Cool for School Board | J. Sterling Morton HS District 201 Candidate Filings

[berwynista]

Incumbent Board Member Michael Iniquez is not seeking re-election. Two incumbent board members are seeking re-election: Board President and Cicero resident Jeff Pesek and Board Member and Berwyn resident Mark Kraft.

According to the candidate filings on the Cook County Board of Election website http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/candidatefiling/Pages/default.aspx, nine candidates, including two incumbents will be running for three open seats on the J. Sterling Morton High Scholl District 201 board. Three of the nine candidates are running for one two-year term seat. Six of nine candidates are running for two four-year term seats. See below for list of candidates according to length of term sought, their town or city of residence, and incumbent status.

Candidates seeking one two-year term seat are as follows:
1. Vincent La Paglia, Berwyn
2. Rita Maniotis, Berwyn
3. Sandra Tomschin, Berwyn

Candidates seeking two four-year term seats are as follows:
1. Jill M. Alexander, Berwyn
2. Mark Kraft, Berwyn (Incumbent)
3. Lido Manetti, Jr, Cicero
4. Jeffry Pesek, Cicero (Incumbent(
5. Shelley Picha, Berwyn
6. Cathleen "Catie" Sullivan, Berwyn

[berwynista]

Errata:
Sandra Tomschin's city of residence was incorrectly identified as Berwyn. Ms. Tomschin is a resident of the Town of Cicero.

[Ted]

It should also be noted that Vince LaPaglia currently sits on the D201 school board.  He was appointed to replace Joe Keating.

[Ted]

The candidacies of Catie Sullivan, Jill Alexander, Shelley Picha and Rita Maniotis have been challenged by Angela Almaguer, Tom Tomschin and Mike Benda:

SD 12  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 12  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 13  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 13  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 14  SD 201, Board Member Cathleen "Catie" Sullivan (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 14  SD 201, Board Member Cathleen "Catie" Sullivan (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 15  SD 201, Board Member Rita Maniotis (Non) Tom Tomschin
SD 77  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Mike Benda     
SD 78  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Mike Benda

  http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/electoralboard/Pages/default.aspx

[Ted]

  The hearings for District 201 objections today were just to set dates for motions to strike, response to motion to strike, reply to response to motion to strike, records examination, subpoena requests and then the actual hearing. It sounded like the attorney for Benda (the objector who accused Jill Alexander of perjury) is going to subpoena witnesses. The dates are: Motion to Strike due by 5 PM on January 8; Response to Motion to Strike by 5 PM on January 9; Reply to response to Motion to Strike is January 10; Records examination for one Benda objection is January 14 at 9:15 AM and records examination for the other Benda objection is January 14 at 1:15 PM; Benda attorney (Adam Lasker) stated that he will submit in writing requests for subpoena of witnesses; Actual hearing for Benda objections will be on January 15 at 11 AM for one objection and at 10:30 AM on January 15 for the other objection.

For the Tomshin objections, the date for the motion to strike is 5 PM on January 9; response to Motion to Strike is January 10; reply to response to Motion to Strike is January 11; Hearing is January 15 at 1:30 PM for the first objection; I did not get the dates for the 2 other objections because the D100 hearing was going on at the same time but I am guessing the motions and responses are the same dates and the hearings will be on January 15 in the afternoon. It looks like the hearing officer Meehan will be spending most of the day on January 15 hearing the D201 objections against the WWIT slate.

For the objections to Rita Maniotis, the same attorney for the Benda objections was used for the objections to Rita (attorney Adam Lasker). Motion to Strike is due by January 10 at 5 PM; response to Motion to Strike is January 11 at 5 PM; Reply to response to Motion to Strike is January 12 at 5 PM; Rita's hearing will be on January 13 at 3 PM; Same hearing officer (Meehan)

[chandasz]

Not the first time those names have shown up.... http://www.townofciceroillinois.com/p/lawsuits.html

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

The candidacies of Catie Sullivan, Jill Alexander, Shelley Picha and Rita Maniotis have been challenged by Angela Almaguer, Tom Tomschin and Mike Benda:

SD 12  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 12  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 13  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 13  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 14  SD 201, Board Member Cathleen "Catie" Sullivan (Non) Tom M. Tomschin     
SD 14  SD 201, Board Member Cathleen "Catie" Sullivan (Non) Angela Almaguer     
SD 15  SD 201, Board Member Rita Maniotis (Non) Tom Tomschin
SD 77  SD 201, Board Member Shelley Picha (Non) Mike Benda     
SD 78  SD 201, Board Member Jill M. Alexander (Non) Mike Benda

  http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/electoralboard/Pages/default.aspx

What are the reasons they were challenged? 

[Ted]

What are the reasons they were challenged?

  The usual crap - petition signatures, technicalities on filling out forms correctly, missing address line on Statement of Economic Interest (which is not on the form on the Cook County site).

  The most interesting ones are these:

1. On her Statement of Economic Interest, Elizabeth put "School District 100" as the office rather than "South Berwyn School District 100". Berwyn Park Board member Frank Amaro is challenging her candidacy because she did not put "South Berwyn" in the office on the Statement of Economic Interest.  FYI, there is only one School District 100 in Cook County.

2. Michael Benda is accusing D201 candidate Jill Alexander of perjury, saying that she did not sign her documents in front of the notary that stamped the documents.

[Ted]

 Here is an update on the Benda objections to the candidacies of Jill Alexander and Shelley Picha. The hearings were this morning starting at 10:30 and just concluded.  Mary Meehan was the hearing officer. Adam Lasker represented the objector, Michal Benda.  Abby Bakos represented the candidates - Jill Alexander and Shelley Picha.

  In his objections, Benda had accused Jill Alexander of perjury.  Benda also claimed bad signatures, incorrectly noratized statements and pages that were not circulated by the person who was identified as the circulator.

  Benda's attorney withdrew his objections to Jill Alexander.

  Benda's attorney asked for more time to investigate their objections to Shelley Picha. Benda's attorney is claiming that 11 sheets are incorrect due to a false notarization or a falsification by the circulator.

  Picha's attorney characterized the request as being on a  "fishing expedition" and that the evidence should have already been in the objection.  Benda's attorney stated that the objection required only a "lax pleading level" and that it was allowed to continue investigating.

  The hearing officer Meehan denied the Picha motion to strike.  Benda's attorney is going to subpoena two circulators and one notary. He may also subpoena people who were alleged to have signed the petition.

  Request for subpoenae is due by January 19. Objection to subpoenae is due January 20. Reply to objection is due January 21. Subpoenae will be issued after that.

  Hearing date for questioning subpoenaed witnesses will be on Tuesday, January 27 at 9:30 AM.

  One other interesting fact - this is the first request for subpoenae from any of the objections filed with the Cook County Clerk and this will be the first hearing of this type under the new law where the Cook County Clerk handles school board elections.

[Ted]

Here is a summary of the hearings today against the candidacies of Jill Alexander, Shelley Picha and Catie Sullivan on the Tomschin objections. The hearing was to hear arguments on a Motion to Strike by the candidates' attorney.


Tomschin had two objections to the petitions of Alexander, Picha and Sullivan.  First, the Statement of Economic Interest did not have an address on it. This is the same objection made to the candidacy of Elizabeth Jimenez in the District 100 school board race.  Second, that the candidates did not identify on the Statement of Candidacy on whether they were running for the two year seat or the four year seat. Tom Tomschin is a Cicero Town employee who currently sits on the Cicero District 99 School Board.  His wife is running for the two year for Morton District 201.

The hearing officer was Mary Meehan. James Nally represented Tomschin. Brendan Schiller represented Alexander, Picha and Sullivan.

On the issue of having no address on the Statement of Economic Interest statement, the same arguments (both for and against) were made in this case as was made in the Amaro objection to Elizabeth Jimenez.   The Statement of Economic Interest form on the Cook County Clerk website does not contain a line for the address even though state law requires an address be specified on the form.

Nally argued (as Erdman argued in the Amaro objection) that state law requires an address on the Statement of Economic Interest; that no address was on the Statement of Economic Interest documents submitted by the candidates; that since no address was on the document, the document was not properly "received" by the Cook County Clerk. Nally argued that there was not "substantial compliance" with state law because the address was missing.

Nally also argued that it is up to the candidates to consult a lawyer to ensure the documents they submit to the clerk are lawful. Nally stated that candidates should not rely on the Cook County clerk site for legal advice. Nally stated he was able to obtain Statement of Economic Interest documents which had an address on it.


Schiller argued that there was substantial compliance with the Statement of Economic Interest; Schiller argued that the documents submitted did have addresses on them on certain lines when answering questions (to which Nally replied that those addresses were business addresses such as Argo High School, not the mailing address required by law); that case law on this matter indicates that an incorrectly filled out Statement of Economic Interest does not warrant removal from the ballot and that the Cook County Clerk was the "Public Authority" that should be relied on to provide the correct form.

Schiller also responded to Nally's assertion that his clients were able to file correct documents  and that his clients had consulted attorneys before submisstion by responding that not all people can afford to hire a lawyer to review their documents before submission and that candidates should be able to rely on the Cook County Clerk.

 
  The hearing officer, Meehan, questioned Nally on his assertion that the candidates should be removed from the ballot.  She had the text of the law in front of her when she was questioning Nally and she asked the same question to Nally over and over again - "Why is lack of address a fatal flaw?"  She said she was looking at the text of the law and she did not see where it would indicate lack of an address was a "fatal flaw" in that text. Nally responded that, because there was no address, there was "no receipt" by the Cook County Clerk (since a receipt would require a name, an address and the office being sought) and lack of the address meant the Cook County Clerk was not in "receipt" of the document.  Nally stated that if there were two people with the same name running for the same office, the clerk would not be able to tie the Statement of Economic Interest to one or the other candidate because there was no address.  Nally also stated the Statement of Economic Interest can be filed separately from the Statement of Candidacy so the address on the Statement of Candidacy cannot be relied upon.

  The hearing officer, Meehan, then kept asking over and over again - "Why is that a fatal flaw?" and kept saying over and over again "I don't see this in the text of the law".


  The second issue was that the candidates did not indicate in the office sought on their Statement of Candidacy on whether they were running for the 4 year seat or the 2-year seat.

  Nally stated that if there were only 4 year seats up for election, then there would be no confusion under the law.  Nally further stated that this year in District 201, there is both a two year seat up for election as well as 4-year seats and therefore there could be confusion amongst the voters as to whether candidates are running for the 4-year seat or the 2-year seat.  Nally acknowledged that the petitions themselves stated whether the candidate was running for the 4 year seat or 2 year seat, but Nally contended that that was the signers of the petition saying what office they want the candidate to seek. The candidate himself or herself has to specify what seat they want on the Statement of Candidacy.  Nally also acknowledged that Sullivan had circled that she was seeking a full term seat but argued that the 3 candidates had to specify 2 year seat or 4 year seat in the verbage of the office sought on the Statement of Candidacy.

  Schiller argued that there could not be any confusion amongst the voters as to whether the candidates were seeking the 2-year seat or the 4-year seat because that was specified in the text of the petitions that were signed by voters.

  Meehan ended the hearing by stating she would take the arguments under consideration and send her report to both lawyers.
 

[Ted]

Great to hear! What about the others? Thanks for being so on this- Ted

  Here is an update on the D201 objections:

1. Benda objections against Jill Alexander and Shelley Picha - OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN.  Benda lawyer, Adam Lasker, seemed to believe that Benda would not be successful in getting the number of valid signatures below 50.

2. Tomschin objections against Catie Sullivan, Jill Alexander and Shelley Picha - Decision is pending. Decision is expected this week.  Objections were twofold - No address on the Statement of Economic Interest form and that the candidates did not specify on the Statement of Candidacy whether they were running for the 4-year seat or the 2-year seat.

3. Tomschin objection against Rita Maniotis - Second hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, January 22 at 11:30 AM at which time a recommendation is expected.  Tomschin filed a single objection - that Rita filed the "state" version of the Statement of Economic Interest rather than the "local" version of the Statement of Economic Interest.  There is slightly different wording in questions 1 and 6 between the two versions involving scope of geography.

[Ted]

  Today, the Cook County Electoral Board voted to overrule the objections of Tom Tomschin against the candidacies of Jill Alexander, Shelley Picha and Catie Sullivan who are running for a seat on the District 201 High School board..  Tomschin has 5 days to appeal the ruling.  If it is not appealed, Alexander, Picha and Sullivan will be on the ballot in the April election.

  The only candidate removed from the ballot was Rita Maniotis, who was running for the 2-year seat on the District 201 High School Board.