This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
Sunday, February 09, 2014
La Salle County States Atty Office to Peru ....No Criminal Intent and We Will Do Nothing
53 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It's a very slippery slope when an official arbitrarily decides to compensate outside the standard rules for disbursing public funds. Lack of criminal intent is only one criteria, and it is surprising both me and several colleagues that this is stressed so early and often.
Ignorance of the law is rarely a valid defense in fraud or malfeasance cases, though it effects sentencing. And the strange acceptance of the amount being reasonable for added responsibilities, when there was a council ready and able to vote in public on what fair compensation might be, seems unusual as well.
If stating commentary on these matters lies outside the scope of the ithe office, why comment that you agree that judge is qualified to determine scope of duties and reasonable compensation? Why not reply that your office prosecutes when police make a case and leave it at that?
A judge is not an investigator, they are lawyers who try to makedecisions and interpret the law based on evidence, testimony and argument
The judge seems to circumvent a trial and simply make a judgment, and then send it to a prosecuting attorney to see if they agree? Of course a prosecuting attorney is gonna look at this and say come back when you have a case we can win.
This matter seems to fall more and more into the realm of council official sanction, where the body basically verbally flogs the member and makes the reprimand a part of public record. Then the body takes action to make sure the matter never happens again and in the case of malfeasance hires an independent auditor to review disbursements to see if there is a larger problem.
By approaching a retired judge who has local ties, you got an opinion instead of a verdict, with the illusion of justice without all the nasty perjury or obstruction risks from those interviewed. It was a slick passing of the buck, and you will hear people say it was nothing and the mayor wrongly accused, when in fact the report says just the opposite. What is really said is that it was wrong, my friend made a mistake, but I think he was sincere aNd thought he could do this, and given the circumstances I did not think it was really bad or criminal, and if it was it would not have a chance in court.
As Mr Perez suggested, an independent investigation should have been conducted, and the Mayor should have tendered resignation for the council to accept or not pending results.
Mayor Harl has lost the public trust of the citizens of this town. Yes he should have either resigned or took a leave of absence. We could function fine without him as we see now Ald. Potthoff is basically conducting the council meetings and doing a good job.
To have lost the public trust when you are an elected official means you are no longer relevant even though you may retain your position because of either party or political connections.
Mr Stika should learn the difference between "counsel" and "council". One is an attorney. The other is a collection of self-serving brats. So, does this mean we, the City, will NOT be reimbursed to the tune of $35,000.00 ?
I was not supporting the march referendum before but now the lack of action by some alderman shows the failure to represent the citizens of Peru.
If this was a manager at a company did this and he had paid employees like this he would be terminated in a second but since he is a mayor he stays in the job.
Alderman, since most of you continue to dig your own graves and for this household it's 5 votes for the referendum as a YES you have failed us and now the referendum isn't an issue of representation on the numbers but a referendum on your job!
Very well stated 10:16 PM. Your observation is spot on. I told you people from the very beginning how this would play out and that's exactly what happened. As 10:16 points out. This matter has still "NOT" been investigated by an actual investigating agency. Furthermore, as 10:16 also points out, the spineless aldermen with the exception of Rodney Perez have effectively washed their hands of the matter. Therefore, the mayor has successfully circumvented the Wage Ordinance and the authority of the entire City Council and in turn the City Council has successfully circumvented the Justice system in this matter and allowed the mayor to slither away. With the exception of Rodney Perez, this Peru Administration and City Council has failed to protect its citizens from wrongdoing and is in fact an absolute disgrace. Approximately $34,000 was fraudulently misappropriated and or mismanaged and nobody will be held accountable in any way, shape, or form.
10:16 nice post! Is anybody surprised at this outcome?
Now I think the public should demand to know the circumstances of how a dump truck went "missing". I think the insurance company might be interested in investigating insurance fraud. There is a cover up with this story and somebody knows the truth.
Most importantly this Balestri is not a judge any more!! He's a paid citizen hired to give his opinion!! Any judge in office would see this as criminal!!
Does this result surprise anyone??? I guess it's okay for the mayor to give our money away whenever he feels justified to do so and even though no one is doing anything to earn it. And apparently our council (with the exception of alderman Perez) doesn't care that the mayor isn't following prodigal. These people are supposed to be protecting our money and using it wisely and agreeing on how it is to be used. In essence they have okayed the mayor passing the buck under the table. And, if it's not wrong, why has it been stopped or has it??
10:16 your attempt to place yourself as a legal analyst is quite a stretch. A verdict is a formal finding of fact from a jury or judge, a investigation must be held prior to a verdict. The facts of the case is what is typically is disputed, the intent is what generally determines the judgement.
The Office of the State's Attorney determines if a case will be presented or not.
Our judicial system is corrupt. How can a 17 year old drive intoxicated and kill 4 people and get one year probation(his family had money)? How can a 21 year old get pulled over and get a ticket for driving while intoxicated and ends up losing license for one year and pays court fees(no prior record).Then another person gets pulled over, gets a driving while intoxicated ticket(3rd one in 10 years) and doesn't lose their license! It's who you know, who your counsel knows, who has money and who doesn't. The law should pertain to each person the same no matter what social class a person is in.
Anon 10:16 who's case are you referring to? If this was the opinion of a law enforcement agency then ok but Balestri is a citizen who was hired to investigate. Not much merit there when he has no legal authority according to the law and constitution of the state. There is to much doubt here. I do know Balestri and Harls Atty. are close affiliates. I would have to say they are all close including the states attorney.
All have to remember would you expect Brian Townes to prosecute a fellow democrat and also campaign donor that would be political suicide remember this is about who you are and who you donate money too it's really as simple as that
States attorney office is a joke as much as Boss Harl and his cronies!! This is a job for someone outside the area. Someone not in Boss Harl's pocket! The Illinois valley sucks!
THIS IS THE ANSWER THAT MOST OF US EXPECED I THINK . GOOD FOR YOU HARL . FROM ONE CROOKED MAYOR TO AN STATES ATT. WHO DOESN'T WANT TOO GET INVOLVED I GUESS . WHAT A POOR STATE OF AFFIARS ILL. HAS BECOME .
There was criminal intent. The questions did not go deep enough nor was the timeline put together.People were taken at their word. There is an explanation of why this ghost payroll happened, separate from why the procedure to investigate was handled the way it was.
Justin, enlarge explanation please. I know there is politics and there are politicians but how would you separate the two when it comes to money? Peru officials created a conundrum in the councils pay. A politician in office cannot increase his pay until current term is over so Perus council change from pay/meeting to a monthly salary and since has reduced the number of meetings/month from every week down to the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month. Many ways to approach the WANTS/NEEDS THEORY!
If the States Attorneys Office has no investigative authority why does it have a grand jury? The retired judges investigation had no power, in fact if you did not want to speak to him you did not have to. The system has failed if there is gray matter between guilty and not guilty and the citizen will be harmed by this failure. One of the answers to the political groups abilities to outwitting the system would be term limitations.
10:10 other than insulting me by saying I was trying to say I was presenting myself as a legal analyst, I do not understand your post?
What you said did not counter my opinion. It was tangential at best? I stated that the maneuver was to go to a judge who based on his relationship should have recused himself , then have him render an opinion, then present that opinion with the results of his "investigation" to the prosecuting states attorney. is bass ackwards.
You take the malfeasance/ and or mismanagement independently investigate it, dig dig and dig , then present the finding to both the police and the council. From there the decision is made to request the state attorney prosecute if there is a strong case with evidence of malfeasance, which, if the judge really got everyone to tell the truth and looked long and hard at months or years of records, I would agree there was little chance of proving intent for a strong criminal case of misappropriation.
Then the council would need to step up and decide what internal sanctions or disciplines could be given, then act strongly on it.
If in fact the majority , upon review of the facts, thought they would have approved of the actions had they known about them at the time, then you would get what we have right now. Nothing.
But this act of going directly to the "judge" to get the opinion, which is passed off as a VERDICT of not guilty to the public, courtesy of the news Trib is what I find disgusting. It's a way of being guilty, caught with your hands in the cookie jar, neededing to make it LOOK like its being handled all right and proper, while the rush to judgement is already in the can. Point set match, Boss Harl.
6:00 p.m. In my opinion, anyone running for office shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from outside parties. This divulges into a system of plutocracy and the idea that a simple campaign donation can reward you with special interest favors. There is a blatant conflict of interest when the person who is supposed to convict you is the same person who donated to your campaign fund.
When campaign funds are donated by a business it no doubt becomes a plutocracy.
When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators.
@10:06 8:10 Home Run, you have covered all the bases. The procedure in which everything has been presented has expanded the distant view of guilty or not guilty but under the magnifying glass there is little room of doubt. The upcoming referendum which would demand a election for all wards will be the first opportunity for people to express themselves. Alderman Potthoff and Alderman Perez are deserving and work hard for Peru in their elected office, unfortunately the other 6 would not be missed.
PLUTOCRACY - government run by wealth. In his 9:37 PM comment Justin is 100% correct. Justin if a political candidate cannot accept financial support from outside parties aren't you therefor leaving the person with the most in a very favorable position. Would a cap be advantageous? Justin, in the upcoming March referendum are you in favor of a reduction of aldermen to six or would you prefer to stay at eight and why?
9:37 Nice try but your prayer for no government really fails in this arena. Allowing only the privately wealthy to run is a joke. And if you think everyone should be given the same funds to run, then who do we decide is a fringe candidate and completely running on their own mind (libertarian, green, communist etc)
Going back to Limcoln Douglas debates and newspaper coverage would be sweet, but is not going to happen. So campaign reform is all we have left.
If there is anyplace where there needs to be strict government intervention, it should be campaign donation. Unfortunately it is one area where both of the major parties seem to allow the Libertqrian free market principles to run free. We get the best candidates money can buy...
Great opinion, but let's hear your idea of how we ban donations , stay out of it completely, and still get viable candidates not answerable to any campaign donation?
11:08-I agree that a cap would be most advantageous, I should of reiterated that in my previous statements. In regards to your second question: I do feel that less alderman, but with more representation not only makes mathematical sense, but financial sense as well. We need to start taking government finances seriously, if we don't do it now, then when? After giving it some thought, I will be voting "yes" for this referendum.
12:59--" Allowing only the privately wealthy to run is a joke."
Last I checked it was signatures that got you on the ballot, and votes that got you in office, not dollar signs.
"We get the best candidates money can buy..."
Yeah....we get to choose between 50 people for Miss America, and 2 for President. Let me know when you want to take some serious steps to eliminating the current oligarchy we currently live in.
"Great opinion, but let's hear your idea of how we ban donations , stay out of it completely, and still get viable candidates not answerable to any campaign donation?"
What is your opinion of a "viable" candidate? If you receive the required number of signatures, doesn't that qualify you as "viable?"
Don't know how Harl cost the tax payers of Peru 10,000 ? Its the person that wanted it investigated that cost the tax payers money...It seems there was no fraud or anything illegal going on so it is said...And now we have 2 more business moving in...Mayor Harl you are doing a great job:)
5:55 - I wan't some of what you are smoking. Boss Harl had nothing to do with the store moving in. And he gave away over $35,000 in non worked hours (it would have been one thing if he had them sit in the park an watch the grass grow, but they did not even need to show up - just add "extra hours" to the time card. Boss Harl is a theif, plain and simple.
A thief ? What did he steal ? He wasn't charged with any wrong doing! you steal 35,000 you would be doing some time some where...he is a honest man with great integrity)
That is because a legal investigation was never done. The look through by Balestri was never anything more than conversations with the people who were involved in this escapade. Did they swear to tell the truth? I don't think so. Most of the time it is difficult to know when the truth is coming from city hall under any circumstances.
8:00 "an honest man with integrity?" Keep on smoking... If you read the judge's report, you will see that it was confirmed that Boss Harl told the employees to lie on their time sheet by documenting hours they did not work. He then told the employees supervisors to approve the time sheets that they knew where false. So the Boss told his underlings to steal taxpayer money. That makes the Boss a theif and a lier. Then the report says that since The Boss "meant well" it was all OK. Well, Blaggo also meant well - good thing Judge B was not running that investigation.
This blog is a joke...she never even posted my other thoughts...hmmm..just because I support Harl..funny thing when your in control of a blog isn't it:) ~Never smoked yet:)
12:45 PM Yesterday I deleted many poorly written comments insulting to the people of this city and offensive to my readers. Sounds like you might have been one of them. I'll tell you what, sign your name when you write those type of posts to this blog and I will post them, so people understand who is writing those comments. You only support Harl when you are among like minded individuals?
Does anyone remember the phase "Garbage In Garbage out" GIGO in reference to computers? What is the appropriate phase to be used when the owner of a blog has to censor inappropriate comments submitted to his/her blog? What is the proper terminology to be utilized for a unhappy blogger who continuously complains about the management of a particular owner but will never start a blog of their own? For complete transparency it may be wise of the Scott Supporters to create a blog of their own. "Mr. Harls Closed Session" would be a fitting title. To avoid questionable payroll practices this particular blog should be conducted as a private corporation and closed down after 40 hours so all overtime is eliminated, especially Phantom O.T. Thankfully the investigation recently conducted in Peru was not processed through the legal court system with its conclusion or every person in a penal institution who did not understand, never intended or never profited from their reason of wrong doing would be appealing their innocence. Is there a general opinion that the investigative report with opinion, although not having any legal strength, when sent to the States Attorneys Office was utilized as statute rather than its intended purpose or was this its intended purpose?
In reading of Peru's recent investigation i was wondering if this is the same mayor as the person who approached his city council asking for their consent to allowing him to perform weddings?
9:09 Yes, he asked for council permission to perform wedding ceremonies but he didn't ask permission to give away $35,000 of your money. Imagine that!!
And he learned of mayors performing wedding ceremonies when he was visiting another COUNTRY if I remember correctly. So so funny, anybody can get a certificate to perform wedding ceremonies. Check it out on the web.
3:46: No worries. I lost my election for several reasons: I didn't get out enough, and in all actuality, no one really knew who I was.
My issue wasn't a lack of receiving funds (I wouldn't accept them, anyways).
Any politician who accepts funds and wins, automatically goes into office with the expectation that they are required to relinquish favors to their donors.
Justin, if you wanted to run for election you should of went out more to inform the voter who you are. If your didnt thts just a vote your opponents. Everyone knows that. And 2nd, mr perez indeed you did have donations. You may hve had 1 or 2 and thats it. But a donation is still a donation. Whetr as justin is saying you should have none. I dont buy the excuse that uhh no one knew me for a second. Thats why you run, to get out their and get your name out. If you had no time then you shouldnt of run knwoing your heart was not in it
3:26 Thank you for your input, but you're telling me something I already knew.
I never said someone shouldn't have any donations, I just don't believe they should be from a 3rd party.
"If you had no time then you shouldnt of run knwoing your heart was not in it"
Thanks for the advice. Next time maybe I'll hire you to teach me how to have a successful election. It does get a little unnerving when you go out and knock on 30 doors and maybe, maaayybbeee, 3 people answer. But oh well, life goes on.
7:52. How about I ask you a question. How do you end the plutocracy that this nation has become that's solely from lobbying and money being dumped in politics?
it would make the most sense to just have it at 0 dollars, since an election is free to run in anyways. everyone is on the same page, you eliminate the "plutocracy" that justin keeps mentioning and the best ideas and a true democracy prevails. this isn't rocket science 7:52
.jpg)
.jpg)
53 comments:
It's a very slippery slope when an official arbitrarily decides to compensate outside the standard rules for disbursing public funds. Lack of criminal intent is only one criteria, and it is surprising both me and several colleagues that this is stressed so early and often.
Ignorance of the law is rarely a valid defense in fraud or malfeasance cases, though it effects sentencing. And the strange acceptance of the amount being reasonable for added responsibilities, when there was a council ready and able to vote in public on what fair compensation might be, seems unusual as well.
If stating commentary on these matters lies outside the scope of the ithe office, why comment that you agree that judge is qualified to determine scope of duties and reasonable compensation? Why not reply that your office prosecutes when police make a case and leave it at that?
A judge is not an investigator, they are lawyers who try to makedecisions and interpret the law based on evidence, testimony and argument
The judge seems to circumvent a trial and simply make a judgment, and then send it to a prosecuting attorney to see if they agree? Of course a prosecuting attorney is gonna look at this and say come back when you have a case we can win.
This matter seems to fall more and more into the realm of council official sanction, where the body basically verbally flogs the member and makes the reprimand a part of public record. Then the body takes action to make sure the matter never happens again and in the case of malfeasance hires an independent auditor to review disbursements to see if there is a larger problem.
By approaching a retired judge who has local ties, you got an opinion instead of a verdict, with the illusion of justice without all the nasty perjury or obstruction risks from those interviewed. It was a slick passing of the buck, and you will hear people say it was nothing and the mayor wrongly accused, when in fact the report says just the opposite. What is really said is that it was wrong, my friend made a mistake, but I think he was sincere aNd thought he could do this, and given the circumstances I did not think it was really bad or criminal, and if it was it would not have a chance in court.
As Mr Perez suggested, an independent investigation should have been conducted, and the Mayor should have tendered resignation for the council to accept or not pending results.
Mayor Harl has lost the public trust of the citizens of this town. Yes he should have either resigned or took a leave of absence. We could function fine without him as we see now Ald. Potthoff is basically conducting the council meetings and doing a good job.
To have lost the public trust when you are an elected official means you are no longer relevant even though you may retain your position because of either party or political connections.
Mr Stika should learn the difference between "counsel" and "council". One is an attorney. The other is a collection of self-serving brats.
So, does this mean we, the City, will NOT be reimbursed to the tune of $35,000.00 ?
This is exactly why it should have gone too the state police first.
I was not supporting the march referendum before but now the lack of action by some alderman shows the failure to represent the citizens of Peru.
If this was a manager at a company did this and he had paid employees like this he would be terminated in a second but since he is a mayor he stays in the job.
Alderman, since most of you continue to dig your own graves and for this household it's 5 votes for the referendum as a YES you have failed us and now the referendum isn't an issue of representation on the numbers but a referendum on your job!
Very well stated 10:16 PM. Your observation is spot on.
I told you people from the very beginning how this would play out and that's exactly what happened.
As 10:16 points out. This matter has still "NOT" been investigated by an actual investigating agency.
Furthermore, as 10:16 also points out, the spineless aldermen with the exception of Rodney Perez have effectively washed their hands of the matter. Therefore, the mayor has successfully circumvented the Wage Ordinance and the authority of the entire City Council and in turn the City Council has successfully circumvented the Justice system in this matter and allowed the mayor to slither away.
With the exception of Rodney Perez, this Peru Administration and City Council has failed to protect its citizens from wrongdoing and is in fact an absolute disgrace.
Approximately $34,000 was fraudulently misappropriated and or mismanaged and nobody will be held accountable in any way, shape, or form.
10:16 nice post! Is anybody surprised at this outcome?
Now I think the public should demand to know the circumstances of how a dump truck went "missing". I think the insurance company might be interested in investigating insurance fraud. There is a cover up with this story and somebody knows the truth.
Most importantly this Balestri is not a judge any more!! He's a paid citizen hired to give his opinion!! Any judge in office would see this as criminal!!
Does this result surprise anyone??? I guess it's okay for the mayor to give our money away whenever he feels justified to do so and even though no one is doing anything to earn it. And apparently our council (with the exception of alderman Perez) doesn't care that the mayor isn't following prodigal. These people are supposed to be protecting our money and using it wisely and agreeing on how it is to be used. In essence they have okayed the mayor passing the buck under the table. And, if it's not wrong, why has it been stopped or has it??
10:16 your attempt to place yourself as a legal analyst is quite a stretch. A verdict is a formal finding of fact from a jury or judge, a investigation must be held prior to a verdict. The facts of the case is what is typically is disputed, the intent is what generally determines the judgement.
The Office of the State's Attorney determines if a case will be presented or not.
Our judicial system is corrupt. How can a 17 year old drive intoxicated and kill 4 people and get one year probation(his family had money)? How can a 21 year old get pulled over and get a ticket for driving while intoxicated and ends up losing license for one year and pays court fees(no prior record).Then another person gets pulled over, gets a driving while intoxicated ticket(3rd one in 10 years) and doesn't lose their license! It's who you know, who your counsel knows, who has money and who doesn't. The law should pertain to each person the same no matter what social class a person is in.
Anon 10:16 who's case are you referring to? If this was the opinion of a law enforcement agency then ok but Balestri is a citizen who was hired to investigate. Not much merit there when he has no legal authority according to the law and constitution of the state.
There is to much doubt here. I do know Balestri and Harls Atty. are close affiliates. I would have to say they are all close including the states attorney.
All have to remember would you expect Brian Townes to prosecute a fellow democrat and also campaign donor that would be political suicide remember this is about who you are and who you donate money too it's really as simple as that
States attorney office is a joke as much as Boss Harl and his cronies!! This is a job for someone outside the area. Someone not in Boss Harl's pocket! The Illinois valley sucks!
THIS IS THE ANSWER THAT MOST OF US EXPECED I THINK . GOOD FOR YOU HARL . FROM ONE CROOKED MAYOR TO AN STATES ATT. WHO DOESN'T WANT TOO GET INVOLVED I GUESS . WHAT A POOR STATE OF AFFIARS ILL. HAS BECOME .
11:09.....Which is exactly why the money needs to be pulled from politics.
There was criminal intent. The questions did not go deep enough nor was the timeline put together.People were taken at their word. There is an explanation of why this ghost payroll happened, separate from why the procedure to investigate was handled the way it was.
Justin, enlarge explanation please. I know there is politics and there are politicians but how would you separate the two when it comes to money?
Peru officials created a conundrum in the councils pay. A politician in office cannot increase his pay until current term is over so Perus council change from pay/meeting to a monthly salary and since has reduced the number of meetings/month from every week down to the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month. Many ways to approach the WANTS/NEEDS THEORY!
If the States Attorneys Office has no investigative authority why does it have a grand jury? The retired judges investigation had no power, in fact if you did not want to speak to him you did not have to.
The system has failed if there is gray matter between guilty and not guilty and the citizen will be harmed by this failure.
One of the answers to the political groups abilities to outwitting the system would be term limitations.
10:10 other than insulting me by saying I was trying to say I was presenting myself as a legal analyst, I do not understand your post?
What you said did not counter my opinion. It was tangential at best? I stated that the maneuver was to go to a judge who based on his relationship should have recused himself , then have him render an opinion, then present that opinion with the results of his "investigation" to the prosecuting states attorney. is bass ackwards.
You take the malfeasance/ and or mismanagement independently investigate it, dig dig and dig , then present the finding to both the police and the council. From there the decision is made to request the state attorney prosecute if there is a strong case with evidence of malfeasance, which, if the judge really got everyone to tell the truth and looked long and hard at months or years of records, I would agree there was little chance of proving intent for a strong criminal case of misappropriation.
Then the council would need to step up and decide what internal sanctions or disciplines could be given, then act strongly on it.
If in fact the majority , upon review of the facts, thought they would have approved of the actions had they known about them at the time, then you would get what we have right now. Nothing.
But this act of going directly to the "judge" to get the opinion, which is passed off as a VERDICT of not guilty to the public, courtesy of the news Trib is what I find disgusting. It's a way of being guilty, caught with your hands in the cookie jar, neededing to make it LOOK like its being handled all right and proper, while the rush to judgement is already in the can. Point set match, Boss Harl.
6:00 p.m. In my opinion, anyone running for office shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from outside parties. This divulges into a system of plutocracy and the idea that a simple campaign donation can reward you with special interest favors. There is a blatant conflict of interest when the person who is supposed to convict you is the same person who donated to your campaign fund.
When campaign funds are donated by a business it no doubt becomes a plutocracy.
When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators.
@10:06 8:10 Home Run, you have covered all the bases.
The procedure in which everything has been presented has expanded the distant view of guilty or not guilty but under the magnifying glass there is little room of doubt. The upcoming referendum which would demand a election for all wards will be the first opportunity for people to express themselves. Alderman
Potthoff and Alderman Perez are deserving and work hard for Peru in their elected office, unfortunately the other 6 would not be missed.
PLUTOCRACY - government run by wealth.
In his 9:37 PM comment Justin is 100% correct.
Justin if a political candidate cannot accept financial support from outside parties aren't you therefor leaving the person with the most in a very favorable position. Would a cap be advantageous?
Justin, in the upcoming March referendum are you in favor of a reduction of aldermen to six or would you prefer to stay at eight and why?
9:37 Nice try but your prayer for no government really fails in this arena. Allowing only the privately wealthy to run is a joke. And if you think everyone should be given the same funds to run, then who do we decide is a fringe candidate and completely running on their own mind (libertarian, green, communist etc)
Going back to Limcoln Douglas debates and newspaper coverage would be sweet, but is not going to happen. So campaign reform is all we have left.
If there is anyplace where there needs to be strict government intervention, it should be campaign donation. Unfortunately it is one area where both of the major parties seem to allow the Libertqrian free market principles to run free. We get the best candidates money can buy...
Great opinion, but let's hear your idea of how we ban donations , stay out of it completely, and still get viable candidates not answerable to any campaign donation?
8:06 You are watching too many reruns of Perry Mason.
11:08-I agree that a cap would be most advantageous, I should of reiterated that in my previous statements. In regards to your second question: I do feel that less alderman, but with more representation not only makes mathematical sense, but financial sense as well. We need to start taking government finances seriously, if we don't do it now, then when? After giving it some thought, I will be voting "yes" for this referendum.
12:59--" Allowing only the privately wealthy to run is a joke."
Last I checked it was signatures that got you on the ballot, and votes that got you in office, not dollar signs.
"We get the best candidates money can buy..."
Yeah....we get to choose between 50 people for Miss America, and 2 for President. Let me know when you want to take some serious steps to eliminating the current oligarchy we currently live in.
"Great opinion, but let's hear your idea of how we ban donations , stay out of it completely, and still get viable candidates not answerable to any campaign donation?"
What is your opinion of a "viable" candidate? If you receive the required number of signatures, doesn't that qualify you as "viable?"
Don't know how Harl cost the tax payers of Peru 10,000 ? Its the person that wanted it investigated that cost the tax payers money...It seems there was no fraud or anything illegal going on so it is said...And now we have 2 more business moving in...Mayor Harl you are doing a great job:)
5:55 So you're okay with the mayor giving away $35,000 of your tax dollar as overtime to someone who wasn't working O.T.???
5:55 - I wan't some of what you are smoking. Boss Harl had nothing to do with the store moving in. And he gave away over $35,000 in non worked hours (it would have been one thing if he had them sit in the park an watch the grass grow, but they did not even need to show up - just add "extra hours" to the time card.
Boss Harl is a theif, plain and simple.
A thief ? What did he steal ? He wasn't charged with any wrong doing! you steal 35,000 you would be doing some time some where...he is a honest man with great integrity)
That is because a legal investigation was never done. The look through by Balestri was never anything more than conversations with the people who were involved in this escapade. Did they swear to tell the truth? I don't think so. Most of the time it is difficult to know when the truth is coming from city hall under any circumstances.
8:00 "an honest man with integrity?" Keep on smoking... If you read the judge's report, you will see that it was confirmed that Boss Harl told the employees to lie on their time sheet by documenting hours they did not work. He then told the employees supervisors to approve the time sheets that they knew where false. So the Boss told his underlings to steal taxpayer money. That makes the Boss a theif and a lier. Then the report says that since The Boss "meant well" it was all OK. Well, Blaggo also meant well - good thing Judge B was not running that investigation.
This blog is a joke...she never even posted my other thoughts...hmmm..just because I support Harl..funny thing when your in control of a blog isn't it:) ~Never smoked yet:)
12:45 PM
Yesterday I deleted many poorly written comments insulting to the people of this city and offensive to my readers. Sounds like you might have been one of them. I'll tell you what, sign your name when you write those type of posts to this blog and I will post them, so people understand who is writing those comments. You only support Harl when you are among like minded individuals?
Why wnt you post my rebuttles to loger
2:40 PM
The one rebuttal was very rude and was not on topic. Justin is not an elected official but a private citizen who offers his opinion and his thoughts.
Be respectful and tell us what you believe is the right way.
Does anyone remember the phase "Garbage In Garbage out" GIGO in reference to computers?
What is the appropriate phase to be used when the owner of a blog has to censor inappropriate comments submitted to his/her blog?
What is the proper terminology to be utilized for a unhappy blogger who continuously complains about the management of a particular owner but will never start a blog of their own?
For complete transparency it may be wise of the Scott Supporters to create a blog of their own. "Mr. Harls Closed Session" would be a fitting title. To avoid questionable payroll practices this particular blog should be conducted as a private corporation and closed down after 40 hours so all overtime is eliminated, especially Phantom O.T.
Thankfully the investigation recently conducted in Peru was not processed through the legal court system with its conclusion or every person in a penal institution who did not understand, never intended or never profited from their reason of wrong doing would be appealing their innocence.
Is there a general opinion that the investigative report with opinion, although not having any legal strength, when sent to the States Attorneys Office was utilized as statute rather than its intended purpose or was this its intended purpose?
In reading of Peru's recent investigation i was wondering if this is the same mayor as the person who approached his city council asking for their consent to allowing him to perform weddings?
9:09 PM
One and the same person with regard to your question on weddings and investigation.
9:09 Yes, he asked for council permission to perform wedding ceremonies but he didn't ask permission to give away $35,000 of your money. Imagine that!!
If you were going to not post rude comments, you would not have a blog. Keep up the good work, I enjoy a good laugh.
And he learned of mayors performing wedding ceremonies when he was visiting another COUNTRY if I remember correctly. So so funny, anybody can get a certificate to perform wedding ceremonies. Check it out on the web.
If there was a rude comment that was directed towards me, you can always send it to my email: justin.loger@gmail.com
Otherwise, continue to sling mud behind an "anonymous" veil; and fail to address issues that currently plague our system.
justin- so many sour grapes for you- you received no funds and look how your election turned out. no offense
3:46: No worries. I lost my election for several reasons: I didn't get out enough, and in all actuality, no one really knew who I was.
My issue wasn't a lack of receiving funds (I wouldn't accept them, anyways).
Any politician who accepts funds and wins, automatically goes into office with the expectation that they are required to relinquish favors to their donors.
To:3:46
From: Alderman Perez
FYI... Look up to see how much I had contributed to my campaign fund. Look how my election turned out.
Justin, if you wanted to run for election you should of went out more to inform the voter who you are. If your didnt thts just a vote your opponents. Everyone knows that. And 2nd, mr perez indeed you did have donations. You may hve had 1 or 2 and thats it. But a donation is still a donation. Whetr as justin is saying you should have none. I dont buy the excuse that uhh no one knew me for a second. Thats why you run, to get out their and get your name out. If you had no time then you shouldnt of run knwoing your heart was not in it
3:26 Thank you for your input, but you're telling me something I already knew.
I never said someone shouldn't have any donations, I just don't believe they should be from a 3rd party.
"If you had no time then you shouldnt of run knwoing your heart was not in it"
Thanks for the advice. Next time maybe I'll hire you to teach me how to have a successful election. It does get a little unnerving when you go out and knock on 30 doors and maybe, maaayybbeee, 3 people answer. But oh well, life goes on.
Thank you ;)
5:18 I am not clear. You say you are ok with donations but not from a third party? That is confusing.
Do you mean people should only run if they can fund there own campaigns?
Thanks
7:52. How about I ask you a question. How do you end the plutocracy that this nation has become that's solely from lobbying and money being dumped in politics?
Thanks.
Haha 752. people run only if they can fund their own campaigns? campaigns that are free to run in anyways?! heaven forbid!!
it would make the most sense to just have it at 0 dollars, since an election is free to run in anyways. everyone is on the same page, you eliminate the "plutocracy" that justin keeps mentioning and the best ideas and a true democracy prevails. this isn't rocket science 7:52
Post a Comment