On February 23rd, Trustees and candidates Patty Meroni and Karen Selman voted to override a veto of the LeCompte/Anderson Horse Boarding Text Amendment. Four days later, a lawsuit was filed against the Village of Barrington Hills.
The suit cites, among other things, the actions of Meroni and Selman, beginning four years ago when they were first running for office. They (along with outgoing Trustee Joe Messer) accepted campaign donations from Benjamin LeCompte and then falsely named themselves as the contributors of those donations in official State Board of Elections (SBOE) filings. In other words, they provided false information in official government filings. Unfortunately, this became fully aired only after they were elected.
In their current campaign for reelection, they refer to their actions at that time as “a minor paperwork error,” yet they fail to mention the recommended $850 civil penalty levied against each of them by the SBOE Hearing Officer for reporting violations (waived since they’d already closed out their political committees according to the SBOE reports), and a two-year dissolution period imposed on their campaign committees. Not even a master spin-doctor can change these facts.
The suit also alleges the LeCompte/Anderson Amendment was drafted and enacted to benefit one large-scale boarding operation that was deemed in violation of our Village Codes years ago–Oakwood Farms. Last June, the Riding Club of Barrington Hills issued a written statement that an Appellate Court decision against Oakwood in April was just that, and “… no other horse boarding facilities are at risk other than the one involved in the current legal dispute.” (see Riding Club now acknowledges Village official’s support of horse boarding)
This has always been a “single-issue”—indeed, a single property—matter.
Based on this history, Meroni and Selman (and Trustee Messer) were asked to recuse themselves from voting on anything that might affect LeCompte’s Oakwood Farms boarding operation. They refused. And now we’re being sued.
What’s disturbing to many is that Meroni and Selman’s supporters continue to advocate loudly that, if the LeCompte/Anderson Amendment is repealed or modified by a new board, all large boarding operations in Village are at risk of closure. Nonsense.
Odd that the supporters of Selman and Meroni have now conveniently forgotten their prior position that the horse boarding dispute in Barrington Hills was and is a “single-issue” that is a single property matter.
Nonetheless, we expect their noise to increase as they attempt to spread baseless fear among voters between now and Election Day in social media and mailings. Before that crescendo begins, we ought to look at something SOS Party committee member Dan Lundmark once wrote that applies to the SOS Party and their supporters’ fear-mongering tactics:
“Single-issue groups create the appearance of force and momentum at public meetings. They present an organized, loud voice, that creates a disproportionate and misleading sense that they are speaking for the majority.”
We don’t believe SOS Party supporters are speaking for the majority of residents’ interests. Nor do we believe Meroni and Selman protected the broad interests of village residents when they voted to take away the majority of residents’ rights to peace and privacy in favor of protecting the commercial interests of their prior benefactor.
It is clear that the loud noise of a “single-issue” group has drowned out reason and good governance in our Village for too many years. As a result, we’ve overspent on legal fees while neglecting our roads. No doubt the majority of residents have had enough of both.
– The Observer
FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH:
Anderson II, with retroactivity provision, was passed so LeCompte can again assert “mootness” as a defense in the lawsuit by Drury. If successful, Abboud, Rosene, Knoop, Lundmark, Messer, Meroni and Selman would avoid having to produce records and being deposed about their knowledge, if any, relating to the link between the 3 secret illegal-campaign donations and the Illegal-Schuman Letter, 34 days later. No wonder SOS is comprised of this band miscreants, each has much at stake on April 7th.
The “mootness’ defense was previously raised in the lawsuit by LeCompte when he invoked the “Abboud-Schuman Letter” which the Appellate Court viewed as nothing more than a self imposed road block by VBH during the pendency of the litigation. “Dollars to Doughnuts”, LeCompte will try “mootness” again to dismiss the Drury Amended Complaint thanks to a little help from his ZBA/BOT friends who pushed LeCompte’s boarding legislation through with ZBA member Anderson fronting as the “patsy”.
“Save 5 Acres” dominated BOT approved Anderson II not because it was good for residents but because it was good for LeCompte and the ongoing BOT cover-up concerning the Schuman Letter which overturned 3 years of successful litigation by VBH against Oakwood Farm at a cost of $162,000 to VBH taxpayers.
.
“Special Use” which VBH Riding Club and Freeman-ZBA promoted as the solution in 2011, would not be an effective defense for LeCompte raising a question of fact whether Oakwood Farm boarding operation would qualify forcing the Drury litigation to proceed to depositions and trial. Since the Abboud-Schuman Letter, Save 5 Acres majority BOT never viewed legislating boarding of horses through the prism of balancing the interests between commercial boarding operators and VBH residents but instead schemed to shield facts from coming to light in court and public involving the connection between the 3 illegal campaign donations and illegal Abboud-Schuman Letter. This is what Anderson II is designed to do as well.
If VBH government and Riding Club were sincerely concerned about the viability of large scale commercial boarding operations, Abboud and Save 5 Acres dominated BOT with encouragement from VBH Riding Club would have legislated horse boarding years before Abboud created the Schuman Letter.
BHO while your blog is informative on specific facts you fail to connect the dots informing readers of the big picture. Why are Save 5 Acres BOT members so militant about saving Anderson II, so much so, they wouldn’t even compromise on removing the “ridiculous” retroactive provision?
If there was no merit to what I was saying, Abboud, Messer, Meroni, Selman and LeCompte would have by now made a verbal statement or furnished a definitive statement in writing explaining the odd conincidence between the 3 illegal campaign donations and Abboud-Schuman Letter. When you go to a SOS Meroni and Selman coffee where they want to hear from you, ask them the following questions.
Why did Abboud and Save 5 Acres BOT pay Burke-Warren $162,000 of VBH taxpayer money to “close” boarding operations at Oakwood Farm (which VBH succeeded in doing at both the trial and Appellate Court level) when all it took was the 45 cent (postage) “Schuman Letter” to keep boarding operations open at Oakwood Farm?
Why did Dan Lundmark have to e-mail LeCompte to advise LeCompte what specific verbage Abboud needed to see in LeCompte’s affidavit to make Oakwood Farm home occupation complaint?
If both Messer and LeCompte testified under oath that Oakwood Farm could never be home occupation compliant and ZBA and court concurred, then why did the VBH through the Schuman Letter say Oakwood Farm was a home occupation?
In “Consider[ation] [of] the Horse”, think about the amount of oats the taxpayer could have purchased for VBH horses rather than waste all that money on Burke-Warren, who successfully performed but whose work was ignored by Abboud and Save 5 Acres BOT.
SOS and former VBH BOT Knoop, you were a VBH BOT at the time, what sayeth you?
Not to change the subject, but this is pertinent to the discussion of truth and the SOS party. I received the SOS mailing yesterday and it is filled untruths. Let’s start with the big quote on the side with your mailing address. They use a quote, yet they don’t cite the source. Any normal high school English student can tell you that a “quote” without a source is not a quote. It’s a personal statement. The statement is: “ONLY the Save Open Space Barrington Hills Slate represents our values and is truly committed to preserving our quality of life.”
And on the other side in bold: “Don’t be deceived. No other candidates running for Village Trustee will guarantee the protection of our values and quality of life.”
Was that before they were caught violating the campaign contribution laws, open meeting act, complete turnaround of stance on LeCompte, lying about feathering, open space, road repair, attorneys, etc? How can anyone trust them? Let them run scared of real BH residents with our community’s best interest at heart, which of course is One Barrington Hills, not the single issue of Barry LeCompte. And again I beg the question to Patty Meroni: where is all the money that should have gone to Roads and Bridges since 2005? I want to see a spreadsheet signed off by the village.