Recently the Observer published links to some of the websites for candidates in the upcoming April 4th village election. In reviewing those sites, we noticed some glaring omissions and dare we say it – “lack of transparency” about their community involvement and their positions on some of the most important village issues.
Let’s begin with a look at Elaine Ramesh, who is seeking “re-election” as Village Trustee, although she has not been on the Board since 2013. Her choice of words already comes across as a bit deceptive.
- EXPERIENCED LEADERSHIP/EXCELLENT RESULTS? Ramesh’s Facebook page displays her credentials and governmental involvement, obviously focusing on her time as trustee four years ago. Despite the list of “excellent results” and “eye on the bottom line” that she includes, readers will recall that she routinely disregarded input from residents and tended to view issues only from her personal point of view. She rarely spoke up in discussions during Board of Trustees meetings, and members of the Board and audience were routinely surprised by many of her votes, given that she seldom gave any rationale for her decisions. Ramesh’s lack of explanations did a disservice to both her constituents who deserve accountability from their public servants, and to her fellow board members, whose opinions on various topics might have been swayed if she had offered her personal insights publically. It is because of this reticence that some have labeled her “the Silent One”.
- “I’M NOT RUNNING ON ANY PLATFORM” “Basically, I’m not running on any platform, but just offering myself as a volunteer to serve my community,” Ramesh said of her current campaign. (Barrington Courier Review March 8, 2017) As we have previously stated in our article Ramesh repeat? We hope not, Elaine seems to have intentionally omitted mention of her extensive involvement in the equestrian community, instead focusing on her membership and support of conservation groups. It’s hard to understand why someone who clearly loves horses and the equestrian way of life would omit ANY mention of horses in her campaign. On her campaign site, she shows off her adorable cat and dog, and is pictured jogging in the village or volunteering with the Girl Scouts. But there are no horses, ANYWHERE? Strange. We would call that a lack of transparency.
But Elaine is not just a competitor in hunter/jumper events with her own horses, and isn’t just a member of numerous equestrian organizations (Riding Club of Barrington Hills, American Horse Council, Equine Land Conservation Resource and the United States Equestrian Federation). To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with owning horses and enjoying them – it is a wonderful part of the fabric of our Village. But Elaine Ramesh has held, and currently holds, significant leadership roles in several high profile equestrian groups with very narrow agendas which she is not being forthcoming about. Here’s just a partial list:
- President of the Riding Club of Barrington Hills, 2015
- Founder & Chair of the Equestrian Coalition of McHenry County, a regional organization to unite various local equestrian groups to pursue common goals regarding equestrian land use.
- Past Board Member Illinois Equine Research and Promotion Board, whose mission statement is is to enhance the Illinois equine industry through self-funded programs, projects and activities. http://www.iepb.org/index.html
- Second Vice President of the Horseman’s Council of Illinois http://www.horsemenscouncil.org/leadership
Here’s a graphic from the Spring 2016 issue of the Horsemen’s Council of Illinois Courier newsletter that should give you an idea of their mission statement.
- COMMUNITY ACTIVISM We’d also like to remind readers of Elaine’s talk presented to the McHenry County Horse Club in March 2012, entitled “Community Activism — Equestrian Style.”
- “DEFENDED ESTATE CATEGORY OF ZONING IN McHENRY COUNTY ” We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge Ramesh’s participation in advocating for the inclusion of the Estate Category of Zoning in the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance and for opposing “conservation design” as the county’s only model for future subdivision development. Those are important elements to help preserve the natural ecology of the county and to help safeguard against dense small-lot housing as being the norm for the county. But Elaine herself is remiss when she does not also mention her strong defense of the equestrian heritage of McHenry County and her desire for promotion of the equine industry in the county in the same document.
The Village’s 2010 press release on the topic included Ramesh’s entire submission to McHenry County, which can be seen here. We would like readers to pay particular attention to how she signed her remarks.
…Equestrienne…
Readers will have to judge for themselves if Ramesh is, in her own words “not running on any platform”, only seeking “to help protect our healthy outdoor lifestyle, pastoral viewscapes and heritage”. Or is she an equestrian activist with a hidden agenda that she doesn’t want voters to know about? We think the facts speak for themselves.
(In case you’re curious to see Elaine’s campaign platform from 2009 when she first ran for trustee, click here to see the PDF. At that time she said that “she works to help preserve the residents [sic] rights to participate in all equestrian activities”.
Excellent reporting. Apparently, running as an equestrian or a Riding Club member is the kiss of political death , based on recent elections and on a very recent history of the Riding Club’s sponsorship of the Anderson II commercial horse boarding amendments to the zoning code.
How about transparency and disclosure by other Riding Club members who are running for President and Trustees? Iacovelli discloses, but I didn’t see disclosures by Jacobsen or Zubak.
The Observer made the disclosures, but will the voters see that?
Those running for three Trustee positions are:
Colleen Konicek Hannigan* (Independent)
Paula Jacobsen (Riding Club)
Elaine M. Ramesh (Riding Club)
Matthew P. Vondra (Independent)
Robert M. Zubak (Riding Club)
Ralph Sesso (Independent)
Linda H. Cools (Independent)
Regarding Anderson II (Commercial Horse Boarding), I haven’t seen any discussion or position on the topic by these Riding Club members. Having had a lawsuit against the Village (Drury, Reich, O’Donnell v. VBH), several public hearings, two BOT and ZBA votes on the issue, why are no candidates talking about this 8,000 lb elephant in the Village. Despite the BOT rescinding the Amendment and reverting to the original Home Occupation protections against unbridled (pun intended) property right infringements by ‘immune’ equestrian boarding operations, the issue is not dead. LeCompte and Pappas recently sued the Village over the issue. So I say ‘what say ye’ to all the new names on the ballot. “what is your position”? I know Colleen Hannigan and Marty McLaughlin’s positions -(against). What about the others. Voters need to know.
Jim O’Donnell
(not the former Plan Commissioner)
To the Barrington Hills Observer:
In your “Disappearing Equestrienne” bleat against Trustee candidate Elaine Ramesh, you derided Elaine’s opposition to “Conservation Design” in McHenry County. As any informed citizen who is not in the pocket of developers or realtors recognizes, “Conservation Design” is a marketing tern created to mask its true purpose: to permit a developer to achieve higher density residential development at lower cost than allowed under normal residential zoning. Conservation Design is actually cluster housing. I was on the McHenry County Zoning Board during the development of the county’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) and was extremely active in the process of creating the UDO. The county zoning board along with many on the County Board clearly understood the motive behind Conservation Design. As to Elaine Ramesh’s support of “Estate Zoning,” this is exactly what we have in Barrington Hills. Estate zoning allows for larger homesites, generally employing well and septic, that encourages, low density development and open spaces and minimizes environmental impact as compared with Conservation Design.
John Rosene
Barrington Hills
_____
Mr. Rosene,
We suggest you re-read the passage in question. It said,”We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge Ramesh’s participation in advocating for the inclusion of the Estate Category of Zoning in the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance and for opposing “conservation design” as the county’s only model for future subdivision development. Those are important elements to help preserve the natural ecology of the county and to help safeguard against dense small-lot housing as being the norm for the county.”
There is no derision there, either stated or implied. We too oppose Conservation Design and are in support of Estate Zoning.
Phantom developers again John? Puh-leezzze.
We have more to fear from the Trojan Horse Team of RJE’s — Ramesh, Jacobsen and Zubak.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8d/7c/a1/8d7ca12552ae77b5bb352eab7b56a647.jpg
We would love to hear where each candidate stand on the potential widening of Route 62 from 59 to 25. The State is now conducting a study of this potential project. The current official position of the BOT is in favor -as the State required that to be in writing prior to hearing concerns at a meeting requested by the Village and convened in Schaumburg with IDOT in 2015 to review same. Also – how many citizens favor this potential as well?
Albert,
I think you’re misstating the village’s position. I’ve never heard the current board being in favor of widening. What I recall is IF Longmeadow became a reality, and IF traffic + congestion increase as a result, AND IDOT decides to widen Algonquin Road from two lanes to four, THEN BH is in favor of safety improvements to intersections, like traffic signals at Old Sutton and Bateman. There has also been talk of some sort underpass or bridge to allow horses to cross Route 62 if widening occurred. All along the idea has been pro-active participation in the planning stages. That doesn’t mean the BOT’s approval.
And pro-active participation is what should have been going on in the Abboud & Meroni years with Longmeadow. Maybe we could have avoided this catastrophe if either Meroni or Ramesh before here would have intervened on the village’s behalf.
Ok, so I’m looking for the candidate questionnaires on the Daily Herald site, and Ramesh didn’t respond? WTF? Really? How did she get endorsed exactly?
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20170310/submitted/303109586/
I revoke my previous comment. Her candidate profile was vacant last night. Something’s posted today.
Still ZERO mention of her penchant for all things equestrian.
To be clear – the State insisted on a favorable statement of support prior to accepting a meeting to discuss widening 62 with VBH BOT officials in 2015. Prior to this meeting IDOT stated they did not have a plan in place – now they are doing the planning process – estimated 2 years to complete. While I agree with “being a party at the table”…the Official Position should be clarified one way or the other by the BOT.
I don’t know where you got this idea of a written statement of support of widening. It doesn’t gel with anything i’ve heard or read. What i’ve been told and heard in many meetings is that the village requested the meeting to ask IDOT what their plans were for the thousands of additional cars coming down 62 IF Longmeadow happened. If LMP is built and includes that stretch of 62, and if IDOT plans to widen, then BH would be interested in safety crossings. Sounds weird that IDOT would “insist on a favorable statement of support prior to accepting a meeting”. Where’s the document?
And you’re off on the planning process — August 2016 roads and bridges recording has Dan strahan stating that phase I engineering is slated to take 48 months, or about 3 1/2 years from now.
VBH Albert, where were you when former VBH President was making his deal with mayor of Algonqin on LMP or when the Silent One admittedly represented VBH on the LMP and Kane County 2040 Plan? A little late to the dance wouldn’t you say?
Your repeated attempt to pin this superhighway on Pres. McLaughlin and current VBH BOT is transparent and obviously politically motivated. Quite frankly it is getting redundant and boring for BHO readers. This same tactic grounded in prevarications is currently being employed by SOS candidates
against Pres. McLaughlin on the Iaterola Property on Rte. 72. A tactic right out of former VBH President’s playbook.
With the exception of John Rosene, it is fooling none of the BHO readers who educate themselves on these matters and are familiar with the insipid Save 5 Acres political practices of the past which are now being employed once again in this election cycle.
My advice is take this up with your political allies, former VBH President and the Silent One where you can kibitz about why LMP was kept from VBH residents at a time when something could have actually been done. Perhaps you can educate yourself on VBH’s history of action regarding LMP with Trustee Gohl who has been on VBH BOT for 16 years. Gohl recently confirmed the deal made between former VBH President and Algonquin Mayor at VBH BOT meeting. Do you know why this deal was made?
Finally, unmask thyself from that sissy “VBH Albert” moniker and disclose thy true identifty like a brave political warrior. Perhaps you are too embarrassed about the petty politics you have been asked or have chosen to play.
I will give John Rosene credit, no matter how foolish and ill-informed he sounds, which is always, to the best of my knowledge John always puts his name after the tripe he spews.
Mr. Steiper you are off base assigning political motivations to my posts – I am not interested in past political alignments nor advocating for any current persons. I am interested in the wider community learning and understanding where the current candidates stand on these important issues and what they propose to do to stop them from impacting our community. Some are declaring their positions – some are not. And for the record I have never posted anything indicating support nor alignment with save 5 acres or any of their candidates – past or present – their “Deal” is apparent to many – in no small part because of your informative posts here over many years.
[…] of Iacovelli, Jacobsen and Zubak, (as well as Elaine Ramesh whose candidacy was the subject of our previous feature)? Their close associates include 1) the vocal large-scale commercial boarding operator who has been […]
[…] detailed in Meet the Candidates Part One and Part Two, Jacobsen, Zubak and Ramesh are distancing themselves from their extremist […]