Once upon a time, some 25 plus years ago, a man named General Parker did time for a felony crime. A youthful indiscretion, if you will. General Parker, worked hard to get himself to the place where he hoped to run for the mayor and then the school board in a little berg called Peoria, Il.Alas, it was not meant to be, as the local state's attorney made it a point to stop General Parker, (who is considered a local gadfly) not once, but twice, because of a little enforced law that said that a convicted felon is ineligible to hold office. The law also called for a citizen to bring forth the complaint, but a very diligent State's Attorney brought forth the issue himself, in the best interest of citizens (of course).
In that very same berg, a man named Gary Sandberg has held a seat on the local city council for 22 years. The problem is, Mr. Sandberg, (who is considered the council gadfly) currently owes the berg $13,367.40 for unpaid demolition costs for a property he owned, previous code violations, a parking ticket and rental registration.
State law states that "a person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality." However, Mr. Sandberg has been allowed to hold office, run for office and be re-elected. The City attorney did not seek to enforce the law, the State's Attorney did not seek to enforce the law.
A review of the choices made in the handling of the Parker case vs. the Sandberg case would lead one to believe that all gadflies are not created equal.
12 comments:
I thought this has been in the news a lot lately and the general consenus is that unless he pays the fee, he will NOT be seated. I don't see the difference therefore. I don't think owing money is felony like car theft. You can argue the fairness of General's case if you like, but these cases are not equivalent.
I agree. You are reaching. Apples and oranges here. Difference in not paying a fine, which no court has ruled a crime for Sandberg yet and committing a felony.
I like Parker and I tend to agree but I like many others have lived our lives without committing a felony.. If you do the crime, then expect to pay and be relived of some of your rights in citizenship. It sucks, nut it's the law.
So, if Sandberg pays his fines, do you still consider him a felon?
BTW, why don't you call it like you want to call it? A RACE issue?
Misdemeanor vs. Felony......
That is like saying not paying your renter's fee is as serious as stealing a car.....not even close Emerge. You are grasping at straws.
I don't consider Sandberg a felon.
This post is not about the voracity of the charge, it is about a law which sets out the terms under which a person is eligible to hold office (felon, deadbeat, whatever...) Parker was not electable under one circumstance; Sandberg was not electable under a different circumstance.
The state's attorney wanted to protect citizens from Parker being elected and then not being able to hold office. Why did he not take the same action to protect citizens from Sandberg being elected and then not being able to hold office?
Do you realize how tragic it would be if the person who got the third highest votes could not now be seated? What about all the people who cast votes for this Representative? What of the harm to the citizens?
BTW, Is it a RACE issue Anti-Pundit? If you want to call it that, you call it. I called it as I wrote it.
Some interesting points have been made. Emerge does raise an interesting facet of the stories. The issue about Sandberg should have been raised before the election--because evidently if he can't hold office because of the fines, then he should not have been eligible to run. Right?
Emtronics has a point, also--and the point relates to the law. Even though I disagree with the law as applied to Parker's case, it is the law.
As to whether or not this is an issue of race, for some it is; for others it isn't. The same opinions could be rendered based on racial bias or based on objective thinking with no heed to race. It's very much the same as trying to decide whether or not opposition to Obama is based on race. I think the motives are very individual. I have a tendency to see racism where it might not exist. However, Emerge (a while back) accused me of showing my true colors--I still haven't figured out what that meant. :) It is difficult to know someone's heart (even our actions can be misinterpreted), so I can't say for sure what is or is not racism.
As for Parker and Sandberg, I tend to like gadflies--I know Parker; I don't know Sandberg, but I think they both have points of view that need to be heard by the general public. I believe Sandberg brings some valuable insights to the City Council horseshoe. I hope he pays his fines. I hope General continues to speak out even if he doesn't hold an elective office and even when I don't agree with him--he still makes me think.
Either Peoria Anti Pundit is showing that he in fact is not a lawyer and does not know the law or he is starting to show his true colors. He seems to have missed the part that the SAME LAW that bars Parker, also bars Sandberg.
"OFFICE: Mayor, Councilmen at-large (and part from districts in some cities),
Clerk, Treasurer
QUALIFICATIONS: Qualified elector/registered voter.
Must not be in arrears in the payment of any tax or other
indebtedness due the municipality; must not have been convicted in
any court located in the United States of any infamous crime,
bribery, perjury, or other felony. [65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5]
RESIDENCY: One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election.
[65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5]"
Must not be in arrears of any payment and not convicted of any felony, is the same law, under the same rule and even are contained in the same paragraph. So which law are you referring to PAP?
Thank you Anonymous...
Weaver should have also been required to pay his fines BEFORE being allowed to run... in the best interest of citizens.
I have met both Mr. Parker and Mr. Sandberg, and they both seem like nice people. But, unless my memory is slipping (and it might be) wasn't there another felony with Mr. Parker, something to do with a fire arm. If not I humbly apologize. Stealing a car is no small matter. Not paying fines, when you are on the city council looks bad, especially for tearing down some kind of slum (again, I might not have it correct). It seems like we tend to paint the picture to fit the person or persons we like or dislike. And youthful discrections or quirks aside, we reap what we sow.
True, we reap what we sow, but how many crops must you plant before you are allowed to enjoy the fruits of your field. I have always considered the payment of fines or the serving of sentence imposed as payment to society. General Parker has served his time, and he has spent a considerable amount of time and effort on behalf of youth and families in Peoria. "oooo, but he is a felon." No. He was a felon. He is a citizen, and a damn well involved citizen who takes the time to listen to the issues and stand up.
Frederick Smith, good post and thoughts. I just find it so difficult to accept the unforgiving attitude of so many. The law is one thing, but the stance of some that General and others like him cannot live a redeemed life is hard for me to understand. I guess I can understand any non-Christian being that unforgiving. However, if any Christian holds to the belief that General shouldn't be free to live without that "paid for" felony hanging over his head, then I don't think they understand the most fundamental precepts of the Christian faith. They certainly don't understand the lesson taught to us by the story of the thief on the cross--just one of the many things we learn from the Resurrection Day events we just celebrated.
Sharon, I agree very much with your last post. General has paid his debt to society and is a very very good man.
Interesting comment from the mayor:
"Something needs to be done to change the process so we don't end up being in these situations in the 11th hour. "Whether it's the (Peoria) election commission or (the city) clerk, someone has to validate if any of these people have the ability to serve. If you can't serve once elected, why are you even on the ballot? Someone should be able to determine that."
Post a Comment