Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Save 5 Acres’ Category

Trustee candidates weigh in on Village property taxes

Posted in 2015 Elections, One Barrington Hills, Politics, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Taxes, Village Board on February 24, 2015| 6 Comments »

2015 ElectionsLast month the Daily Herald provided candidates vying for office in all contested suburban races a questionnaire to complete providing their individual positions on a variety of topics, including property taxes, and whether they thought taxes were too high, low or at an appropriate level in their respective communities.

Following, in alphabetical order, are the six Barrington Hills Trustee candidates’ responses to the Daily Herald’s question regarding property taxes:

Brian Cecola:  “I believe that government should operate in the same way that a family or a business does.  Over the last few years most families and businesses have had to pay close attention to revenues and expenses and tighten their belts.  Government entities should as well.  I am a believer that the village government can operate in a more fiscally efficient manner and I have been impressed with the changes established by the new administration under President McLaughlin’s leadership, particularly in the area of reduced legal fees and general administrative expenses.  I am a strong advocate for continued spending controls and will support any agenda items that improve village operations while maintaining or improving the level of services to taxpayers.  I believe current tax levels can be reduced, especially with families needing some tax relief, most importantly when it comes to their property tax bills.  The cost of our village government only makes up about one fifth of the total of our local property tax bill.  If our village can reduce spending and show the school district, library district, fire districts, and townships that smaller government IS possible, perhaps we can establish a new pattern of behavior for all taxing bodies to emulate.”

Bryan Croll:  “In Barrington Hills, property taxes are the main source of revenue, but of the amount homeowners pay in property taxes to the counties, the village itself only receives about 18 percent of the total.  That 18 percent is the area trustees have influence over.  My focus would be to look for areas to trim the budget.  I think there is room to reduce the budget by about 7 percent from $8.4 million to $7.8 million over the next few years by saving on expenses like legal fees and 911 consolidation.  Last year, the first full year under new village leadership, spending came in $448,000 under the $8.4 million budget.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that these savings needed to be added into the 2015 road repair budget because the prior administration consistently underfunded its 10-year road maintenance plan, spent the money elsewhere, and created a backlog of 4.79 miles of road that will cost taxpayers $4 million-$5 million to fix.  This is on top of the regular $1 million the village spends on road repairs every year.  Just clearing that backlog at the same rate of $448,000/year will cost the village over 5 percent of its budget every year for the next 10 years.  The village saved enough money last year to offset one-tenth of this deferred maintenance, but will need to continue to come up with extra money each year for another decade just to catch up, making it more difficult to reduce overall spending and deliver the budget reductions our taxpayers deserve.

Michelle Nagy Maison:  “I think property taxes in Barrington Hills are too high. Local taxes only account for 18 percent of the total bill but the goal is always to increase efficiencies to get taxes lowered for already overburdened taxpayers.  We can achieve this by continuing to work to reduce the village’s spending.”

Patty Meroni:  “Barrington Hills has no sales tax. Property taxes are high.  First, Barrington Hills is in four counties and two school districts, so taxes vary.  The property tax portion that our village government controls is less than 20 percent of a resident’s property tax.  School districts represent about 60 percent of a resident’s property tax bill.  Nevertheless, our property taxes are high and need to be addressed.”

Mary Naumann: “First, we don’t have sales tax.  But property taxes are very high in our village. Unfortunately, the bulk of our property taxes, schools for example, are out of our village government’s control.  However, while the part of our property tax bill controlled by our village government is below 20 percent, I feel we must be willing to trim where we can without detracting from the public services our residents rely on.”

Karen Selman: “There is no sales tax in Barrington Hills.  Property taxes are high in the village.  First, Barrington Hills is in four counties and two school districts, so taxes vary.  The property tax portion that our village government controls is less than 20 percent of a resident’s property tax bill.  School districts represent almost 60 percent of residents’ tax bills.  Nonetheless, our property taxes are high and need to be addressed.”

Read Full Post »

SOS candidates double campaign funds in January

Posted in 2015 Elections, Politics, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Village Board on February 6, 2015| 6 Comments »

SOS 2January proved to be another good month for campaign donations to the SOS Party.  Despite the fact that the party has yet to release a campaign platform, they raked in over $20,000 last month from at least three donors who exceeded the $1,000 threshold requiring reporting.

The three donors named in filings are:

  • Lori Elder – $5,000 on January 10th
  • Paul Loeber – $5,000 on January 31st
  • R. Davis – $10,800 on January 31st

This brings the total reported cash raised by the SOS Party to $41,300 since its formation in December.  However, since donations under $1,000 are only reported quarterly, the sum is likely higher.

The filings for these donations were again submitted by Laura Jacksack, a political and election law attorney.  It seems clear that neither the candidates, nor their committee treasurer or chair want to have anything to do with financial filings.

Considering what Trustees Meroni and Selman went through with the State Board of Elections nearly four years ago (which resulted in two year probation for their former Save 5 Acres committee), this seems prudent.

The committee also released their quarterly expenses for the period ending December 31, 2014, which revealed the name of their website developer.  Rather than using a local resource which created the website for their Save 5 Acres campaign and the “Don’t Change Barrington Hills” site, Meroni, Naumann and Selman opted to use Old Town Media in Ft. Collins, Colorado.

The location of Old Town Media did ring a bell with us, and as it turns out, a former village resident who used to be very politically active in the Riding Club moved to Ft. Collins a few years ago, so perhaps he’s lending a hand.  And, perhaps not so coincidentally, this person’s daughter works for Old Town Media as a Marketing Assistant, as shown in the company’s directory.

Once again, we’ll be keeping readers updated periodically on the two campaign committees leading up to the April 7th elections.  In the meantime, those who wish to review SOS Party filings with the Board of Elections can do so by clicking here.

Read Full Post »

Barrington Hills candidates debate horse-boarding solutions, veto

Posted in 2015 Elections, BH Polo Club, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Elections 2011, Ethics, FRVPC, Horse Boarding, Land Use, LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse boarding amendment, One Barrington Hills, Real Estate, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Village Board, Village Government, Zoning Board on February 4, 2015| 12 Comments »

Barrington Hills officials have spent years trying to come up with a solution to the commercial horse-boarding controversy sparked by a neighbor dispute and an ongoing lawsuit pitting residents against one another.

The village board recently passed a zoning text amendment aimed at resolving the controversy, but the measure was vetoed by Village President Martin McLaughlin, in what’s believed to be the first veto in village history.

The six candidates for three village trustee seats in the April 7 election recently debated the proposed solution, and McLaughlin’s veto, during an endorsement conference with the Daily Herald.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

January 26th Village Board meeting agenda released

Posted in Agendas, Board of Health, Building Department, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Ethics, Heritage and Environs Committee, Horse Boarding, LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse boarding amendment, OMA, Plan Commission, Politics, Public Safety Committee, Road construction, Roads & Bridges Committee, Roads and Bridges, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Taxes, Village Attorney, Village Board, Village Code, Village Government, Well Water Quality, Zoning Board on January 23, 2015| 1 Comment »

The Village has posted the agenda for Monday evening’s Village Board meeting.  Topics for discussion include:

  • 911 Dispatch Consolidation
  • Special Counsel Ordinance
  • Barrington Hills Farms
  • Horse Boarding Amendment President’s Veto Report
  • Appointment Special Counsel

A copy of the agenda can be downloaded here or viewed via the Village Google calendar here.

Read Full Post »

Rosene rebuttal

Posted in BH Polo Club, Commercial Horse Boarding, Common Sense Party, County, HALO, Horse Boarding, Land Use, LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse boarding amendment, Letters to the Editor, McHenry, Politics, Real Estate, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Taxes, Village Code, Zoning Board on January 9, 2015| 10 Comments »

A week ago we published our take on a 2005 document written by John Rosene that was presented to members of the Riding Club after the election of Bob Abboud that same year in an editorial titled, “We’ve Been Clubbed by Commercial Horse Boarding.”  Yesterday Mr. Rosene has shared his perspectives on that piece with us and has requested we publish them.

In his response he states, “By the way, despite its age, I stand by every word in my 2005 document.”   He goes on to berate The Observer on several occasions and complains about the anonymous status of the editors.  To that we can only respond with, “Je suis Charlie.”

Mr. Rosene’s rebuttal piece can be viewed here.

Read Full Post »

Abboud candidates file with elections board

Posted in 2015 Elections, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Ethics, Horse Boarding, Land Use, Lighting Ordinance, Politics, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, SOS Party, Village Board on January 5, 2015| 7 Comments »

Incumbent Trustees Patty Meroni and Karen Selman, along with newcomer Mary Naumann, have wasted no time in their filing with the Illinois State Board of Elections for the April 2015 Village elections.  Their filing occurred on the last day for filing candidate petition packets at Village Hall on December 22nd.

SOS 2Tossing aside the often used “Save 5 Acres” committee moniker, the name chosen for their 2015 committee is the “Save Open Space – Barrington Hills NFP” or “SOS” party as we will refer to them throughout the campaign.  A copy of their SOS committee filing can be viewed here.

Former Village Trustee Steve Knoop is serving as Committee Chairman.  Knoop is no stranger to Village political campaigns, as he played a role in the 2009 campaign to reelect Bob Abboud for a second term, and was involved in the “Dark Sky” fiasco for Barrington Hills leading to the controversial Exterior Lighting Ordinance.  He was also mentioned as a political supporter in the Riding Club (Rosene) white paper, which was the subject of another recent editorial (click here to read).

Leslie Coolidge, who ran unsuccessfully to unseat incumbent Peter Roskam in a 2012 campaign for US Congress, was named as the Treasurer for the SOS party.

Despite Coolidge’s position as committee treasurer, however, the first financial disclosure of campaign donations to the SOS party, filed on January 2nd, was submitted by political and election law attorney Laura Jacksack.  It appears the SOS party is off to a fast start in amassing their political war chest.

According to their first “A-1” filing (seen here), two residents have already donated over $20,000 to the SOS campaign, and they are:

  • Thomas Fitch – $10,500 on December 30, 2014
  • Mike Harrington – $10,000 on December 30, 2014

Some readers may question the donation amounts as they relate to limits, but there’s a simple explanation.  The SOS candidates filed as a “Political Action Committee” and not as a traditional “Candidate Political Committee.”  There’s a distinct difference in campaign contribution limits, essentially doubling one over the other, and those details can be viewed here.

We’ll keep readers updated on all the candidate developments between now and the April 7th, 2015 election.

Read Full Post »

We’ve Been Clubbed by Commercial Horse Boarding

Posted in 2015 Elections, BH Polo Club, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Ethics, FRVPC, Horse Boarding, Land Use, LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse boarding amendment, OP/Ed, Politics, Real Estate, Riding Club Commission, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, Taxes, Village Board, Village Government on January 2, 2015| 15 Comments »

RCBH Logo 2With the passage of the Anderson-LeCompte Amendment allowing horse boarding businesses to expand their operations and proliferate throughout the Village, the Riding Club of Barrington Hills can claim “victory”—but hopefully only a temporary one.  The Riding “Clubbers” (we’ll see why that term in a moment) can celebrate that the goals they established in a 2005 white paper have now come to fruition (a copy of that white paper can be viewed here).

In that white paper written by John Rosene—yes, husband of Karen Rosene on the ZBA, who voted to expand horse boarding businesses— he urged his fellow Clubbers to take “aggressive” action under a “new strategy to ensure and enhance its future.”  The strategy was political.  As Rosene wrote:  “With the election of Bob Abboud to the presidency of the Village Board, along with supportive trustees who include Fritz Gohl” and others, the Clubbers would have important political allies.

Having political allies works.  It was the “supportive” Trustee Fritz Gohl who, with some help, scheduled a special board meeting last month where the Anderson-LeCompte abomination was passed.  And it was a very “special” meeting indeed, conducted with minimal public notice when President McLaughlin could not attend, and with public comment relegated to the end of the meeting, after a vote had occurred.

And, of course, the other trustees who voted for the Anderson-LeCompte Amendment included the three (Messer, Meroni, and Selman) who accepted and then affirmatively concealed campaign contributions from LeCompte, the primary beneficiary of the new law.

Back to the white paper.  The Clubbers’ spokesman Rosene told members in 2005 that those who did not share equestrian interests were not really neighbors, but rather were the enemy.  What was the mission?  Read it in the white paper:  “I believe our mission is to ensure that all new residents of Barrington Hills are, in fact, equestrians.”

And how to accomplish that mission?  Here was Rosene’s violent recommendation:

One approach is to ally ourselves with another “special interest group,” the National Rifle Association, and simply shoot in-coming non-equestrians as they arrive with their moving vans.  This is probably the most cost-effective way to go.

Or we can convert the “heathens.”

We can only hope these remarks were the product of bad judgment in using sarcasm to make a point.  We can be sure, however, that these comments reflect the level of compulsion that those who would make such statements, and publish them, have about the perpetuation of an equestrian lifestyle, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.  “Heathens.”

We may not have been the victims of the physical assault advocated in the Rosene white paper, but our Village was surely “Clubbed” into submission through the passage of the Anderson-LeCompte Amendment, with help from “supportive” Trustee Gohl and the LeCompte-financed Trustees Messer, Selman and Meroni.

Fortunately, we have a timely opportunity to make the Clubbing only temporary with a Trustee Election in April.  We believe it’s time to elect new, unencumbered trustees to restore balance to Barrington Hills governance.

–     The Observer

Read Full Post »

2014 Year in Review

Posted in BH Polo Club, Bicyclists, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Cook, Ethics, Financial Reports, FPDCC, FRVPC, Horizon Farm, Horse Boarding, Land Use, Legal Expenses, Newsletter, OMA, OP/Ed, Politics, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Road construction, Roads & Bridges Committee, Save 5 Acres, Sears, Taxes, Village Board, Village Code, Village Government, Zoning Board on December 31, 2014| 3 Comments »

TopTen2014

The Observer takes a look back at the year gone by and presents our most frequently read news stories and editorials for 2014.  Click on any title to read or revisit stories from this past year.

NEWS STORIES:

Attorney General’s office determines April 2013 Village appointments violated OMA

This story from June reported the Attorney General’s office finding confirming that outgoing Village President Bob Abboud’s appointments made during his last official Village Board meeting in 2013 violated the terms of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

Barrington Hills passes controversial measure on horse boarding

A reporter who attended the December 15th Special Village Board meeting called by Trustees Gohl and Selman provided her perspectives on the meeting as it related to the passing of the Anderson horse boarding amendment in this Chicago Tribune feature article.

Barrington Hills board debates horse boarding plan

One of the Observer’s most read and commented upon stories, this Daily Herald article reported on the September 22nd Board of Trustees meeting where a large crowd of residents in opposition to the Zoning Board’s first version of the Kurt Anderson-authored horse boarding ordinance spoke out.

13-year lawsuit of Sears vs. Barrington Hills, South Barrington settled

For over a decade, Barrington Hills had spent $1.4 million in legal defense costs over a lawsuit filed by Sears.  With no progress in sight, Martin McLaughlin and South Barrington’s Paula McCombie, both newly elected Village Presidents, decided on a different approach and reached out to Sears executives directly instead of using lawyers to obtain a settlement in this suit that could have ultimately cost Barrington Hills taxpayers $15 million in legal fees and damages.

FPDCC discusses plans for Barrington Hills’ Horizon Farms property

In November the Forest Preserve District of Cook County held a second meeting with residents and interested parties to provide an update on their future plans for Horizon Farms and to gather more feedback from attendees regarding how they envisioned uses for the property.  This Chicago Tribune article summarized the meeting.

EDITORIALS:

Here We Go Again. . . . Commercial Horse Boarding Drama Returns 

In our most read editorial of 2014, The Observer suggested that given the irreconcilable conflicts of interest on the Village’s Riding Club-dominated  Zoning Board of Appeals and Board of Trustees, the only way to rationally and fairly tackle the issue of commercial horse boarding would be to create a blue-ribbon panel of objective residents.

Of Bikes and Blame – Part One: The Phantom Menace

This story focused on the underlying issues regarding a proposal to add dedicated bike lanes to Haegers Bend Road in an attempt to gain federal funding for repaving the road which began in 2012.  It also revealed the former Village President’s (The Phantom) participation in hosting a website used by a small anti-bike path group that couldn’t seem to get their stories straight. 

Of Bikes and Blame, Part Two – Peter, Paul and Patty

This editorial followed up on the issue of bike paths and examined the reasons that Roads and Bridges spending in the past ten years, the last 3.5 years under the control of Trustee Patty Meroni, woefully failed to keep pace with the maintenance schedule created years ago, while excess spending on legal fees ballooned. 

Why Barrington Hills must change 

In this feature, the Observer opined on the reasons for the loss of Barrington Hills’ reputation due to in-fighting, fear-mongering and purposeful miscommunication on numerous Village issues and the desperate need for reform. 

What was she thinking? 

Last January we took a look at Trustee Karen Selman’s performance during her tenure as Finance Chair that was inspired by a gaffe she’d written in a Village newsletter in a well-read editorial.

–     The Observer

Read Full Post »

December 15th Special Village Board meeting recordings released

Posted in Animal Welfare, Audio Recordings, BH Polo Club, Board of Health, Commercial Horse Boarding, Conflict of interest, Elections 2011, Ethics, FRVPC, Horse Boarding, Land Use, LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse boarding amendment, News Media, Plan Commission, Politics, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, Village Board, Well Water Quality on December 27, 2014| 4 Comments »

The Village has released recordings from the December 15th special Village Board meeting called by Trustees Fritz Gohl and Karen Selman to approve the Anderson horse boarding text amendment.  A link to the menu of edited recording segments can be accessed here, however readers should note the first thirty or more minutes of the meeting are missing from the recordings.

Clearly by intent, public comment on the amendment was allowed after the six board members present spent nearly two hours providing their perspectives after the reading of the amendment.  We’ve chosen to bookmark the recording segments which correspond to each trustee’s personal comments.  Click on any of the highlighted trustee’s names to listen to their comments.

Karen Selman:  Selman was the first trustee to comment, but her remarks were unrecorded.  She gushed about her appreciation of the Zoning Boards toils and thousands of hours of time devoted to the Anderson amendment, and stated her belief it addressed all the concerns expressed by residents and that it was good for the Village.

Mike Harrington: Despite the meeting recording having started after Trustee Harrington began speaking, the recorded portion of his prepared statement lasted over fifteen minutes.  His reference to the success of Ralph Lauren and his amassing billions of dollars in wealth due to horses and the equestrian lifestyle was curious to say the least, since Lauren has spent a fortune on his most personal passion, his famous collection of extremely rare antique automobiles, not thoroughbred horses.

Patty Meroni:  Meroni stated she believed the Zoning Board did address the concerns of all residents who spoke during hearings with the new Anderson amendment, particularly those living on five-acre parcels.  She went on to state adequate input was considered from residents (and presumably expert testimony) for the amendment, and that it protected residents and is key to preserving five-acre zoning as though horses are the lynchpin keeping Barrington Hills zoned as we are, instead of the minimum zoning established in 1957.

Joe Messer:  Messer began his comments by explaining why the board should only consider the report from the Zoning Board on the Anderson amendment, and not take public comment until after the Village Board’s vote.  He went on to state, “It makes it a lot easier to not have set ourselves up for that situation.”

He went on to state that horse boarding reference(s) are included in our Comprehensive Plan, and that the Anderson amendment supported the plan.  We found no reference to support his claims, only the keeping of horses, not boarding.

Later in the meeting Messer objected to the vote by the Plan Commission, the keepers of the Comprehensive Plan, to review the Anderson boarding amendment during their January 2015 regular meeting.  Perhaps his ignorance of the plan demonstrates why they should have reviewed it prior to a vote by the Village Board.

We encourage readers to listen to all of Messer’s comments.  Keeping in mind that prior to his serving on the Board of Trustees, and as the appointed liaison to the Zoning Board for many years, Messer served on the Plan Commission, it’s staggering how his spin could be believed by residents.

President McLaughlin (His written comments read by Trustee Hannigan):  McLaughlin stated that the calling of the special meeting was unnecessary considering the regular Village Board meeting was scheduled to take place seventy-two hours later on December 18th.  He referenced the advice of counsel that proceeding to pass legislation that might favor one party in an ongoing private lawsuit was not prudent, and that some Village Board members who are on the witness list of the lawsuit, should not be voting on the Anderson amendment due to their conflicts of interests in the matter.

He objected to the public not being allowed to speak prior to the board’s vote, and the Board of Trustees’ lack of acknowledgement or even respect of both the Plan Commission and the Board of Health’s requests that a vote be delayed until both bodies be allowed to review the Anderson amendment.  Further, he wished the board would consider the possible ramifications of a vote related to future legal fees, property taxes and protections of neighbor’s privacy should the amendment be approved.

Following the reading of McLaughlin’s statement, most in the audience applauded to the point that the chair tried to gavel them down twice, but they ceased only when they were satisfied their message of agreement was made clear to the board.  We strongly suggest readers listen to the complete recording for more details of his rational objections to the meeting and vote.

Colleen Konicek Hannigan: Hannigan first referenced her written comments which were provided in advance of the meeting, which can be viewed here.  She went on to object to the denial of the rights of residents to present their comments prior to the vote, citing it was part of the Village Board’s job to listen to the concerns of residents and that it was a “disgrace” that public comment was not allowed for such an important matter.

She went on to correct misleading statements that had been made by Trustees Harrington and Messer which would lead people to believe there will finally be a limit to the number of horses per acre. She explained that the amendment only specified the number of boarded horses, and would not regulate how many personally owned horses would be permitted in addition to boarded horses.

Later, she addressed Meroni’s inappropriate portrayal that large-scale horse boarding operations will protect larger properties from subdivision, considering past trends of subdivision by successive owners or purchasers not wishing to continue boarding, which many have cited as a breakeven or loss proposition.  Nearly unfettered hours of operations, regardless of scale, also were cited by Hannigan as objections to the amendment.

The conclusion of Hannigan’s remarks were also met with applause and gaveled down by Gohl.   General discussion then ensued by all board members, and the link to that discussion, followed by the five to one approval of the Anderson horse boarding amendment, can be heard here.

Fritz Gohl: As we’ve come to expect, Trustee Gohl had some ill-considered comments regarding the Anderson amendment, including his feeling of obligation to “protect the collective community.”  He went on to state the retroactivity of the amendment would protect the Village legally, but had no explanation as to why it would provide protection.  He also shared a conversation he had with a realtor who told him the reason homes weren’t selling in the Village was because of the Riding Club, but Gohl later stated this was a mischaracterization in his opinion.

The Vote:  The two newspapers that published stories about the meeting, and one or two local Facebook pages, misrepresented the vote being four to one.  The actual vote approving the Anderson amendment was five to one with Hannigan being the sole dissenting vote.

Twelve people, most of whom objected to the amendment, then provided their comments to the Board.  As reported in the Chicago Tribune’s article, the tenth speaker was interrupted by an audience member who came to the podium to say “You’re disgusting”, as can be heard here.  (the cacklings heard afterward were those of Trustees Meroni and Selman)

The speaker asked for order, completed his statements without engaging the former president of the Riding Club who had interrupted him, and returned the same sentiment back to him as he returned to his seat.

While we encourage readers to listen to all comments, the twelfth person to speak likely provided the best perspectives.  As a resident since the 1960’s on a large parcel of land, she chronicled her care of horses, both her own, and occasionally to help out HARPS for many years, before she expressed her concern over what the Anderson amendment might do to her neighbors if a commercial boarding operation should take over some day.  Her comments can be heard here.

Read Full Post »

Village board seats up for grabs in Barrington area

Posted in 2015 Elections, Conflict of interest, Ethics, Politics, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Save 5 Acres, Village Board on December 23, 2014| 7 Comments »

No contested races for village president materialized in the Barrington area by the time filing closed at 5 p.m. Friday [should be Monday].  But things will be hopping for the village boards.

In Barrington Hills, six candidates filed paperwork ahead of the Monday deadline. The ballot will feature challengers Mary Naumann, Bryan C. Croll, Michelle Nagy Maison and Brian D. Cecola, as well as incumbents Karen Selman and Patty Meroni.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »