 12/27/2007
"He did not get a single file from his predecessor and had to set-up an office from scratch ... "
this is the alermanic version of dog ate my homework
Flag as inappropriate
Hugh at 10:10 AM on 12/27/2007
Ald. Scott Waguespack Legislative Intitiatives
5/21/07 Meeting #1: Scott Waguespack, holder of a degree in political science, a former City Administrator of Berwyn, and a former leader of a non-partisan citizen's group dedicated to ending cronyism and corruption in government, sworn into office as alderman of Chicago.
5/23/07, Meeting #2: Hitting the floor with feet runing, energized with a treasure trove of reform ideas garnered from a tough campaign season spent listening to constituent concerns, legislative powerhouse Waguespack introduces ordinances authorizing 3 signs, 7 sidewalk cafes, 5 awnings, 3 rebates of garbage collection fees for condo owners, and 0 TIF reforms.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/052307meeting/09NewBusiness/pgs1858-1890.pdf
6/13/07, Meeting #3: 5 signs, 4 sidewalk cafes, 1 fee waiver, and 1 awning. No increases in notification requirements for zoning changes.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/061307meeting/17NewBusiness/pgs3477-3526.pdf
7/19/07, Meeting #4: 1 fee waiver, 2 street fairs, 9 signs, 4 sidewalk cafes, 16 truck parking permits, 1 awning. No new requirements for community meetings for zoning changes, in the neighborhood in the evenings, when actual residents can attend.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/071907meeting/17NewBusiness/pgs5816-5865.pdf
9/5/07, Meeting #5: 5 street fairs, 10 signs, 2 sidewalk cafes, 6 new billboards, 7 truck parking permits. No new restrictions on campaign contributions from those seeking zoning changes.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/090507meeting/18NewBusiness/pgs7821-7870.pdf
9/27/07, Meeting #6: 1 street fair, 9 signs, 1 new JC Decaux bus shelter, 1 truck parking permit. No new requirements for internet posting of applications for zoning changes.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/092707meeting/19NewBusiness/pgs10654-10703.pdf
10/31/07, Meeting #7: 5 fee waivers, 6 signs, 1 park bench, 4 truck parking permits, and 2 awnings. No requirement for re-notification of neighbors in the case of a re-scheduled zoning hearing.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/103107meeting/16NewBusiness/pgs12378-12427.pdf
11/7/07, Meeting #8: Waguespack has no new ideas, of any kind.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/110707meeting/05NewBusiness/pgs14922-14953.pdf
11/13/07, Meeting #9: 2 awnings. No amendments to Chicago's Ethics ordinance.
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/journals/111307meeting/09NewBusiness/pgs16697-16736.pdf
Flag as inappropriate
Joe Lake, Bucktown at 11:28 AM on 12/29/2007
Game Over? or Round Two
32nd Ward 2008 Democratic Committeeman Race
We Don't Want Nobody Sent 23
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownSquare/wedontwantnobodysent23ptvii.msnw
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Flag as inappropriate
Beejal Patel at 8:29 AM on 11/7/2008
Wow, Roger seems like a bitter and angery person. Seems like he needs professional help with mental health issues.
Flag as inappropriate
32nd at 7:33 PM on 11/7/2008
Sounds like Roger is bitter and angry that someone like Fritchey used every tactic in the book (and out of the book, wink wink) to get him off the ballot.
Fritchy would not want anyone to run against him for committeeman and when he bounced our signatures, he committed a fraud against democracy.
Add a comment