Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Guest Essay’ Category

This week’s Reveille: The race between Nabeela Syed and Darby Hills for Illinois Senate District 26. Jeanne breaks down nearly $1.7 million in reported contributions from unions and Democratic leaders to Syed, and Syed’s campaign promises vs. her legislative voting record in the IL State House.

By Jeanne Ives | Breakthrough Ideas

“Nabeela Syed was only 23 when she was elected as a state rep. She went from college at the University of California, Berkeley, to running for office with a short stint as a digital strategist for an activist NGO.

She’s been celebrated by the press mostly for her identity. The Indian Express in 2022 said her victory was noteworthy in part because she is young, a first-generation Asian American, and a hijab-wearing Muslim woman.

Syed is a political climber, though. After 4 years in the House, she’s now running for State Senate. She says property taxes are too high, that she’ll fight for small business, and supports efforts to eliminate wasteful spending.

Her votes, though, show the opposite is true. There’s been no property tax relief, and she’s voted for millions in tax increases and the highest budgets in state history. She’s just another progressive Democrat bought and paid for by the unions and the Democrat Party in Illinois.

Over just the last 10 days, Senate Democrats have pushed over $1 million into Syed’s campaign.

Pritzker gave her another $10,000 and a teachers union PAC $40,000. Last quarter, her campaign took in nearly $1.7 million in donations from unions and Democrat leaders. They want this seat.

Also backing Syed is the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium. Their goal is building Asian American and immigrant power. And they want to fight for the civil, immigrant, and human rights for low-income, undocumented, queer, young people, seniors, and women.

Well, where does that leave the average Jane and Joe in Palatine and Barrington, Illinois? If you really want to know who your state rep or senator will represent when elected to office, just find out who’s funding their campaign.

Fortunately, the Chicago Tribune had the common sense to endorse Darby Hills for Senate District 26. She’ll represent Americans and taxpayers.

I’m Jeanne Ives.”
breakthrough-ideas.com

The Facebook reel of this post can be found here. Please share it!

Related: “Editorial: Darby Hills for Illinois 26th Senate District,” “A sound reason for Barrington Hills residents to vote for McLaughlin and Hills”

Read Full Post »

(Please click on image to enlarge)

Community update on Cook County zoning | October 26, 2026

Neighbors along Old Sutton and Penny Roads are asking how much commercial truck activity this residential corridor can accommodate. Cook County is considering a request to park up to 50 dump trucks south of Penny Road. A group of us is also examining earlier special-use approvals and a separate truck-terminal rezoning request. We want the County to consider their combined effects on roads, homes and natural areas, with supporting evidence in the public record.

Who has zoning authority

The 50-truck site at 15N803 Old Sutton Road is unincorporated Cook County land zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence. Cook County’s zoning ordinance governs this application, not the zoning ordinances of Barrington Hills or South Barrington. A nearby village address does not change that. The County Zoning Board of Appeals makes written findings and a recommendation; the Cook County Board of Commissioners makes the final decision. Neighboring villages can object, but cannot veto this zoning request. Applicable road, environmental, health and other laws still apply. A separate annexation dispute involves other parcels.

What is being requested

Cases SU-26-0002 and VA-26-0017 involve approximately 4.4 acres. Cristobal Rodriguez and Lorena Galvez petitioned to park up to 50 dump trucks: six for their business and 44 additional spaces. They also seek an accessory-building height variance from 15 feet to 20 feet 2 inches. These uses require County zoning relief; R-1 status alone does not authorize them. The September 23, 2026 hearing was held. We have not confirmed a final County Board decision.

What residents have put on the record

Cook County published a compilation of 22 objection letters. Seventeen cited traffic and safety, 15 zoning compatibility, 14 noise or residential character, 11 environmental concerns, 10 sensitive locations, 9 road conditions and 7 property values. Each letter could raise more than one issue; these counts describe concerns, not established harm. Barrington Hills formally objected, residents of both Barrington Hills and South Barrington submitted objections, and South Barrington’s mayor publicized the hearing.

What else is happening along the corridor

Husky Trans, Inc. separately sought to rezone approximately 15.6 acres at 15 Old Sutton Road and 545 Penny Road from R-1 to C-4 commercial and I-4 motor-freight-terminal districts (MA-25-0002). Cook County deferred the application in October 2025; no final rezoning approval has been verified.

Barrington Hills’ 2024 annexation of roughly 44 acres nearby is under litigation. A trial court invalidated it, an appellate court reversed in September 2025, and the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments September 24, 2026. We have not confirmed a final ruling. This is distinct from the 15N803 County application.

We are also tracing historic special uses at 191 and 193 Penny Road and 15N272, 15N365 and 15N701 Old Sutton Road. Our working map covers more than 200 acres under study, but that does not mean 200 acres have commercial or Special Use approval. Current ownership, permitted acreage and a recently identified parcel still require verification.

Why the combined picture matters

Old Sutton Road is narrow, unlit and without shoulders, yet it serves residents, cyclists and equestrians. Truck counts, vehicle weights, routes and hours matter across all nearby operations, not only on the applicant’s lot. So do noise and neighboring residential property use.

The 2010 MWRD watershed plan modeled flooding at the Penny Road crossing of Spring Creek. That does not establish runoff from this truck site. It does raise practical questions about grading, drainage outlets, downstream capacity and spill controls near forest-preserve habitat and private wells. Water leaving one lot still enters a shared system.

Cook County Section 13.8.9(A) requires written findings on health and safety, nearby property use and values, roads, drainage, traffic and County compliance. We want to see how those standards are supported while accounting for existing operations and pending proposals.

What we need to accomplish together

A credible County record, and any possible later legal review, needs evidence more specific than general opposition. We are collecting:

  • Recorded permits, approved acreage, current owners and exact authorized activities.
  • Dated traffic observations, truck routes, road measurements and operating hours.
  • Flood photographs, engineering and drainage studies, receiving-system capacity and groundwater information.
  • Qualified environmental, noise and property-value analysis, with clear sources.

We will ask the County to disclose its studies and explain each required finding. Credible records and expert testimony are essential; no evidence can promise a particular County or court outcome.

Please share questions information or ideas

If you live nearby, know these properties, have records or photographs, or have an idea for helping, please contact me. Different views are welcome. Our objective is a factual public record and a thorough Cook County review of this corridor.

 – Robin Duggan  |  Barrington Hills resident  |  rduggan@2gcinc.com

Public records and source documents

Cook County Zoning Ordinance Sections 3.3 and 13.8
County ZBA hearing application materials
County compilation of 22 objection letters
Barrington Hills formal objection
Husky rezoning request and deferral
Illinois Supreme Court oral argument docket 132527
MWRD watershed plans and reports

Related: “Status update on 15N803 Old Sutton Road petitions for Special Use and Variance with the Cook County Zoning Board of Appeals“

Read Full Post »

Image courtesy 10.14.26 Barrington 220 School District Facebook post

A follow-up to “A Polling Place for Some”

The law requires certain actions before any early voting site can operate, including official lists that are supposed to show the public where and when it can vote. Barrington High School isn’t on any of them.

What the law requires

Illinois’ early voting statute, 10 ILCS 5/19A-25, is short and clear. The election authority, here the Cook County Clerk, must:

  • publish, in a newspaper of general circulation, during the week before early voting and at least once a week during it, a schedule listing every permanent and temporary early voting location and the dates and hours of each (subsection (a));
  • post that schedule at every early voting location, starting no later than 10 days before early voting begins (subsection (b));
  • make free copies of the schedule available to the public (subsection (c));
  • put the schedule on its website (subsection (d)); and
  • give the State Board of Elections a list of all early voting sites and their hours at least 10 days before early voting begins (subsection (f)).

Subsection (e) covers sites added after the schedule is published:

“Additional temporary locations may be established after the schedule is published, provided that the location is open to all eligible voters. The location, dates, and hours shall be reported to the State Board of Elections and posted on the election authority’s website.”

Open to all eligible voters, reported to the State Board, and posted on the Clerk’s website. From what we’ve been able to determine, Barrington High’s site fails each of these on the public record.

Not on the Clerk’s website

The Cook County Clerk’s Early Voting Locations page on October 15, 2026, the day after the District announced the BHS voting site, says limited early voting for the November 3 election began October 7 at six Vote Centers, and that expanded early voting begins October 19 at 56 suburban locations. The page lists courthouses, village halls, libraries, community centers, and a few college and school campuses, all open to the public. It does not list Barrington High School, and it does not mention a high school early voting day. https://www.cookcountyclerkil.gov/elections/ways-to-vote/early-voting/early-voting-locations

The District posted on October 14 that BHS hosted the site “today.” On that date, according to the Clerk’s own page, early voting in suburban Cook County was limited to six sites: the Clerk’s downtown office and the courthouses in Rolling Meadows, Skokie, Maywood, Bridgeview, and Markham. The nearest public site for a Barrington voter was the Rolling Meadows courthouse. The site at BHS appears nowhere on the public schedule.

Not on the State Board of Elections’ list

Similarly, Barrington High School is not on the State Board of Elections’ list of 2026 General Election early voting locations for Cook County, which is built from what election authorities report under subsections (e) and (f). The only Barrington-area entry is Barrington Hills Village Hall, 112 Algonquin Road, which doesn’t open until October 19. https://www.elections.il.gov/votingandregistrationsystems/earlyvotinglocationssearch.aspx

Not open to all eligible voters

By the District’s own description, the site was for “eligible BHS students and staff who are Cook County voters.” A Cook County retiree living down the street from the school, a veteran, a parent: none of them were invited, and none of them could have known to come, because the BHS site wasn’t on any schedule. That is the opposite of “open to all eligible voters.”

The Clerk’s own training materials make the same point. The 2026 High School Early Voting Handbook, which the Clerk’s Office prepared for the student election judges, opens by stating the general rule: “A suburban Cook County registered voter can vote early at any of the suburban Cook County Early Voting sites.” Nothing in the Handbook says a high school site may be limited to the school’s own students and staff.

And, the Handbook is no rulebook for this fall’s General Election sites. Its cover reads “2026 Gubernatorial Primary Election,” and its calendar lists a “Primary High School Early Voting Day” of February 26, 2026, but no high school voting day for the November 3 General Election. As far as the public record shows, the high school sites that operated this October were run without any published procedures specific to them. https://www.cookcountyclerkil.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/hs-ev-handbook-2026.pdf

Image courtesy 10.14.26 Barrington 220 School District Facebook post

What about pollwatchers?

In fairness, the Handbook doesn’t bar pollwatchers. However, the Handbook never mentions a fall high school voting day.  The Handbook advises judges that credentialed pollwatchers, media and exit pollsters may enter the site for the Primary Election. And, in fact, the media seems to have been made aware of the polling as there is coverage from CBS on Cook County “transform(ing) 27 suburban high schools into early voting sites for a ‘Teen Takeover for Democracy’ event … transform(ing) high schools into early voting sites to help eligible students vote.” https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/cook-county-high-schools-early-voting-students/

But a right to observe means little if no one (except CBS) knows where or when to show up. A pollwatcher’s credential has to name the specific early voting site. If a site isn’t on the Clerk’s schedule, isn’t on the State Board’s list, and is announced by the school district only on the day it happens, no party, candidate, or civic group can realistically get a credential for it and get through the door of a secured school building. The Handbook says nothing about how an outside pollwatcher is supposed to get into a high school during the school day.

Questions the Clerk should answer

We’re not mind readers, and there may be an explanation. If so, the Clerk’s Office should give it publicly:

  • Under what legal authority did the BHS site operate, and was it treated as an early voting location under Article 19A?
  • If it was a temporary location, why isn’t it on the Clerk’s website or the State Board’s list, as subsection (e) requires?
  • Was it ever included in the published newspaper schedule or posted at the site, as subsections (a) and (b) require?
  • Was it open to any eligible Cook County voter who showed up? If not, how is that consistent with “open to all eligible voters”?
  • Which other high schools hosted sites this fall, on what dates, and how many ballots were cast at each?
  • What is the Chicago Bears’ role in the “Defenders of DA’mocracy” program, and will the Clerk release the agreement?

These aren’t partisan questions. The notice rules in 19A-25 protect every voter and every campaign equally. They exist so that no one, whether the Clerk, a school district, or anyone else, can set up a polling place that only the privileged few know about.

Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request to District 220 and the Cook County Clerk’s Office for the published early voting schedules and newspaper notices, the reports to the State Board of Elections, the list of high school sites and dates for this election, and any agreement with the Chicago Bears would provide some insight.

Related: “A Polling Place for Some: Barrington High School’s Invitation-Only Early Voting”

Read Full Post »

This week, Barrington High School hosted an early voting site for the General Election, run with the Cook County Clerk’s Office. According to District 220’s own announcement, the site was for eligible BHS students and staff, and students served as election judges. Everyone else, including the veteran down the street, the retiree on a fixed schedule, and the parent who pays the taxes that run the building, was not invited.

This isn’t a one-off. It’s part of the Clerk’s “Defenders of DA’mocracy” program. In the spring primary, 24 suburban high schools became fully functioning voting sites. On a single day, those school sites recorded 1,136 ballots, more than the 1,021 cast during the first seven days at the regular countywide locations. The Clerk calls that success. I call it a government office choosing which voters get a polling place brought to their door.

Brought to you by the “Chicago Bears?”

The program’s name isn’t a typo. “DA’mocracy” is a nod to “Da Bears,” because the Clerk’s Office developed the program in partnership with the Chicago Bears. Yes, a professional football franchise is a named partner in a program that runs official polling places inside public schools.

The public announcements don’t answer the questions any taxpayer should ask. What does the Bears’ role actually involve? Is the team providing money, materials, staff, or promotion? Is there a written agreement, and who signed it? Does the team have any say in which schools are chosen? Is anyone else sponsoring election administration in Cook County?

A private organization, especially one that is lobbying local and state governments for stadium deals and public money, has no business being involved in how elections are run unless every term of that relationship is public. “Partnership” is a word that hides more than it explains. The Clerk’s Office should release the agreement and any related communications, and if it won’t, voters should ask why.

Shut out of their own school

District 220 spans four counties: Cook, Lake, McHenry, and Kane. Barrington High School is its only high school. Because the site was run by the Cook County Clerk, only Cook County voters could use it. Students and staff who live in Lake, McHenry, or Kane County, along with all of the district’s taxpayers in those three counties, were shut out of a polling place set up in their own school.

Some voters are more equal than others

Defenders will point out that Illinois already provides on-site voting for residents of nursing homes and veterans’ facilities. That’s true, but it isn’t the same thing. That process is limited to physically incapacitated voters who apply in advance, and it’s run as supervised vote-by-mail on one of the few days just before the election. Nobody is setting up a full early voting site in the VFW hall or the senior center, staffed by its members, open on a weekday for that community alone. If convenience-based, community-specific polling places are good policy, why do only high schools get them? It’s fair to ask whether the expected voting patterns of each group have anything to do with it.

Who is watching?

Illinois law is clear that pollwatchers may be appointed to observe early voting at each permanent and temporary polling place where early voting is conducted. If credentialed pollwatchers from candidates, parties, or civic organizations were turned away or never given a realistic chance to attend, the public deserves an explanation. A polling place inside a school building, during school hours, surrounded by the school’s own staff, needs more transparency than usual, not less.

Equal treatment, full disclosure

None of this is about whether young people should vote. They should. It’s about equal treatment and open government. If the Clerk wants to bring the ballot box to a community, every community should be eligible, observers should have the access the law guarantees, and the public should be able to see exactly who is partnering with the office that runs our elections. Until then, voters are right to ask whether “civic engagement” means engaging the voters the system prefers, and whose interests are being served in the process.

Image Source: Barrington 220 School District Facebook Post

Read Full Post »

By: Mark Glennon* | Wirepoints

Gov. JB Pritzker left no doubt about where he stands in the growing schism within the Democratic party about its surge toward the radical left. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked him directly on June 30 if it’s good that Democratic primary voters recently chose Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates over more moderate Democratic incumbents.

Pritzker answered that as long as they are talking about affordability and oppose Trump, “those are the people who are winning” and embracing progressive/in Democratic Socialist candidates is “the recipe for winning in 2026 and beyond.” Here’s the clip:

Many key Democrats are revolting against the growing elements of socialism in their party.  As the left-leaning Guardian put it:

Over the last few days, prominent party figures have moved away from unifying under a “blue no matter who” banner to push for a more formal break with their left flank, and said the moment may have arrived for Democrats to confront their more socialist wing.

No less than veteran Democratic political advisor James Carvill recently said “it’s time for Democrats to talk the S-word: schism,” He added that some DSA-aligned candidates “have no place in the Democratic party” and, of the broader coalition: “I’m not in that fucking political party.”

Other prominent Democrats speaking up against the party’s growing leftism include Jaime Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic national committee, former New York governor David Paterson and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. And the left-leaning Atlantic wrote that, while the DSA is “anything but Democratic,” its clever subversion of the Democratic Party will be difficult to stop.

In case you don’t already know – and you should – here’s some of what the DSA supports:

  • Abolishing ICE, demilitarizing the border, ending all deportations, granting immediate amnesty to all immigrants regardless of status and guaranteeing access to jobs, labor rights and social services
  • Abolishing the Senate, expanding the House, voting rights for noncitizens and people with criminal convictions, statehood to the District of Columbia, replace the two‑party system with proportional representation,  limit the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, and replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote
  • Medicare for All with no health care premiums, co‑pays or deductibles, including reproductive and gender‑affirming care
  • Tuition‑free public higher education, eliminating out‑of‑pocket costs for room and board, and canceling all student loan debt
  • Universal rent control, guaranteed legal representation for tenants, and major public investment in social housing
  • Free universal childcare and pre‑K, expansive paid family leave, a 32‑hour workweek with no loss in pay or benefits
  • Higher rates on the wealthiest earners, for‑profit corporations, large inheritances and private colleges and universities, as well as a wealth tax on the ultra‑rich
  • A Green New Deal to end fossil fuels, guarantees for displaced workers and public ownership of major transportation, energy infrastructure and natural resources
  • Ending mandatory minimums and cash bail, demilitarizing police departments and treating drug addiction as a public health issue

For the sake of the nation, we can only hope that, on this, America agrees with James Carville: “I’m not in that f-ing party.”

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints. 

Source

Editorial note: Maria Peterson (pictured below with JB Pritzker) appears to have made a profession for years running for offices with the financial backing of JB Pritzker, among others. In 2022 she ran unsuccessfully for Illinois State Senate and in 2024 she lost her bid for Illinois House 52nd District Representative.

Maria Peterson and JB Pritzker | Courtesy Maria Peterson’s Facebook page

Currently she is feverishly campaigning again for 52nd District Representative, and there is absolutely no doubt if successful, she will back all of JB Pritzker’s initiatives and likely those of the Democratic Socialists of America.  This includes Pritzker’s stalled “BUILD Initiative” which would strip property rights from residents and place all zoning controls in the hands of Springfield politicians and unions.

Please don’t consider this as our being negative, as some might. Instead, think of it for what it is – fact.

Read Full Post »

“Dear Residents

This week, I participated in an important meeting of the Hoffman Estates Plan Commission regarding a proposed rezoning of the 186-acre Plum Farms property, located north of Route 72 and west of Route 59. This proposal has significant implications for South Barrington and the surrounding communities.
The requested M-2 zoning classification would permit the development of a data center on the site, which was the primary concern raised during the meeting. More than 45 residents provided public comments, and every speaker expressed opposition to the proposed zoning change.

During the meeting, I addressed the Plan Commission to voice South Barrington’s opposition to the rezoning request. I emphasized that M-2 zoning for this highly visible corner property is inconsistent with the long-term economic development strategies pursued by both South Barrington and Hoffman Estates. Our communities have invested considerable effort in establishing this area as a destination for retail, dining, entertainment, and other complementary commercial uses. A data center does not align with that vision or with the character of our surrounding communities.

The meeting drew more than 400 attendees, and every speaker who addressed the Commission voiced objections to the proposed development. As a strategic partner with Hoffman Estates, it was my hope that the Plan Commission would recognize the shared objectives of our communities and decline to recommend the requested zoning change.

Ultimately, the Plan Commission voted 4-2 against the rezoning request. The matter will now be forwarded to the Hoffman Estates Village Board for final consideration, with the earliest possible hearing scheduled for June 15th.

I will continue to keep everyone informed as this process moves forward. Thank you to the many residents of Barrington, Hoffman Estates, Barrington Hills, and neighboring communities who attended the meeting, submitted letters, and voiced their opposition. Your engagement and advocacy played an important role in ensuring that community perspectives were clearly heard throughout this process.

For more news articles related to this, see below:

Daily Herald: Hoffman Estates Plan Commission Rejects Rezoning Request for Possible Data Center
CBS News: Hoffman Estates Plan Commission Rejects Zoning Change for New Data Center Project
Hoffman Estates Plan Commission Rejects Rezoning Request for Possible Data Center“‘

We’d like to thank Mayor McCombie once again for keeping residents informed.

Read Full Post »

Neighbors & Friends –

Join us as we kick off the America 250 celebration 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 on Sunday, June 28, 2026, with the annual “The Land We Love Run” through Barrington Hills! Brought to you by the Village of Barrington Hills and Cuba Township The Land We Love Run starts at 7:30 am from Cuba Township, and offers 5k & 10k runs and a 2 mile walk.  Come out to enjoy our beautiful Village and to support our Heroes!

Our 5k and 10k 🏃‍♂️🏃🏼‍♀️ courses are certified and professionally chip timed.

Compete in the Team Competition 🙌 Put together your team of 3 or more for camaraderie, bragging rights, and to compete for fun prizes!

Police 👮🏻 monitored routes with age-based awards 🥇, and water/aid stations. Stay for the award ceremony, refreshments and fun following the run.

All proceeds to benefit Folds of Honor – Chicago, a National organization with a local presence that provides scholarships to spouses and children of America’s fallen and disabled Service Members and First Responders. Donations are also being accepted to the Cuba Township Food Pantry, addressing Barrington-area residents’ food insecurity needs.

It’s a HILL of a RUN!
Hope to see you and your friends and colleagues on June 28th! 

You don’t run? Consider volunteering or sponsorship!

Sponsorship levels are:

  • America 250 Sponsor $2,500 Recognition on Website, Logo on T-shirts, Race Banner, American 250 Banner, 10 Race Entries, Space for Table/Tent
  • 1776 Sponsor $1,776 Logo on T-shirts, Race Banner, 5 Race Entries
  • Liberty Sponsor $1,000 Logo on Race Banner
  • Freedom Sponsor $500 Logo on Water Station Signs

***SPONSORSHIP MUST BE CONFIRMED BY MAY 27th TO GUARANTEE LOGO ON T-SHIRTS***

Click for SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION & FORM

We appreciate you forwarding this invitation to any who might be interested in participating and/or sponsorship.

Read Full Post »

Posted yesterday, May 15:

“This week, I attended the Northwest Municipal Conference meeting where one of the major topics discussed was a status update regarding the proposed Build Illinois Act (BUILD).

As many of you know, the Governor and state legislators are working to advance legislation that could significantly impact local zoning authority throughout Illinois. If passed, the BUILD Act would allow the State greater control over zoning and development decisions that have historically been managed at the local level by municipalities and their residents.

While supporters argue the bill is intended to address housing shortages and increase development opportunities, many communities, including ours, are concerned about the potential loss of local control and the one-size-fits-all approach the legislation could create.  Every community has unique infrastructure, traffic patterns, environmental considerations, and development goals, and many believe these decisions are best made locally rather than mandated at the state level.  One of the things the Bill requires is that municipalities allow up to 8- unit multi-family buildings in all single-family zoning districts while drastically reducing the minimum lot sizes and setback requirements.

Below are some of the examples and challenges on this part of the bill that communities may face should this bill pass.

Both the Illinois Municipal League (IML), representing 1,294 municipalities statewide, and the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, representing approximately 275 cities, towns, and villages, oppose the bill in its current form. For those concerned, I encourage all residents to contact your Legislators and Governor’s office and make your voices heard regarding your concerns with this proposed legislation.

Darby Hills, State Senate
Springfield Office: 217-782-8010, District Office: 224-662-4544

Marty McLaughlin, State Representative
RepMcLaughlin@gmail.com
Springfield Office: 217-782-1517, District Office: 224-634-8300

Nabeela Syed, State Representative
info@repsyed.com
Springfield Office: 217-782-3696, District Office: 773-916-6553

Governors Office

Springfield
817-782-6830 or 217-782-6831
Chicago
312-814-2121 or 312-814-2122

IMPORTANT AND HELPFUL LINKS BELOW:

  • Full Building Up Illinois Act HERE
  • Informative presentation put together by the City of Peoria with more examples of what the suggested changes could look like in our community: LINK HERE“

Thank you so much, Mayor McCombie!

Related: “Pritzker’s affordable housing plan gets Senate hearing as municipalities remain opposed,” “Village of Barrington President shares perspectives on Pritzker’s BUILD plans,” “(Ignoring public opinion) Pritzker says of BUILD Plan for homes would not cost taxpayers,” “Gov. JB Pritzker’s ambitious housing plan for Illinois: More four-flats, looser rules,” “Pritzker to propose statewide zoning laws to spur homebuilding, limit local control,” “McLaughlin’s press conference video recording regarding Pritzker’s proposed municipal zoning powers grab posted,” “‘It’s just a bad idea’: Suburban officials oppose Pritzker’s plan to reduce local control over residential It’s just zoning”

Read Full Post »

“As a resident of Barrington, IL, I am deeply concerned about the actions of one of our School Board members, Erin Chan Ding, who has admitted to violating School Board policy, using her position for personal gain and political leverage. Her recent activities have raised eyebrows in our community, as it seems she is prioritizing her run for the Democratic candidate for State Representative of the 52nd District over her duties and responsibilities to our children and community. The Board has already voted that she has flagrantly violated School Board policy.

School Board members should exemplify unbiased dedication to the educational needs and welfare of our students. However, it has come to light that this individual is leveraging her role for publicity to further her political career, diverting attention from our District’s educational priorities. Our students deserve leaders who are fully committed to their well-being, not those looking for personal advancement or caught in political machinations.

Evidence of this misuse includes multiple occasions where she solicited petition signatures during school events in violation of Board policies. She was warned by the Board President in July of the violations and her need to adhere to Board policies and she agreed to do so. Despite these admonitions and Chan Ding’s agreement to adhere to policy in July, she’s continued to repeatedly violate policy. The Board voted for remedial training as the consequence for her violations. This is not an acceptable response to her conscious decision to repeatedly violate the very policies she presided over as one of the 2 Board members on the Policy Committee; particularly where Chan Ding was warned by Board President Bradford publicly at the July Board meeting of the violations but continued violations despite the public admonitions.

Chan Ding’s interests align more with her political campaigning ambitions than with School Board responsibilities. Furthermore, decisions made on critical educational issues are now being scrutinized for potential conflicts of interest influenced by her political agenda. This is not the kind of behavior we can afford to permit, as it undermines the trust and integrity essential to governing bodies like our Board of Education.

Removing this member will not only help restore the Board’s focus on its core mission but also sends a clear message that our community will not stand for misconduct or exploitation of elected positions for ulterior motives. It’s crucial that our School Board reflects the best interests of our students and maintains an unwavering commitment to their education and growth.

Join me in calling for the removal of Chan Ding to ensure our Board remains a place for sincere, student-centered service. Let’s protect the integrity of Barrington’s educational system and hold our officials accountable. Sign this petition today to take a stand for our schools and community.”

Read more here.

Related: “New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest,” “Candidate Erin Chan Ding’s opinion on Data Centers,” “Barrington area Democrats condemn Chan Ding mailers,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “School district’s parking plan defies logic,” “Zoning change defies village policy,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…,” “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’,”  “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”

Read Full Post »

$20,000 in Special Interest Funding & Continued Violations of Public Trust

By Better Barrington | @Change.org

Thank you for standing with us as we hold our elected officials accountable. We have a critical update regarding the petition for the resignation of Erin Chan Ding from the Barrington 220 Board of Education.

Despite previous reprimands by the Board of Trustees for “flagrant violations” of school board policy, public records now reveal a deepening web of financial conflicts that directly undermine the neutrality of our district’s leadership.

The newest Schedule A-1 filings for Chan Ding’s political campaign reveal a massive influx of cash from organizations that represent the very interests she is tasked with negotiating against on behalf of taxpayers:

  • $10,000 from the IPACE (Illinois Professional Action Committee for Education). In Barrington D220, the Barrington Education Association (BEA) is the local teachers union. BEA is an affiliate of the Illinois Education Association which operates IPACE as its political arm.
  • $10,000 from the Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504 COPE PAC.
  • Public Endorsements: Her campaign is now openly touting endorsements from the IEA and the Illinois Federation of Teachers—entities representing over 240,000 educators statewide.

Why This Matters: A Breach of Board Policy

District 220 policies are not suggestions; they are the ethical framework that protects our schools from partisan capture. Chan Ding is in direct conflict with:

  • Policy 2:105 (Ethics and Gift Ban): Sets strict standards to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure public trust.
  • Policy 2:80 (Board Member Oath & Conduct): Explicitly mandates that members avoid the appearance of impropriety and refuse to surrender responsibilities to “special interest or partisan political groups.”

In her first Board of Ed campaign, when called out for taking $750 in donations from IPACE, Chan Ding told the Chicago Tribune she would not approve contracts that raise taxes, yet her voting record tells a different story. She has consistently voted for the maximum tax levy every time it has reached the floor.

Accepting $20,000 from unions that negotiate directly with the Board of Ed is not just a “political choice”—it is a disqualifying conflict of interest. A Board Member cannot serve two masters. You cannot be a neutral steward of taxpayer funds while being funded by the organizations seeking those same funds.

We continue to call for the resignation of Erin Chan Ding to restore integrity to the D220 Board.

  1. Share this update: Post this on Facebook, X, and local community groups.
  2. Attend the next Board Meeting: Let your voice be heard during public comment.
  3. Email the Board: Remind them that Policy 2:80 must be enforced, not ignored.

Related: “Candidate Erin Chan Ding’s opinion on Data Centers,” “Barrington area Democrats condemn Chan Ding mailers,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “School district’s parking plan defies logic,” “Zoning change defies village policy,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…,” “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’,”  “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »