"A Grafton Township SPECIAL Meeting, called by Grafton Township voters."
Yes, a mere 40 voters signed a petition to call this SPECIAL meeting. Don't let a small group of people speak for you. Please attend the meeting.
"Grafton Trustees have NOT followed your directives, again!"
How so? After last years annual meeting the trustees immediately went to work on coming up with a financially responsible way to pay back the Road District Loan. Please review the meeting minutes beginning May 13th, 2010 – the first board meeting after the annual meeting.
"They did not pay back the Road District the $700,000 the voters (you) overwhelming told them to do at the 2010 Annual Town Meeting."
During the June 14th meeting the trustees expressed concern over not knowing the financial standing of the Township and suggested making payments to the Road District of $2,623.54 until a special audit can be performed. Scroll down to agenda item 5-A. Also notice that the SUPERVISOR, herself, voted against making payments to the Road District.
"The Grafton Township voters have called a special meeting at 6PM on April 12, to enforce last years adopted resolution which directed the board to pay back the Road District $700,000 and now we are giving them a deadline."
I’m not opposed to a reasonable deadline. What I’m opposed to is forcing the Township into bankruptcy by paying off the loan in one lump sum….especially since an agreement has been reached with the Road District to pay it off with a payment plan.
"At this meeting, April 12th at 6PM, we are also voting to adopt a new bylaw to hold each board member who fails to comply with the resolutions adopted by the voters, personally liable for all attorney fees to enforce the resolution of the voters."
Elected officials are protected from personal liability of attorneys fees when conducting governmental business under the (745 ILCS 10/) Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Furthermore, every attempt the trustees have made to comply with the wishes of the voters has been directly undermined by the SUPERVISOR. Ref: meeting minutes 9/9/2010, 1/13/2011, 2/10/2011. The SUPERVISOR votes NAY to any motion providing reasonable means of paying back the road district loan.
And lastly….
"The Trustees have spent $300,000 in legal fees…."
I’d like to point out that the Trustees have not initiated any law suits against the Supervisor. Not one. Linda Moore has initiated them all…..and the number is well over $500,000….and it’s still climbing.
Please attend the SPECIAL Town Meeting To be held at the Huntley High School 13719 Harmony Road, Huntley, IL 60142 Tuesday, April 12th, at 6PM.
If you wish to help pass out fliers, please contact me at takingbackgraftontownship@gmail.com to request an area. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated even if you're only able to do one street. Fliers will be provided. Distribution needs to be complete no later than Monday, April 11th.
I encourage you to forward this to your friends....email, facebook, twitter.....
We need people there at the 6pm meeting. The Annual Meeting, at 7pm, will be too late to vote on this important item. Check-in will begin at 5:30 or earlier.
PLEASE don't let a handful of Grafton Township residence speak for you. Attend and Vote "NO" on the issue of paying the Road District in one lump sum.
PART 11
Moderator: Is there a 2nd to the motion? Motion 2nd. Okay what the motion was, was to accept # 8, the old 7, which now reads, a motion to authorize the purchase of the village real property by Grafton Township the lake in the hills. …..to ratify. That’s what that is. Alright, if you want them to be able to accept that, you vote against it….wait a minute. You guys need to discuss this.
Aileen Seedorf: Did they already say we own it? Then if we own it…..
Moderator: They’re trying to ratify that it was okay for them to buy it two years ago.
From the crowd: So we don’t know.
Aileen Seedorf: Very briefly, on Ancel Glinks site I read something that says you cannot ratify something that was illegal. That judge says you can’t so that. You can’t ratify, right?
Attorney: what the judge said in the circuit course case was that the Township has to go back to the beginning in terms of the purchase of the land…that’s what this is in effect is a request for a motion for the township electors to approve the purchase and keep the land.
From the crowd: Point or order!
Attorney: If you don’t want to take and keep the land, then you’ll vote no. If you want to keep the land affirm what was done illegally, you vote yes. Just to be clear, when I say illegally, I don’t mean that it was illegal in substance to buy the land, it’s just procedurally the courts found that it wasn’t done properly at the Township town annual meeting. It’s not that its illegal to buy the land…in fact the court said specifically that buying the land is certainly within the powers of the township electors.
Moderator: Gentleman in the blue shirt in front.
Paul Troy: I’d like to make an amendment to the motion to adopt the resolution. The amendment is that we use paper ballots to vote on this.
Moderator: That’s not an amendment to the motion.
Unknown Male: I’m not commenting pro or con but what I’m commenting on is, when we take this vote, we should ask ourselves, ‘Is this the way Christ would want it’? I stake my reputation on that as a Christian.
Call to question.
Unknown male: it seems to me that its very pertinent the opinion of Lake in the Hills prior to vote on any resolutions of 7, 8, 9, or 10, because we need to know whether or not they have any desire or intent to purchase it. If they don’t we’re out a lot of money. I would move that we amend these resolutions and postpone it to the next meeting or something. (Crowd strongly disagrees) We could lose a lot of money, right? Okay if you want to do it go ahead. ….it’s kind of disappointing that no one showed up for Lake in the Hills.
Moderator: Call to questions. 2nd Mr Ziller Sr. Call to question. Restate the motion was to Approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of village property by Grafton Township, meaning the Haligus Road. All those in favor of this motion? Call to question first. I’m sorry. Call to question: All those in favor raise you hands. All those opposed? Motion carried.
Moderator: And now we’ll go to the motion. The motion is to Approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of village property by Grafton Township, the Haligus Road property…….The attorney wants to make a correction here of what you’re voting on…clarification.
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer: On the old #8 which is the new resolution 9, this offers the property back to sale….
Moderator: She retracts that. Okay, resolution authorizing the purchase of village property by Grafton Township on Haligus Road. All those in favor raise your hand….your ballots. All those opposed. Motion carried.
Moderator: Moving on to the next resolution authorizing the conveyance of the town real property on Haligus Road. Quickly let’s quickly, for the sake of time here, let’s explain that. Do we have a motion to o that? (1st and 2nd) And the motion on the floor now is resolution authorizing the conveyance of the township real property of Haligus Road. Now we will let her explain what that means.
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer: This offers the property back to the Village of Lake in the Hills. If the village doesn’t want it, the township keeps the property.
Mr Kurns: This resolution…on page…on section 5 in the resolution, you have in there that we have to pay the Village of Lake in the Hills $999k for this property. $99k…it says we have to pay the Village of Lake in the Hills $99k.
Moderator: I’m going to read it as it’s stated in here. I’ll read her section 5. They corrected me. I’ll read the whole thing. Upon formal adoption and execution of the resolution authorizing conveyance of Township real property, Haligus Road, and upon approval from the Village of Lake in the Hills, Grafton Township, hereby, conveys said real property to the Village of Lake in the Hills and authorized and directs the Township supervisor and clerk to execute and attest and any and all documentation necessary to effectuate said property conveyances that you have the Village of Lake in the Hills repay to the township the sum $99,429.15 which was the purchase price pad by Grafton Township for said property. Does that answer your….
PART 10
(Again, a gentleman on the left of the room is standing to speak but the moderator refuses to acknowledge him.)
Moderator: I will recognize the lady at the top, in the white.
Unknown Female: …people who cant stand up, they get these (holds up pink ballots) and when you want to vote, just have raise ether little pink things for yes, and when they want to vote no. No. (raises ballot) Then they don’t have to stand up and they’re still recognized.
Henry: I think that we made a big error here and one of the things is, with all these ballots that I found laying in the hallway, I’m entitled to vote 30 times. Is that legal?
Moderator: I understand that’s why we originally had you standing. Your point is well taken. Sir in the green jacket.
Unknow male: Last week Thursday, the Grafton Township passed a separation between voters and non-voters. I don’t see it happening. Where’s the separation between the voters of Grafton Township and the participants that are just listeners? I don’t believe there’s…I don’t believe that you all…split it a voter section and a senior section. Is that true that they did vote, last week Thursday - to split? And it’s not happening, sir.
Moderator: Okay, Ummm….we chose to run this the way it is. (Who’s we?)
Unknown male: Inaudible
Moderator: We voted on that. Discussion’s already been done. The debate and everything’s already been done and the motion passed. We have a motion on the floor to strike items now 2 through 7; formerly 1 through 6. Do we have a second to that motion? Okay. We have a call to question? 2nd?
All those in favor to call the vote? All those opposed? Motion has carried.
Moderator: We are now voting on the motion which is to strike items 2 though 7 formerly 1 through 6. Everyone understands? All those in favor of striking those motions? (Items) All those opposed. Motion is carried. They are stricken.
Moderator: We will move on to…..explain.
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer: The next decision that you have to make is with respect to the to the Haligus Road Property. You have three options on the agenda. Old resolution 7 which is new resolution 8; that ratifies the purchase, The Township will keep the property. Old resolution 8 which is new resolution 9 would sell Haligus Road Property back to Lake in the Hills if Lake in the Hills wants it back. We do not know for sure if they want it but it’s like selling your house. If you sell your house to someone and they come back to you, they can’t force you to undo that sale, necessarily. But this would express your intent to the village that you would want to sell it back to them. Old resolution 9 which is now resolution 10 offers the Haligus Road property up for sale generally. Under the contract that the township had with Lake in the Hills, the village has a right to first refusal. So under what is new resolution 10, old resolution 9, this offers the property for sale. If the village wants to purchase the property, the village can purchase the property under the right of first refusal. However, they’re not required to in which case the village can sell the property…the township can sell the property to who else wants it. So the difference between 9 and 10 is that if you vote for 9, and the village doesn’t want to purchase the property, the township still keeps the property. Under #10, if the village does not want to keep the property, the township still sells the property to someone other than the village if the village doesn’t want it. Those are the differences between the resolutions.
Moderator: Okay # 7
Barbara Forman: My question is - I understand 8, 9 and 10 - what I want to know is if Lake in the Hills does not want to take the property back, how much, roughly, is that property going to cost us, ‘til we can sell it? What is the interest that it’s going to cost us?
Betty Zirk: That property is already paid for. There is no additional cost. The only expense the Township would have is the upkeep of it …the mowing of the grass during the summer. Otherwise the land has been purchased. Until it is sold, again….whatever happens here.
Moderator: chair recognizes the man up top in the blue the lady…
Marcia: (Confusion about how to make a motion) I make a motion to accept resolution # 8.
Moderator: Is there a 2nd to the motion? Motion 2nd. Okay what the motion was, was to accept # 8, the old 7, which now reads, a motion to authorize the purchase of the village real property by Grafton Township the lake in the hills. to ratify. That’s what that is.
Click here to view Part 11
PART 9
From the crowd: How do you know( who voted for or against)!?
Moderator: Roberts Rule of Order. That’s the way it is. Okay. We’re going to move on. We’re not having a motion to strike. We have another point of order.
Unknown Male: Even though I’m voting with the majority here, which I can appreciate one way or the other, the people that don’t go the way that the swaying is; I’d like to make a point about the gentleman who are putting up signs and so forth. My understanding is that in a place like this where you’re blind, you really can’t have signs and all that sort of stuff. And I really regret that you’re sitting there, holding signs, telling me how to vote. (Cheers from the crowd)
Moderator: People holding the signs. Please refrain from that.
Crystal Sheehan: Just in the interest of saving some time, can we just hold up our pink pads?
Moderator: …on the agenda now to move forward. There’s no more discussion. We are moving forward on the agenda. The discussion is….
(Point of order)
Don: I’d like you to reconsider the vote for a couple reasons here. The pink ballots were handed out to the individuals who unfortunately cannot stand and sit with each vote that takes place. The purpose of the ballot was to accommodate those votes. I would like the chairman to reconsider taking the vote by ballot.
Moderator: The gentleman has voted in favor of the motion, (How does he know that???) so he is valid with his reconsideration. Is there a second to the reconsideration?
Unknown male: I 2nd.
From crowd: What about the people that didn’t get the pink ballot?
Moderator: Okay, the reconsideration on the motion. We are going to vote again. This time, when we vote on this motion, please hold your pink ballots high. (Confused about what is being voted on. Moderator talks with the attorney). The point of order that’s been called is we have to vote on the reconsideration to vote by ballots.
Unknown male: I want the moderator to realize that these doors here are wide open and anybody…. can walk in here and vote.
Various People in the crowd: They’re all walking out. They’re leaving.
(More confusion about who got ballots and who did not.)
Moderator: Point of order on the floor….the motion to reconsider is only a motion to reconsider the vote. All’s it is is a reconsider to vote. You’re not voting on the motion again. It has been 2nd. Okay, so, the motion on the floor is to reconsider the vote on the original motion that was approved. There is no discussion on reconsider. All those in favor of reconsidering the vote, please hold up your pink ballots. Motion failed.
Tammy Luthe: (Inaudible)
Moderator: We are right now moving on…the motion was passed. We are moving down the list now. We are on…resolution……..we are moving down item one, item two, item three. It was suggested that we have a motion to strike item one, which is now item two, through item six because we already voted on a motion that took care of all of that. Is there a motion to strike? (Calls on Mr Kurns)
Mr. Kurns: Mr chairman, I move to strike item…resolutions 2, formerly 1,3,4,5,6,7.
From the crowd: Not 7
Moderator: Items 1 through6 originally, now items 2 through 7….so everyone understands.
From the crows: No! Only through 6!
Moderator: Is there a second to that motion? Motion has been moved and 2nd. We will have discussion to strike those items.
(People on the left are standing to speak but the moderator calls on Mr. Kurns again.)
Moderator: Someone needs to stand up.
From the crowd: We have been standing!
(The moderator allows Mr Kurns to proceed.)
Mr. Kurns: Items 2 through 7 have been covered in the previous motion and it’s no longer valid.
Moderator: The gentleman in the blue shirt over here would like to speak. Let’s keep this contained to the motion.
Dave: ….paper ballots on all….since the first motion got pushed through…without debate and without a proper vote….Inaudible…
Moderator: Okay, understood. Man in the orange hat at the top.
Don: This sounds like an extension of the board meetings. Let’s continue with the agenda and eliminate this minutia and let democracy prevail.
The moderator call to Mr. Luis.
Mr Luis(Green Shirt): I don’t realize why we discuss any longer the fairness of the voting, ‘cause “Ray Charles” can see that it’s overwhelm……..(crowd screaming point of order)
Moderator: Point of order.
PART 8
Green: Does the township own the garage and everything prior to all this going on? If the garage and everything was already owned by the township, why do we have to pay for something twice?
Pat Cohen: I’ll attempt to give a brief history lesson. Back in the old days road districts could not own property. Therefore, what happened in the distant past was that road district money was used to build the garage but the land was owned by the township because the road district could not own land. So I understand your concern, ‘Why did the road district buy property that it already paid money to build the building on?’, and you have to go back to the legislators back in the 40’s and 50’s for that answer but that’s the conundrum that everybody faced when the issue of selling the property to 3rd parties occur which forced the road district to attempt to buy the garage facility.
(Notice the moderator continues to ignore the attendees on the left of the room and only calls on those sitting on the right.)
Peter B: I have a question regarding the ownership of the buildings. You were saying that the road department owned the buildings prior to the sale?
Pat Cohen: Their money was used to build the buildings.
Peter B:.....so you own the buildings. Who’s going to own the buildings after this transfer?
Pat Cohen: The Township will own the property and anything that is on the property.
Peter B: …..so they will also own the buildings at this point in time.
Pat Cohen: Subject to the lease back to the road district for the 20 years.
Peter B: They’re just leasing the use of it, though, they’re not taking ownership….so there’s a transfer of ownership of the buildings with this transfer back or the undoing.
Pat Cohen: (Nods yes)
Moderator: It’s reverting back to 2007. (Looks to Pat Cohen) Correct?
Peter B: Well we’re not because in 2007 the road district owned the buildings and now the township will own the buildings.
Moderator: The Township owned the buildings.
Pat Cohen: By law if….(inaudible)
Peter B: Okay. My seconds question I have is, the original sale was for $611k, is that correct?
Moderator: Yes.
Peter B: Why are we buying it back for $700k? I understand if you have a loan but where’s the extra $89k?
Pat Cohen: As I attempted to previously state, part of the transaction was free rent for 18months and the road district would have to pay interest on the loan that they took out. So when you combine the rent that should have been paid and the interest that the road district paid, that totals in excess of $700k but in order to pay the loan off, all that is needed is $700k. So that’s the reason for the $700k to take away the debt that the road district, otherwise, has to pay in interest that isn’t needed in order to unwind the transaction or give the money back to the same position they were prior to 2008.
Tim Hauft: Call to question.
Moderator: Call to question. Is there a 2nd?
Joe: I 2nd.
Moderator: …..All those in favor of calling the question, please stand.
All those opposed, please stand. Call to question’s passed.
We will proceed to vote on the motion.
(People express frustration that the moderator ignored hands that were raised during discussion.)(Someone commented, “Their going to bankrupt themselves!”)(Gerry McMahon: “That’s exactly right!”)
The motion is, that we are voting on right now: To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully executed. All those in favor of the motion, please stand. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of the motion.) All those opposed, please stand. (People scream to use the paper ballots that were provided and were instructed to use, by the moderator, at the start of the meeting) Motion has carried. It is clear….(Inaudible due to cheering) In the state of Illinois rules the chair can count ballots by people standing. The potion has passed. (Someone yells, “Who’s registered voters!” and another, “How do you know they’re registered voters?!”)
Moderator: I’d like to ask a motion now with that motion being passed to strike items 2 thru 6 or 2 thru 7 which were originally 1 thru 6. So we need a motion to strike those items. (The moderator automatically looks up to Mr. Kurns.) (From the crowd, “Is that your brother?” “Yes it is”)
(Diane Aires moves from her seat and approaches the moderator - perhaps refusing to be ignored. The moderator hesitates before calling on her.) (A gentleman from the crowd says, “I quit.”) (People begin to leave.)
Diane Aires: …privilege as a person who has studied constitutional law and……I believe the rules or laws have been violated here. For two reasons: For one thing, you did say you have the right to take a vote by standing, however, you have allowed more people into this audience than just qualified voters. So if you take a vote by the number of people in this audience standing….qualified to vote here? And secondly, this is another point of which I’m concerned, I do believe that the rule of law requires if we use a paper ballot, that this be a secret ballot that we need not announce our vote to the world. You know, when you came in here, you were handed a ballot and each ballot has a number on it, and that number was written next to your name on your voter registration. Therefore, there is nothing secret about this ballot. All they have to do is look at the sheet and the number and they know exactly how you voted. (The right side of the room begins to shout, “Point of Order!”) I call for reconsideration.
Moderator: There has been a call for reconsideration.
Unknown male: Mr. Chairman, on the question of the Point of Order, the young lady has put a motion for reconsideration on the floor. Only a person who has voted for the motion can make such a motion.
PART 7
Moderator: The amendment is to strike the verbiage of the Haligus Road Property and split that into two motions. We need to vote on the amendment. Is there any more discussion?
Virginia: Well, I’m a little confused. ….to hear some facts and figures…some pros and cons so that we would know which way to vote but if we vote on this item that pretty much is decided what we’re going to do. And I’d like to know some of the pros and cons either way and what it’s going to cost to rewind all this. (Notice an answer was not offered during this part of the discussion.)
Lucinda: Call to Question
Tim: 2nd
Moderation: Confusion….Those in favor to call to question please stand. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of call to question.) Those opposed please stand. Question is called. Now we will vote on the amendment. The amendment to the original motion is to strike to exercise the buy-back from the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township. We will strike that. That’s what we are voting for right now and leave the rest of the motion to be voted on.
Dawn: A request for clarification is made. (Mic was malfunctioning)
Moderator: I think I understood her. To clarity what we are doing right now is we are amending the original motion stated by Mr Kurns and striking the terminology of the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd….. If we approve that amendment, the motion will read, To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney, dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully execute.
Are you ready? We’re going to vote on that amendment. All those is favor of the amendment, please stand. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of the amendment.) All those opposed, please stand. The amendment has been stricken….(corrects himself) the amendment passed.
Moderator: The motion now reads, To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney, dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully executed.
Someone calls for discussion.
Moderator: We are putting this to a vote. All those in favor……
(The moderator is confused on weather there was a call to question or if the motion can be discussed. The attorneys advise that the motion should be discussed.)
Lily Baily: I want to hear what that gentleman has to say (points to Gerry McMahon)
Moderator: You are out of order. I’ll recognize this gentleman in the yellow shirt.
Gerry McMahon attempts to speak and the moderator calls him out of order and threatens to remove him. (Impartial moderator? I think not.)
Jerry Mason: We’re talking about the unwinding back to the road district as it was prior to all these transactions. I just wanted to know ……are there changes to his resolution that doesn’t absolutely unwind us back to what was in place then?
Pat Cohen: The road district, prior to the transaction in 2008, occupied the road district garage facility. Did not pay any rent to the road district. So from the standpoint of putting everything back to the place it was, prior to the transaction, yes it is the same other than there’s an official 20yr lease with the provision that the road district has to perform certain tasks on behalf of the township which was what the road district did anyway prior to the 2008 transaction.
Jerry Mason: what was the $700K?
Pat Cohen: The $700K was the amount of money that was borrowed by the road district in order to purchase property from the township and in addition they put up a salt shed on the road district property and they did not receive any rent from the township for the 18months that the township occupied the space during that transaction.
Jerry Mason: Is this a new charge?
Pat Cohen: The road district paid $700K to the Harris Bank in order to take out the loan to accomplish the transaction. Grafton Township received the proceeds from the sale of $611K plus free rent for 18months and have now occupied the premises for approximately 21month without paying anything. So what’s happened is the road district has had to pay interest on the $700k and has no rent been received.
Moderator: chair recognizes the gentleman in the purple shirt (ignores Gerry McMahon who has had his hand raised to speak)
Unknown Male: inaudible
**In Part 6 you will see how some of the “Green Shirts” try to manipulate the motion to include two separate items…..to ‘hurry things along’. I’m not going to transcribe this one verbatim but I will try to give you the meat of what is said. There’s a lot of confusion, due to the moderator’s inexperience with Roberts Rules, and there are a lot of repetitive remarks.
PART 6
Joe Mahan: That was not an amended motion.
Moderator: That was a motion. That was his motion and there was a 2nd on the motion. We are in discussion of that motion as it is. There is no other question. There is a motion on the floor that is being discussed right now. It is to accept that resolution as he modified it.
Marci: I’d like to say a couple things. 1. I don’t think the people who voted on moving #11 to #1 knew that it entailed mushing things together and then voting on a bunch of stuff all in one; and 2. I don’t think the stand up – sit down works in that situation. You have no idea if everybody here is a registered voter or not. So how do we know if more than 50% are registered voters?
Moderator: I understand what you’re saying. (without attempting to address the question, points to a “Green shirt”)
Mr Ziller: There’s two things we’re here to vote on tonight. #1 is a general …of those two questions. We can do this in one question. That’s what this is about. Not sitting here going through many resolutions.
Moderator: or by suggestion if you want to modify that into two to make this clean. There’s a lot of discussion here.
Joe Mahan: I move that we amend that motion into two parts. The original and the second.
Moderator: To get this correctly…..you can’t do it that way. You have to move to strike the Lake in the Hills verbiage off there and to separate the resolution off.
Joe: I move to separate that resolution off.
Gloria Antonelli: I 2nd.
Moderator: Discussion on the amendment. The amendment is to strike the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township….to strike that off of there and merely stay with the first part of Mr Kurns motion which is To accept the resolution by the Township by Mr Cohen. To adopt the resolution. That’s what the amendment is.
Dawn: I think it should be split into two votes. They are not entirely the same issue. I don’t know why you would be afraid to let people to make two different decisions and thinking them through and voting them both. It’s the research we did before we came here tonight. There are two separate issues. One is the old building and the sale back or not. The other is the Haligus Rd property.
Moderator: Any further discussion?
Unknown Male: I’m not affiliated with the pros or the means here. I’m just somewhat interest in what going on. It seems to me that Mr Cohens comments sort of muddied the waters. My discussion point is: why don’t we table or strike the comments of Mr Cohen and just go with the first motion and vote yes ot no. Some of them may need more discussion on, perhaps but lets just vote yes or no and move on. And if he wants to make another motion, that’s fine.
Moderator: I’d like to make a clarification here. Mr Cohen merely read the resolution that the motion was made to it….he explained what he (Mr Kurns) was discerning with his motion, He explained that.
Unknown Male: No but I have some contract experience and so what his comments did was modify the interpretation of his (Mr Kurns) motion. So by introducing his (Mr Cohen) comments, doesn’t jive with what is happing in #11.
Mr Kurns: The reason that we put those two together is because #11 deals with the potential action and sale….of township property. So to do that, this question entails everything that’s in the upper 9 questions….is all done in this question with the motion that I just made which turns everything back the way it was before 2007. And we’ve spent enough money on legal ramifications and we need to do this and have it done. I urge everybody to vote yes on this the way it was read.
Wayne Schmidt: I think its easy to clarify this. #11 was explained by (Keri-Lyn Krafthefer ). She got up and said basically what #11 was about…the first six items, I believe it was, and the others were based on the Haligus purchase. ….so really there are two different points here. 1, we have to work on the Vine St thing first to get that back the way it was supposed to be. And secondly, then, to rescind the Haligus purchase……I thinks it’s very clear on this.
Moderator: We are discussing the amendment to the motion to strike.
PART 5
Mr Cohan: Gives a description of the resolution in layman’s terms: “In order to unwind the transaction, the township would have to buy back the property from the road district and the road district would have to sell back to the township the property. In order to extinguish the bond that the road district took out to buy the property, the transaction price would be $700,000.00 so as to extinguish the debt that the road district is now carrying. Now that the property would be back in the hands of the township, the road district needs to lease the space because their township garage is still located on one of the two lots and therefore this agreement would allow for a 20yr lease, so as to allow the road district to continue the use of property, in return for which they will plow the property, cut the grass, maintain and store the township bus and any other vehicle so that, in essence, the transaction is wound down and everybody is restored to the same position as they were prior to the 2008 transaction”.
Moderator: Any other discussion?
Mr Kurns: Says this will cover Items 1-9 on the agenda
Moderator: It doesn’t cover that, It covers items 1-6
(Some confusion about what items are included in the motion.)
Moderator: Starts…..”His motion did read….” “Read the motion again.” “State your motion.” “He did state Haligu Road.
Mr Kurns Sr: The motion was: To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney, dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully executed and to exercise the buy-back from the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township. Which I believe is #8 (on the agenda).
Moderator: confusion regarding what motion we are adopting. Points to a member of the audience…….”I want you to stand up and I want you to announce yourself to the microphone”.
Jerry McMahan: “I’m one of your trustees and I live in Sun City”….”What you’ve heard today is a classic spin”……Audience member shout point of order…..” I think maybe you’d like to hear what I’ve got to say”….I’d like to give you a little analogy of what you’re voting on”….”Mr, Halat here, in the yellow shirt, sued us”.
Linda supporters cry ”Point of order”……
Moderator: Now you’re out of order.
Many attempt to talk over each other.
Moderator: Sir, Sir…..we will have you removed.
Someone calls for the moderator
(This part was cut out but I have another copy of the meeting that was taped by someone who was contracted by Grafton Township. That copy has NOT been released.)
Marci: request to clarify the motion that Mr Kurns read and weather the motion was amended (I’m paraphrasing)
(More confusion regarding what the motion is)
The Moderator asks the Clerk to read Mr Kurns motion. (Yes, this is the 3rd time we’re hearing this.)
Clerk Ford: To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney, dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully executed and to exercise the buy-back from the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township. Click to view Part 6
PART 4
Diane Aires: Continues……
Unknown Male: call to question. (end discussion and vote)
Moderator: re-reads motions to move the item up to #1 on the agenda. Asked for all in favor to please stand. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of moving the agenda item.) Asked for all opposed to please stand….. announces that the motion is carried before all are able to stand.
(Audience members express their frustration. Someone shouts for ROLL CALL. Some confusion about what is being voted on.)
Moderator: Asked for all in favor to please stand. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of moving the agenda item.) Asked for all opposed to please stand….. announces that the motion is carried.
(Someone, again, shouts for ROLL CALL. Moderator says that there were clearly more than 1/2 in favor and there is no need for roll call.)
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer: Gives explanation of agenda items.
Moderator: Move into discussion of potential actions of Item #11 which is now #1.
Mr. Kurns: Reads his motion - To accept the resolution by the GraftonT ownship Road District and his attorney, dated February 26th, 2010 which unwinds the Grafton Township Road District – Grafton Township real property transaction that was unlawfully executed and to exercise the buy-back from the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township.
Motion was 1st and 2nd, up for discussion.
Moderator: calls on Mr Cohan to speak about what it means to unwind the purchase of property.
Mr Cohan: Gives legal description of resolution.
**I must point out that Mr Kurns, who is a Linda Moore supporter, is a close relative of the moderator, Jim Kurns. So how can the moderator be impartial???**
*Notice, that the majority of Linda Moore’s supporters are sitting on the right side of the room and that the moderator is partial to them. You’ll see that this is true because he rarely looks in the other direction and rarely recognizes them when they wish to speak.
*You will also notice that there are no standing, numbered, microphones so people can line up to speak. Instead there are “runners” that will go to your location. The problem with this method is that not everyone gets to speak…especially when you have an impartial moderator.
*Voting by standing majority is in-ethical. This method simply cannot work. Remember that anyone can come to these meetings. People in the township, outside of the township; people from another state even; registered and non-registered voters…. Votes can easily be stacked and is unlawful.
PART 3
Clerk Harriet Ford continues to read the Supervisors statement of financial affairs.
Moderator: Presentation of hiway commissioners – motion made to wave the reading.
Motion was 1st and 2nd. Motion carries. Reading was not done.
(Notice where Linda is seated.)
Tammy Luthe (sp): Make a motion made to amend the sequence of the agenda to move item #11 to item #1.
(a member of the audience yells a requests for a mic on the left side of the room)
Motion was 1st and 2nd.
Moderator: Asked for all in favor to please stand as he looks in the direction of the “green shirts”. (“Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting in favor of moving the agenda item.) Asked for all apposed to please stand….announces that the motion is carried before all are able to stand.
(Audience members express their frustration. Jim Kurns ignores this and calls point of order.)
Peter Hoffman: Any vote requires discussion before any vote can be taken according to Roberts Rules.
Moderator agrees to comply.
Tammy Luthe (sp): Explains her motion to move the agenda item.
Diane Aires: Feels that the item should not be moved and that all of the township business should be discussed.
PART 2
Moderator:
Asks for a count of the electors….may be impossible.
Introductions:
Pat Cohen : Attorney for Grafton Township Road District
Ron Bush: attorney for Grafton Township
Keri-Lyn Krafthefer : attorney for Grafton Township
Holds up pink cards that he says will be used for voting.
Makes a motion to adopt Roberts Rules of order be used for conducting the meeting.
Motion was 1st and 2nd.
All those in favor stand to adopt the rules…motion passes.
Requests for a motions to vote for approval of the minutes from 2009 Annual Meeting Minutes.
Don Bond: Move for approval of the minutes.
Moderator: Asks if everyone has a copy of the minutes. The public answers “No”.
Asks if the public wants the minutes read. The public answers “No”.
Motion was 1st and 2nd. Motion carries. Minutes are approved.
Tom Halet: (green shirt) has the mic: Makes motion to censor Grafton Township Trustees: Rob Laporta, Betty Zirk, Barb Murphy, Gerry McMahon.
Attorneys say it cannot be added to the agenda. Motion is stricken.
Clerk Harriet Ford reads the Supervisors statement of financial affairs.
Over the next few days I will post footage from the 2010 Annual Grafton Township Meeting. It's important that we remind ourselves of the debacle that we found ourselves in last year. To put it not so mildly, we were railroaded and we need to take steps to prevent this from happening again this year and in the future.
Take a look.
Pledge of Allegiance
Harriet Ford:
Explanation of Procedures
Floor opened for nominations for moderator
Dan Ziller Jr (green shirt) Nominated Jim Kurns for moderator
2nd by (green shirt)
Rob Laporta nominated Steve Harlfinger for moderator
Joe 2nd
Motion made to close nominations….motion carried
Clerk instructed attendees to stand to show their vote.
(Notice that the “Green Shirts” hold up cards to direct voting for moderator.)
Jim Kurns wins (applause)
Jim Kurns swears to impartially discharge the duties of moderator.
Moderator:
-Request to keep the meeting in order…..and wants to give everyone the chance to “do their thing”. Click to view Part 2
