Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

Flock cameras such as the one pictured above have been installed at border entrances/exits of all Barrington Hills roads.

By Sean Reed | The Center Square

Across the country, opposition to license plate cameras created by Flock Safety is mounting. Major cities and small communities alike are deciding to end their contracts with the company – Illinois being no exception.

Cities in Illinois, such as Oak Park and Evanston, have chosen to end contracts with the company, even as police departments have said they’re a useful tool in law enforcement.

In Springfield, aldermen were at odds in recent weeks over an ordinance to renew their contract with Flock for two years, costing taxpayers half a million dollars.

On Tuesday, council passed the measure while allowing for more transparency and regular public reports on the cameras’ effectiveness.

“It’s some simple things, and I’m just asking that to be standard and be given to us on multiple things. Transparency, equitable – making sure that these things are fair – and also reporting back to us so we as a council can, come budget time, look to address these things,” said Alderman Shawn Gregory.

Gregory was opposed to renewing the contract, but he said he was able to draft a plan for transparency based on guidance from organizations like the ACLU.

The council negotiated changes with the police department during the meeting, and passed it with two members opposed to any stipulations.

In contrast, the Madison, Wisconsin, area recently ended their partnership with Flock over data privacy risks and outside access.

Article continues here.

Editorial note: CNET published an excellent article last month titled, “When Flock Surveillance Comes to Your Town: Everything to Know About These Cameras.”

Read Full Post »

The indictment of state Rep. Carol Ammons is a reminder that Illinois still relies on the honor system in conflicts of interest.

By Joe Tabor | Illinois Policy Institute

The federal indictment this week of a state representative is a reminder that Illinois lawmakers are on the honor system when it comes to conflicts of interest.

Rep. Carol Ammons was indicted July 7 on charges of wire fraud, making false statements to a federal investigator and obstruction of justice in an alleged apparent scheme to divert state grant money to herself and her daughter.

Key to the case is the alleged conflict of interest of Ammons aiding in arranging appropriations for state grants to go to Hood Votes Neighborhood Transformation, where her daughter was program director.

Voting for appropriations that will go to pay a close family member is a clear conflict of interest, but in Illinois, lawmakers are on the honor system there. State law reads:

When a legislator must take official action on a legislative matter as to which he has a conflict situation created by a personal, family, or client legislative interest, he should consider the possibility of eliminating the interest creating the conflict situation. If that is not feasible, he should consider the possibility of abstaining from such official action. (Emphasis added.)

Most states require lawmakers to disclose any conflict of interest before a vote, to recuse themselves from voting on any legislation where they have a conflict of interest, or both.

In those states, lawmakers who violate the requirements can face stiff civil and criminal penalties.

With such a recusal provision in place, Ammons’ alleged corruption might have been caught earlier.

Report continues here.

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 »

“The Barrington Hills Police Department would like to inform you that a Permit for a professional Fireworks Display has been issued for July 4th starting at 9:30pm at Barrington High School. Please remember that it is illegal to use or explode unpermitted fireworks. Please celebrate this Holiday safely. Thank you Thank you, Village of Barrington Hills.”

Sent via email a second time 24 hours after the first. Apparently they are trying to avoid as many complaints as they can.

Read Full Post »

“The Barrington Hills Police Department would like to inform you that a Permit for a professional Fireworks Display has been issued for July 4th starting at 9:30pm at Barrington High School. Please remember that it is illegal to use or explode unpermitted fireworks. Please celebrate this Holiday safely. Thank you Thank you, Village of Barrington Hills.”

Sent via email.

Read Full Post »

 

At their special meeting Monday, the 220 Board of Education voted on approving the, “Written Decision Regarding Uniform Grievance Procedure Complaint Concerning a Board Member,” and the, “Public Release of the June 10, 2026, Uniform Grievance Procedure Investigation Report and Findings.” Here’s how that went:

Ficke-Bradford: The next motion, I’d like to invite Aris Talianas, the Board attorney, to come to the table in case the Board has any questions.

And I just want to do a little preamble on this one just to make sure it’s very clear.

After the receipt of a Complaint regarding alleged violations of Board Policy, an outside investigator was appointed to investigate the Complaint and the investigator issued a written report pursuant to the Board’s Uniform Grievance Procedure. The outside investigator’s report includes recommended findings that Board Member Ding violated Board Policy 2:80 relating to the Board Member Code of Conduct concerning the appearance of impropriety and the use of social media. According to the Board’s Uniform Grievance Procedure, the Board is required to issue a written decision following the issuance of the investigator’s report reaching its own conclusions, the Board’s own conclusions. Therefore, I am requesting a motion to approve the Board’s decision on the Complaint filed against Board Member Ding consistent with the following, and Board Members, you have a copy of this in front of you. I’m going to read through the bullets:

  • Accepting the investigator’s findings that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Ding violated Board Policy 2:80 when she decided not to recuse herself from the vote on the first complaint that was created, that created the appearance of impropriety.
  • Accepting the investigator’s findings that there is significant evidence to prove that Ding violated Board Policy 2:80 when she allowed certain social media posts to remain on her active campaign website.
  • Accepting the investigator’s findings that there is not evidence to conclude that Ding violated Board Policy or law based on her receipt of campaign contributions from labor and or education groups, including those affiliated with the Barrington Education Association. However, the Board expects Ding to consider recusing herself from Board deliberations and action on substantive decisions related to Barrington Education Association and Barrington School Employee’s Organization collective bargaining agreements.
  • The Board directs Ding to remove from her campaign website any references to District achievements and expects Ding to decline to vote on any matter coming before the Board, which is likely to create the appearance of impropriety.
  • The Board considers it is appropriate that Ding reimburse the District for the cost of investigating and adjudicating this second Complaint alleging violations of Board Policy, especially given that the Complaint largely involves Ding’s failure to follow the direction and training from the first complaint. In lieu of reimbursement, the Board requests Ding write a letter of apology and seek IASB or District approved ethics counseling on their own time and at their own expense.

Do I have such a motion?

Collister-Lazari: So moved.

Srivastava: Second.

Ficke Bradford: All right. Any questions or comments from the Board?

All right, let’s do roll call.

Steve Wang? Yes.

Sandra Bradford? Yes.

Harathi Srivastava? Yes.

Diana Clopton? Yes.

Leah Collister Lazari? Yes.

Ficke Bradford: All right, motion passes. The next motion. Do we have a motion to approve the public release of the June 10, 2026, Uniform Grievance Procedure Investigation Report and finding?

Collister Lazari:  So moved.

Clopton: Second.

Ficke Bradford: All right, so just to be very clear, this is the official report that we just took the former action on. So we… It’s marked as confidential. So the Board must take an action to waive that confidentiality. So that is what we are doing with this action. Any questions from the Board?

All right, let’s do a roll call, please.

Harathi Srivastava? Yes.

Sandra Bradford? Yes.

Steve Wang? Yes.

Leah Collister Lazari? Yes.

Diana Clapton? Yes.”

To view to the YouTube video queued to the start of the discussion, click here.

A copy of the June 10, 2026, Uniform Grievance Procedure Investigation Report and Finding can be viewed and downloaded here.

Related:CUSD 220 Board of Education public comments we applaud,” “Special District 220 Board of Education meeting Monday,” “Over $100,000 in Special Interest Funding gifted to 220 Board member’s campaign in failed bid for State Rep job,” “New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency

AND

Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’

Read Full Post »

By Eric Peterson | Daily Herald

A request to the Illinois Attorney General for a review of alleged Open Meetings Act violations is among the artillery being used by opponents of a potential rezoning of 186 acres in Hoffman Estates for a possible data center.

Barrington Hills resident Amanda Pollard filed the request Monday, asking that any finding of a violation be used to challenge the village board’s possible rezoning of the northwest corner of Higgins Road and Route 72 to manufacturing use at Monday’s board meeting.

She cited documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act as proof plans for a data center are more specific than the landowner or village officials have said aloud.

Pollard was particularly suspicious of requests for meetings with trustees or the mayor in correspondence between landowner Karis Critical and village staff.

Village Manager Eric Palm said the documents don’t chronicle potential Open Meetings Act violations and Mayor Bill McLeod said none have occurred.

Hoffman Estates officials are considering a proposal to rezone the 186-acre Plum Farms property at the northwest corner of routes 59 and 72 to manufacturing use, potentially enabling development of a data center. This view looks north along Old Sutton Road, just north of Higgins Road. | Joe Lewnard/jlewnard@dailyherald.com, 2019

“No, we don’t do that,” McLeod added. “That doesn’t happen.”

At the June 3 plan commission meeting, attorney Matt Norton representing Karis characterized the rezoning request as simply a way to boost the Plum Farms site’s marketing potential for various industrial uses.

But a May 19 email from Hoffman Estates Director of Development Services Jennifer Horn to Karis officials speaks of a less generalized goal.

Article continues here.

Related:Proposed data center in Hoffman Estates sparks resident outrage,” “HOFFMAN ESTATES NOTICE OF (PLUM FARMS) PUBLIC HEARING JULY 6,” “‘Wrong project, wrong place’: Critics push back on rezoning plan for potential Hoffman Estates data center,” “Change.org Petition: ‘Deny Rezoning of Plum Farms In Hoffman Estates’,” “South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie shares an update on Hoffman Estates/Plum Farms Plan Commission meeting,” “Hoffman Estates plan commission rejects rezoning request for possible data center,” “Hoffman Estates Plan Commission rejects zoning change for new data center project,” “Hoffman Estates Plum Farm June 3rd Plan Commission Meeting Essentials,” “After being rejected in Naperville, company could build data center in Hoffman Estates,” “South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie posts information regarding June 3 Hoffman Estates (Plum Farms) Plan Commission meeting,” “(Plum Farms) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 3,” “Hoffman Estates could see third data center campus with sale of Plum Farms property,” “Hoffman Estates approves sewer, water for development of 185 acres west of The Arboretum,” “Hoffman Estates approves tax incentive at routes 59, 72,” “District 220 lawsuit against Hoffman Estates, Plum Farms developers dismissed,” “South Barrington residents sue over Hoffman Estates development,” “Editorial: Listen to agencies that would feel consequences of Hoffman Estates development

Read Full Post »

 

Erin Chan Ding

Monday morning at 7:30 AM, the District 220 Board met at a special agreed upon time to address the ongoing issues relating to current board member, Erin Chan Ding. Here is a transcribed portion of the discussion, which included blunt comments from a former CUSD 220 board member:

“Ficke-Bradford:  And as I also mentioned at our last Board meeting, we needed to have another meeting, which is why we’re here today. We need to have this meeting to address a few  Board action items. We did plan this date and this time around the availability of Erin Chan Ding that Erin did provide to me when she would be available. Unfortunately, Dr. Altshuler was not available at this, at this time. And, unfortunately, yesterday, just after 4pm, Erin Chan Ding communicated that she would not be in attendance today.

I just want to make sure it’s clear to the community that we did plan. We’re not trying to have any action items without Erin Chan Ding being present. And last, for my little Be Real segment, I just want to remind the Board and community that on November 18, the Board of Education issued its written decision on a Complaint directed at the Board Member Erin Chan Ding, alleging violations of Board Policy. And at its decision, Ms. Ding completed training on policy 2:105 on Ethics and Gift Ban in early December.

Today, the Board will consider a second written decision. To be clear and to remind the community, per school code, the Board does not have the authority to remove Ms. Ding from the Board. Only the Lake County Regional Superintendent has such authority.

And Eric, since you’re here, you can affirm that as well, right?

Attorney: That is accurate. Yes.

Ficke Bradford: So I just wanted to make sure that everyone was well.
OK. So with that, let us move on to public comment.  I think we have one public commenter.

Public Comment – Angela Wilcox:  It’s not as fun sitting over here. I am so sorry I have to do this.

The first affirmation in the Illinois School Board Member Swearing an Oath is “I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets.”  Erin’s actions on this Board have repeatedly violated this oath to the community and have also forced all of you other Members to have to violate it as well.

I listened to the first complaint against her actions on this Board and her prepared response, which wasn’t truthful as to her true actions and wasn’t accurate as to her actions moving forward. She said that she didn’t understand she was violating policy.

However, I sat in the exact room where that policy was written with her for countless hours, looking at every word over and over. She said that she would take every action not to violate policies in the future. Yet I see on the agenda there’s yet another complaint that’s been filed against her.

I’m angry, and this is a time for you to be angry as well. Your time has been wasted over and over and over again. You took a duty to this community and you were forced to have to spend it doing something completely outside of what your duty is.  I can’t imagine the amount of time that you have wasted in responding to emails, internal discussions and community responses at the grocery store regarding the violations of Board policies by a Board Member that you cannot control.

She has abused the 220 staff, especially Dr. Winkleman, by forcing them to add the defense of her political ambitions to their job descriptions on top of their actual job descriptions.

She has not respected taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the School District’s assets, but has used the lawyers employed by 220 as her own personal representatives to fulfill her political aspirations.

The last time she was confronted with this complaint, she received a dressing down and a response. But now it’s time to take firm action. I understand that you as a Board cannot remove her, but I ask that you do whatever you can to make sure that you…

Whatever it can be so that you don’t have to continue dealing with this in the future.

I feel bad for you. And I wish that there was something that this community could do to support you more. However, you do need to list the amount of money that taxpayers have had to pay to outside counsel to defend Erin’s political aspirations beyond 220. And there also needs to be a way to establish a means for this money to be re-paid to the public. I know there is no way to account for the amount of lost revenue and wages that you’ve had to spend internally and as you have as a Board. But to the extent that it can be quantified, I ask that you publish this because it is something that we should know as taxpayers.

Thank you.

Ficke Bradford: Thank you, Angela.”

And we thank you for your continued dedication to District 220, Angela.

To listen to the YouTube recording queued to the start of Ficke-Bradford’s comments, click here.

Related:Special District 220 Board of Education meeting Monday,” “Over $100,000 in Special Interest Funding gifted to 220 Board member’s campaign in failed bid for State Rep job,” “New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency

AND

Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’

Read Full Post »

The Village Board of Trustees will be conducting their regular monthly meeting this evening beginning at 6:30 PM. Topics on their agenda include:

A copy of their agenda, including info on listening to the meeting, can be viewed and downloaded here.

*Ironically (and moronically), just six months ago President Cecola invited an unannounced guest to present their ideas on a 110-acre data center proposal adjacent to Pond Gate Farms that would have necessitated rezoning that acreage to Light Industrial in Barrington Hills at his December board meeting.

Read Full Post »

The District 220 Board of Education meets Monday at 7:30 AM at the District Administration Center, 515 W. Main Street. Items on their agenda include:

  • Personnel Report
  • Consideration to Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Reciprocal Reporting Between the Village of Barrington and Barrington CUSD 220
  • Consideration to Approve School Resource Officer Agreement Between the Village of Barrington and Barrington CUSD 220
  • Consideration to Approve of Written Decision Regarding Uniform Grievance Procedure Complaint Concerning a Board Member
  • Consideration to Approve the Public Release of the June 10, 2026, Uniform Grievance Procedure Investigation Report and Findings

A copy of the agenda can be viewed here. The meeting will be live streamed on the district YouTube channel.

Related:Over $100,000 in Special Interest Funding gifted to 220 Board member’s campaign in failed bid for State Rep job,” “New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »