Archive of past posts  Last updated Monday, November 2, 2015
August 30, 2015 Quad Cities Standing Against Hate Rally Ben Butterworth Parkway, Moline I am proud to join Quad Cities Standing United Against Hate rally today, August 30th at 5pm at the Ben Butterworth Parkway venue in Moline. The event sponsored by the Metropolitan Community Church with gatherings for the Standing United Against Hate Day begin at 5 pm on Sunday, at Le Claire Park in Davenport, Leach Park in Bettendorf, Butterworth Park in Moline, and Sunset Marina Park in Rock Island. My comments at the event can be viewed here.      Drue Mielke and Quad Cities Standing Against Hate. Moline's venue of Quad Cities Standing Against Hate Rally I enjoyed a very good conversation with Imam Saad H. Baig of the Islamic Center of Quad Cities. Left:  Moline rally coordinator Kent Ferris; Davenport Dioceses Director of Social Action & Catholic Charities, Respect Life/Pro-Life and Project Rachel Coordinator and Right:  Rev. Bill Coley, 1st Christian Church, East Moline My comments at the event can be viewed here.      Drue Mielke and Quad Cities Standing Against Hate. "I am Drue Mielke, Rock Island County Board Member and Republican Minority Caucus Leader on the Rock Island County Board. I wanted to show you how important this is to me by joining you all here now and I just had a few things I wanted to say. Here in the Quad Cities, we have more that unities us than divides us. I think it needs to be known there is so much more that unities us. We work together in our organizations to fight for what’s right in our community. I wanted to share a couple verses I found. This James 1:10-20.  "Everyone should be quick to listen. Slow to speak. And slow to become angry. Because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." James 1:10-20. We’ve seen attempts by people that want emphasize differences and create division in our America and in our community. Proverbs 15:18 says "A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but the slow to anger calms a dispute." I want to say that we are standing together, taking positive action and praying together against hate, is a testament to how much we care about our community. We are all God’s creation. Regardless of the division and differences,  We need to give the respect to all, recognizing that we all are God’s children, loving thy neighbor with tolerance, and embracing differences rather than hating the diversity that God created. As a member of the community I want to tell you personally, I have been the recipient of hate. I have had slurs scrawled on my home front door. I lived briefly in Iowa that had new hate laws didn’t seem to have meaning. The hate was still there. I moved back to my home town of Coal Valley. I have seen hostility in the workplace. I’ve seen my tires slashed because of political hatred. I’m sorry but this kind of gets to me.... But there is good. I am grateful that a fellow county board member Nick Camlin reached across party lines asking me to co-sponsor a resolution affirming the laws that protect Lesbian Gays Bi-Sexual and Transgendered Rock Island County employees in the workplace. It shows that we can join together to fight hate and not be victims.  I try to approach everything I can in the spirit of love, knowing we will be remembered on how we treat others. We will get angry. We are human. When we allow hate to enter our lives, it controls our hearts and minds. If we allow that, WE become the victim of hate.
August 30, 2015 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. Celebrate West End  County Board Member Kim Callaway-Thompson invited the entire county board to attend the "Celebrate West End" 11th Annual Community Resource Fair and Block Party.  This annual event is a reminder that school is starting August 3rd and gets information out to the neighborhood. Thanking fellow County Board Member Kim Callaway-Thompson Kim Callaway-Thompson organized the event. Rock Island County Health Department Booth Rock Island County Branch of NAACP Table Waterballoon Contest Waterballoon Contest      July 19, 2015 Proposed resolution affirms rights and protections for Rock Island County LGBT employees. The Rock Island County Board will review a resolution that affirms rights and protections extended to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) county employees. The resolution was passed by the Human Resources Committee on Thursday, July 16, 2015, and will come before the full County board for final approval on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at the 5:30 county board meeting. Nick Camlin, (D) Rock Island County Board Vice-Chairman asked me to co-sponsor this bill and I am proud to support a resolution that affirms the dignity and respect for our county’s LGBT employees. http://www.nickcamlin.com/news/LGBT   The resolution’s goal is to assure that Rock Island County extends equal benefits to all. In bi-partisan cooperation, Mr. Camlin states “with Mr. Drue Mielke, I am happy to co-sponsor a very important County Board Resolution that reaffirms our county’s commitment to LGBT employees and looks to the next horizon of rights and protections for all LGBT people.” I lend my support to co-sponsor this employee resolution as a Republican who recognizes and affirms the importance of individual right to self-determination, the dignity and worth of every individual, and individual opportunity for employees of our county.  I  believe that this resolution is an outgrowth of our appreciation for our diverse workforce by our Rock Island County Board. Rock Island County has a rich history of extending respect and dignity to LGBT employees, including benefits for same-sex couples, implementing the 2011 Civil Union law and the 2015 Marriage Equality law, and setting policies protecting sexual orientation in the employee manual. With the passage of this resolution, the County Board directs the Administrator and Human Resources Department to further county employees’ rights and protections by including both sexual orientation and gender identity into county policies, expanding diversity training to include LGBT people, and establishing a Diversity Council, ensuring that all married and civil union couples are included in Family and Medical Leave Act provisions, and encourage that businesses that contract with the county to have a procurement policy to have nondiscrimination policies that include LGBT people. Mr. Camlin sends a clear message from the county, “If you come and work for our county, you will be valued and you will have nothing to fear-- you can be yourself!”
June 21, 2015 Dispatch/Argus article- How are property taxes spent? http://www.qconline.com/news/local/rock-island-county-land-values-property-taxes-increase/article_e56be73a-770d-538a-bbd3-bfd0799e1b30.html I have addressed in full board and in committee that paying 50% of county board salaries out of the tort liability fund needs to be re-evaluated.  I have discussed this with our administrator and this will be addressed properly during budget. I never believed that it would reduce costs. And we had a huge drain on experience and education investment that the county made on their employees just walk out the door. Now, in committee, we are being asked to approve training for new employees. That's another cost that may have not been considered in the scheme. Link to October 2014 County Board Minutes, page 26-27 http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=38035&libID=1000005896 Text below:   Board Member Mielke was recognized. Mr. Mielke stated, "You mentioned the Liability Fund...and I did get emails from residents of the county questioning that. Specifically the Liability Funds 50% of the County Board Salaries. You mentioned it just now, and my question is... is that tapped into for other needs for this budget." Mr. Jacobs stated, "The State's Attorney ...which is legal. John has given us the approval on that." Mr. Mielke asked, "I guess the reason why I am curious and why I keep getting emails and I think other County Board Members do too, when I read the Statute that saying that ... it says: "Notwithstanding this historic nature of this tax does authorize...become apparent that some units of local government are using this tax as a tax revenue that is quite extensive of what is being paid with the general operating funds." And I understand we don't have an operating fund ...they are adequate, but I guess I just want to make it known that we have ROCK ISLAND COUNTY BOARD 10-21-2014 PAGE 26 other people asking the same question...why we are at the level we are with County Board Salaries?" Mr. Jacobs answered, "Because we have statutory things that we have to do and there is no place to get the money. We can't go to the Highway Fund, that would be illegal. We can't go to the Bridge Fund, that would be illegal. Mental Health Fund has a $.15 levy and we only use $.06 of it. We could pick up $2.5 million there, but it's illegal. The Liability Insurance can be used for any liability. Anything that's like with John's office (State's Attorney) and half of our salary." Mr. Mielke asked, "Can I ask one more question to the State's Attorney?" Mr. Jacobs said, "Go ahead." Mr. Mielke asked, "John, can you provide some of that information that I can provide to the people that will answer their questions." Mr. McGehee answered, "I have provided that information to several committees at their meetings regarding the Civil Liability Fund. I understand that the Statute is specific to that particular concern, but the Legislature has. And, I indicated to them at their committee meetings that there has to be a risk' management for each particular committee...and that needs to be developed so that the county does try to avoid any kind of civil liability and lawsuits because it affects everybody across the board. Each committee deals with civil liability issues. They are constantly being sued and we have lots of issues that are dealt with ...and there needs to be a plan for each particular one related to that. So, I know there is a plan for each particular department now, and each committee needs to look at that and see if there needs to be more in that.  That's what the law is and that's what I have advised to the county." Mr. Jacobs answered, "We would like to not have to use the Liability Insurance, but we have a General Fund that's got 95% salaries and wages." Mr. Mielke stated, "It sounds like the General Fund is inadequate." Mr. Jacobs answered, "Well, it definitely is." Mr. Mielke stated, "Well that's the answer I'll give." Mr. Jacobs added, "That's what I'm trying to tell you right now." Mr. Mielke added, "No, I get it...but I get troubled by...when I read ... " ROCK ISLAND COUNTY BOARD 10-21-2014 PAGE 27 The Statue: Sec. 9-107. Policy; tax levy.    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=074500100K9-107     (745 ILCS 10/9-107) (from Ch. 85, par. 9-107)      Sec. 9-107. Policy; tax levy.      (a)  The General Assembly finds that the purpose of this Section is to provide an extraordinary tax for funding expenses relating to (i) tort liability, (ii) liability relating to actions brought under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or the Environmental Protection Act, but only until December 31, 2010, (iii) insurance, and (iv) risk management programs.  Thus, the tax has been excluded from various limitations otherwise applicable to tax levies.  Notwithstanding the extraordinary nature of the tax authorized by this Section, however, it has become apparent that some units of local government are using the tax revenue to fund expenses more properly paid from general operating funds.  These uses of the revenue are inconsistent with the limited purpose of the tax authorization.      Therefore, the General Assembly declares, as a matter of policy, that (i) the use of the tax revenue authorized by this Section for purposes not expressly authorized under this Act is improper and (ii) the provisions of this Section shall be strictly construed consistent with this declaration and the Act's express purposes.      (b) A local public entity may annually levy or have levied on its behalf taxes upon all taxable property within its territory at a rate that will produce a sum that will be sufficient to: (i) pay the cost of insurance, individual or joint self-insurance (including reserves thereon), including all operating and administrative costs and expenses directly associated therewith, claims services and risk management directly attributable to loss prevention and loss reduction, legal services directly attributable to the insurance, self-insurance, or joint self-insurance program, and educational, inspectional, and supervisory services directly relating to loss prevention and loss reduction, participation in a reciprocal insurer as provided in Sections 72, 76, and 81 of the Illinois Insurance Code, or participation in a reciprocal insurer, all as provided in settlements or judgments under Section 9-102, including all costs and reserves directly attributable to being a member of an insurance pool, under Section 9-103; (ii) pay the costs of and principal and interest on bonds issued under Section 9-105; (iii) pay judgments and settlements under Section 9-104 of this Act; (iv) discharge obligations under Section 34-18.1 of the School Code; (v) pay judgments and settlements under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the Environmental Protection Act, but only until December 31, 2010; (vi) pay the costs authorized by the Metro-East Sanitary District Act of 1974 as provided in subsection (a) of Section 5-1 of that Act (70 ILCS 2905/5-1); and  (vii)  pay the cost of risk management programs. Provided it complies with any other applicable statutory requirements, the local public entity may self-insure and establish reserves for expected losses for any property damage or for any liability or loss for which the local public entity is authorized to levy or have levied on its behalf taxes for the purchase of insurance or the payment of judgments or settlements under this Section. The decision of the board to establish a reserve shall be based on reasonable actuarial or insurance underwriting evidence and subject to the limits and reporting provisions in Section 9-103.      If a school district was a member of a joint-self-health-insurance cooperative that had more liability in outstanding claims than revenue to pay those claims, the school board of that district may by resolution make a one-time transfer from any fund in which tort immunity moneys are maintained to the fund or funds from which payments to a joint-self-health-insurance cooperative can be or have been made of an amount not to exceed the amount of the liability claim that the school district owes to the joint-self-health-insurance cooperative or that the school district paid within the 2 years immediately preceding the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly.      Funds raised pursuant to this Section shall only be used for the purposes specified in this Act, including protection against and reduction of any liability or loss described hereinabove and under Federal or State common or statutory law, the Workers' Compensation Act, the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Funds raised pursuant to this Section may be invested in any manner in which other funds of local public entities may be invested under Section 2 of the Public Funds Investment Act.  Interest on such funds shall be used only for purposes for which the funds can be used or, if surplus, must be used for abatement of property taxes levied by the local taxing entity.      A local public entity may enter into intergovernmental contracts with a term of not to exceed 12 years for the provision of joint self-insurance which contracts may include an obligation to pay a proportional share of a general obligation or revenue bond or other debt instrument issued by a local public entity which is a party to the intergovernmental contract and is authorized by the terms of the contract to issue the bond or other debt instrument.  Funds due under such contracts shall not be considered debt under any constitutional or statutory limitation and the local public entity may levy or have levied on its behalf taxes to pay for its proportional share under the contract.  Funds raised pursuant to intergovernmental contracts for the provision of joint self-insurance may only be used for the payment of any cost, liability or loss against which a local public entity may protect itself or self-insure pursuant to Section 9-103 or for the payment of which such entity may levy a tax pursuant to this Section, including tort judgments or settlements, costs associated with the issuance, retirement or refinancing of the bonds or other debt instruments, the repayment of the principal or interest of the bonds or other debt instruments, the costs of the administration of the joint self-insurance fund, consultant, and risk care management programs or the costs of insurance.  Any surplus returned to the local public entity under the terms of the intergovernmental contract shall be used only for purposes set forth in subsection (a) of Section 9-103 and Section 9-107 or for abatement of property taxes levied by the local taxing entity.      Any tax levied under this Section shall be levied and collected in like manner with the general taxes of the entity and shall be exclusive of and in addition to the amount of tax that entity is now or may hereafter be authorized to levy for general purposes under any statute which may limit the amount of tax which that entity may levy for general purposes. The county clerk of the county in which any part of the territory of the local taxing entity is located, in reducing tax levies under the provisions of any Act concerning the levy and extension of taxes, shall not consider any tax provided for by this Section as a part of the general tax levy for the purposes of the entity nor include such tax within any limitation of the percent of the assessed valuation upon which taxes are required to be extended for such entity.      With respect to taxes levied under this Section,  either before, on, or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1994:             (745 ILCS 10/9-107) (from Ch. 85, par. 9-107)      Sec. 9-107. Policy; tax levy.      (a)  The General Assembly finds that the purpose of this Section is to provide an extraordinary tax for funding expenses relating to (i) tort liability, (ii) liability relating to actions brought under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or the Environmental Protection Act, but only until December 31, 2010, (iii) insurance, and (iv) risk management programs.  Thus, the tax has been excluded from various limitations otherwise applicable to tax levies.  Notwithstanding the extraordinary nature of the tax authorized by this Section, however, it has become apparent that some units of local government are using the tax revenue to fund expenses more properly paid from general operating funds.  These uses of the revenue are inconsistent with the limited purpose of the tax authorization.      Therefore, the General Assembly declares, as a matter of policy, that (i) the use of the tax revenue authorized by this Section for purposes not expressly authorized under this Act is improper and (ii) the provisions of this Section shall be strictly construed consistent with this declaration and the Act's express purposes.      (b) A local public entity may annually levy or have levied on its behalf taxes upon all taxable property within its territory at a rate that will produce a sum that will be sufficient to: (i) pay the cost of insurance, individual or joint self-insurance (including reserves thereon), including all operating and administrative costs and expenses directly associated therewith, claims services and risk management directly attributable to loss prevention and loss reduction, legal services directly attributable to the insurance, self-insurance, or joint self-insurance program, and educational, inspectional, and supervisory services directly relating to loss prevention and loss reduction, participation in a reciprocal insurer as provided in Sections 72, 76, and 81 of the Illinois Insurance Code, or participation in a reciprocal insurer, all as provided in settlements or judgments under Section 9-102, including all costs and reserves directly attributable to being a member of an insurance pool, under Section 9-103; (ii) pay the costs of and principal and interest on bonds issued under Section 9-105; (iii) pay judgments and settlements under Section 9-104 of this Act; (iv) discharge obligations under Section 34-18.1 of the School Code; (v) pay judgments and settlements under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the Environmental Protection Act, but only until December 31, 2010; (vi) pay the costs authorized by the Metro-East Sanitary District Act of 1974 as provided in subsection (a) of Section 5-1 of that Act (70 ILCS 2905/5-1); and  (vii)  pay the cost of risk management programs. Provided it complies with any other applicable statutory requirements, the local public entity may self-insure and establish reserves for expected losses for any property damage or for any liability or loss for which the local public entity is authorized to levy or have levied on its behalf taxes for the purchase of insurance or the payment of judgments or settlements under this Section. The decision of the board to establish a reserve shall be based on reasonable actuarial or insurance underwriting evidence and subject to the limits and reporting provisions in Section 9-103.      If a school district was a member of a joint-self-health-insurance cooperative that had more liability in outstanding claims than revenue to pay those claims, the school board of that district may by resolution make a one-time transfer from any fund in which tort immunity moneys are maintained to the fund or funds from which payments to a joint-self-health-insurance cooperative can be or have been made of an amount not to exceed the amount of the liability claim that the school district owes to the joint-self-health-insurance cooperative or that the school district paid within the 2 years immediately preceding the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly.      Funds raised pursuant to this Section shall only be used for the purposes specified in this Act, including protection against and reduction of any liability or loss described hereinabove and under Federal or State common or statutory law, the Workers' Compensation Act, the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Funds raised pursuant to this Section may be invested in any manner in which other funds of local public entities may be invested under Section 2 of the Public Funds Investment Act.  Interest on such funds shall be used only for purposes for which the funds can be used or, if surplus, must be used for abatement of property taxes levied by the local taxing entity.      A local public entity may enter into intergovernmental contracts with a term of not to exceed 12 years for the provision of joint self-insurance which contracts may include an obligation to pay a proportional share of a general obligation or revenue bond or other debt instrument issued by a local public entity which is a party to the intergovernmental contract and is authorized by the terms of the contract to issue the bond or other debt instrument.  Funds due under such contracts shall not be considered debt under any constitutional or statutory limitation and the local public entity may levy or have levied on its behalf taxes to pay for its proportional share under the contract.  Funds raised pursuant to intergovernmental contracts for the provision of joint self-insurance may only be used for the payment of any cost, liability or loss against which a local public entity may protect itself or self-insure pursuant to Section 9-103 or for the payment of which such entity may levy a tax pursuant to this Section, including tort judgments or settlements, costs associated with the issuance, retirement or refinancing of the bonds or other debt instruments, the repayment of the principal or interest of the bonds or other debt instruments, the costs of the administration of the joint self-insurance fund, consultant, and risk care management programs or the costs of insurance.  Any surplus returned to the local public entity under the terms of the intergovernmental contract shall be used only for purposes set forth in subsection (a) of Section 9-103 and Section 9-107 or for abatement of property taxes levied by the local taxing entity.      Any tax levied under this Section shall be levied and collected in like manner with the general taxes of the entity and shall be exclusive of and in addition to the amount of tax that entity is now or may hereafter be authorized to levy for general purposes under any statute which may limit the amount of tax which that entity may levy for general purposes. The county clerk of the county in which any part of the territory of the local taxing entity is located, in reducing tax levies under the provisions of any Act concerning the levy and extension of taxes, shall not consider any tax provided for by this Section as a part of the general tax levy for the purposes of the entity nor include such tax within any limitation of the percent of the assessed valuation upon which taxes are required to be extended for such entity.      With respect to taxes levied under this Section,  either before, on, or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1994:           (1) Those taxes are excepted from and shall not be      included within the rate limitation imposed by law on taxes levied for general corporate purposes by the local public entity authorized to levy a tax under this Section.           (2) Those taxes that a local public entity has levied      in reliance on this Section and that are excepted under paragraph (1) from the rate limitation imposed by law on taxes levied for general corporate purposes by the local public entity are not invalid because of any provision of the law authorizing the local public entity's tax levy for general corporate purposes that may be construed or may have been construed to restrict or limit those taxes levied, and those taxes are hereby validated. This validation of taxes levied applies to all cases pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1994.           (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to a hospital      organized under Article 170 or 175 of the Township Code, under the Town Hospital Act, or under the Township Non-Sectarian Hospital Act and do not give any authority to levy taxes on behalf of such a hospital in excess of the rate limitation imposed by law on taxes levied for general corporate purposes. A hospital organized under Article 170 or 175 of the Township Code, under the Town Hospital Act, or under the Township Non-Sectarian Hospital Act is not prohibited from levying taxes in support of tort liability bonds if the taxes do not cause the hospital's aggregate tax rate from exceeding the rate limitation imposed by law on taxes levied for general corporate purposes.      Revenues derived from such tax shall be paid to the treasurer of the local taxing entity as collected and used for the purposes of this Section and of Section 9-102,  9-103, 9-104 or 9-105, as the case may be. If payments on account of such taxes are insufficient during any year to meet such purposes, the entity may issue tax anticipation warrants against the current tax levy in the manner provided by statute. (Source: P.A. 95-244, eff. 8-17-07; 95-723, eff. 6-23-08.)                 June 18, 2015 Dispatch/Argus article- 80 RI County employees, 24-plus in sheriff's office, take early retirement http://www.qconline.com/news/local/ri-county-employees--plus-in-sheriff-s-office-take/article_59045d38-3f02-568d-bba3-f33b3ae8d04d.html   source:  http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=37625&libID=1000005486, May 2014 county board minutes, page 19   In addition, there were several employees who did not want to retire and I contacted the National Labor Relations Board and the Illinois Department of Human Rights when asked to on their behalf. If the purpose is to reduce costs, it's legal and that was the purpose in the letter was "to reduce expenses." The problem I had was that I never believed that it would reduce costs. And we had a huge drain on experience and education investment that the county made on their employees just walk out the door. Now, in committee, we are being asked to approve training for new employees. That's another cost that may have not been considered in the scheme. Administration Committee Minutes, November 12, 2014 , page 3 http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=38037&libID=1000005898 Mielke stated that he had a phone call late this morning asking about the mandatory Early Retirement situation - asking how being forced to retire if they don't want to. Position is not budgeted, if department wants to re-arrange their budget and not purchase items, and then can discuss. Employees are being offered a wonderful opportunity - benefits and retirement option. Mielke is being contacted by third party regarding a person who received a letter. Finances are what they are. Happens in private industry all the time. Needs to be presented to the Finance Committee where budget was reduced.   I have always been against this Early Retirement scheme and voted "no" to this. I never believed that it would reduce costs. And we had a huge drain on experience and education investment that the county made on their employees just walk out the door. Now, in committee, we are being asked to approve training for new employees. That's another cost that may have not been considered in the scheme. Link to May 2014 County Board Minutes http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=37625&libID=1000005486 See link above, page 19. 14. Board Member Jacobs moved to waive the reading and approve the IMRF Early Retirement Incentive Resolutions. Board Member Vyncke seconded. (Inc. by Ref.) A roll call vote was taken. D. Adams, S. Ballard, J. Brandmeyer, R. Brunk, M. Burns, N. Camlin, V. Dueysen, G. Freeman, D. Jacobs, K. Maranda, M. Mayberry, S. Meersman, P. Moreno, V. Shelton, S. Terry, B. Vyncke, K. Callaway-Thompson TOTAL YES 17 C. Filbert, D. Johnston, E. Langdon, D. Mielke, R. Oelke, J.R. Westpfahl TOTAL NO 6 Motion carried.
On Tuesday, April 28th, 2015, working families in the Quad City Area will gather at the USW Local 105 Hall to commemorate Workers Memorial Day. This is a time for working families and union members to commemorate sisters and brothers who have died or been injured on the job.   The service will be one of hundreds held around the world. Alcoa Davenport Works – Joint Safety and Health Committee is sponsoring this service to recognize the workers who are no longer with us due to a work-related accident.
March 18, 2015 County Board Declines 2nd Chance to Discuss and Vote on Downsizing Referendum I presented a minority opinion asking to not accept the Governmental Affairs Committee’s decision to NOT move the resolution to put the downsizing referendum to the full board. In essence, I was asking the board to have a chance to vote on this important issue rather than killing in committee. As I am a minority of the committee appointed who does not agreeing with the majority, I expressed views regarding moving the downsizing referendum resolution to full board for discussion and a vote. On August 26, 2014, a resolution was passed unanimously for Governmental Affairs Committee for review and determination of when it can be submitted to the voters of Rock Island County. It read as this: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of the County of Rock Island, Illinois, that the following binding resolution be submitted to the Rock Island County Board Governmental Affairs Committee for review and determination of the next available election where it can be submitted to the voters of the County to Rock Island: A review took place in Governmental Affairs A determination of when this can be placed on the ballot was made in Governmental Affairs. But they did not follow through the directive of the board by passing this onto the full board. This is in conflict and contradiction of the unanimous vote and wishes of the full board as they were directed. They were not directed to make a decision as to whether this should be on the ballot but THAT was reserved for the full board to discuss and decide. I recommended and made a motion to move the question out of committee with the findings and dates the Governmental Affairs Committee for discussion and vote at April’s meeting. Those voting in favor of having this going to full board were: Dewayne Cremeens (R) Rapids City Chris Filbert (R) Cordova Don Johnston (D) Moline Drue Mielke (R) Coal Valley Ron Oelke (R) Andalusia Mike Steffen (R) Moline Argument was made that the one time cost of $57,000 for redistricting is irresponsible.  I stated this IGNORES the YEARLY salary savings would be at LEAST $54,000 each year for 5 years until 2022.  It is better to let the voters hear all the pros and cons and put this on the ballot so they have a voice in there form and size of county government.		The unanimous decision to move the downsizing referendum proposal to the Governmental Affairs.
March 13, 2015 The path to downsizing the county board has been killed in committee. I champion the Dispatch/Argus for involving the public with their editorial on March 13th.  http://www.qconline.com/editorials/editorial-once-again-rico-change-in-the-hands-of-citizens/ This was taken from further discussion in the March 9th Governmental Affairs Committee meeting.  The chair of the committee voted to move this to the full board but members on the committee voted against moving this issue so it can be discussed and voted on by the full board. There are elected county board members who will obstruct, threaten, delay, stall, to make sure downsizing happen. It could have been done in 2014. They don't want it. Period. And will use multiple tactics to assure it dies rather than give people a voice in determining their form of government.  Jan. 7, 2013: I fought in Governmental Affairs when I was given Attorney General opinion from 1974 and 1976. There was an exception that allowed downsizing. Jan 15, 2013 board meeting: I stood up and said that there was an exceptional circumstance that existed that would allow us to downsize in 2014. Jan. 17, 2013: Part of my documents on downsizing links were taken from me. I had some of my documents but not all when I went to Springfield to speak to the State Board of Elections. February 19, 2013 board meeting: I agreed to having a new opinion from the Attorney General given that I disagreed with most that the board was not able to be downsized. Friday, April 12, 2013 8:15 am: Following up on the status of this request, I was told by the county board chairman three times “to be very careful” in a low, slow, and threatening tone. He also stated “a lot of people can get hurt” Friday, September 12, 2014: I am now made aware of the documents that were taken as they appear in a political attack ad. Complete falsehoods were made. Monday, September 15, 2014: I was told that these documents "were left" which is not true because I had most of my documents from that evening. These printed paper documents are stolen property. Regardless, theft of Lost or Mislaid Property has occurred by in this county that is not ethical or lawful for the to possess them without my knowledge or permission, A person commits theft of lost or mislaid property when he or she obtains control over the property and: (a) Knows or learns the identity of the owner or knows, or is aware of, or learns of a reasonable method of identifying the owner, and (b) Fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner, and (c) Intends to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property. I add that in certain elected positions, it is unethical to be in possession of stolen property and hold to use later for distorted political gain. I was never told that anyone possessed my property, no attempt was made to return my property, and the perpetrators know that I am the owner. I add that in certain elected positions, it is unethical to be in possession of stolen property and hold to use later for distorted political gain. This is what has occurred over this "downsizing" issue in Rock Island County. We deserve better government than this and I will continue to fight to provide it. Drue Mielke Rock Island County Board District 22 - Coal Valley/Moline email: countyboard@DrueMielke.com www.DrueMielke.com (309) 235-7493
February 13, 2015 Was honored to speak to the Rock Island County Branch of the NAACP meeting last night. It is very important to educate the public on this issue so that people understand the options on the table for reducing the number of county board member, what positive benefits might exist and also identify the unintended consequences if the board size is reduced. If the public wishes to downsize, that leaves two new choices:  • Board reduction in 2018 with multimember districts or • Board reduction in 2022 in a normal decennial census reapportionment which would allow single-member districts. As an elected official, I have a duty to listen to the will of the people but also to bring to light potential concerns that have not been addressed.  Speaking to the NAACP meeting last night was very helpful to identifying and understanding their views and feelings on this issue in the community.  Concerns I heard related to county board reduction- • Risk of disenfranchisement • A decrease in the number of people of color on the board • Dilution of minority voice I will not be a part of “selling a bill of goods”.  It is my obligation to flesh out issues and inform our county board members as well as the voters of all facets of this issue including unintended consequences.  I have been committed to finding the truth behind this issue.  I was told that the board could not be reduced outside decennial reapportionment-  I did not believe that- I said that was wrong- I was proven correct. When I was proven correct, the parameters of downsizing were set so that the only path was so narrow that it only can be done with multi-member districts.  I was the first to point out the obvious concerns to rural and minority representation.  Here is a link to the handout I gave to members:  Downsizing Handout If you want more information, last August, County Board Member Don Johnston and I appeared on “The Cities with Jim Mertens” to discuss this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw810uAAvno&feature=youtu.be When I was running for election in 2012 a friend of mine who is somewhat removed from our politics in this county (as he is a Mexican national ) gave me this advice: “all you need to do is look out for the people.”   And that is what I will do.
January 23, 2015 I am saddened by the news of Sue Golden's passing. Mrs. Golden called Rock Island her home since 1949. Sue Golden spent a lifetime of involvement in our community.  Her involvement included: chairman of the city Human Relations Commission, chairman of the Metro Youth advisory committee, chairman of the Prairie State Legal Services advisory committee, chairman of the ecumenical committee for Remembrance of the Holocaust, past president and current board member of Transitions, founder of In From the Cold (which assists homeless services) and past board member of the Boys and Girls Club, Rock Island Rotary, Temple Emanuel, and NAACP Illinois. Recipient of: Rotary Distinguished Community Service Award Martin Luther King, Jr. "I Have a Dream" Award Rock Island Citizen of the Year award Eleanor Roosevelt Award from the Israel Bond Committee Illinois Woman of Achievement Award Honorary doctorate for public service from St. Ambrose University.
An open letter regarding the Hope Creek County Board Meeting Vote I sent this letter out a bit ago to a friend and supporter of Hope Creek and wish to make it an open letter.    Although I did not vote for #2., I view it as a step in the path to get our home fixed.   A majority of the residents that called or emailed me supported selling.  Two were adamantly against me voting anything other than keeping it "as is" and said they would no longer support me if I voted any other way.  I explained that I needed to represent the people in my district the best way which is to listen to a majority that said sell and that I believe that continuing as we are is not the best decision for anyone. One of my FOUR precincts voted 60% in favor of increasing taxes to fund the home.  I took the measured, reasoned approach which was to lease as an interim step to selling.  We would be out of the nursing home business and be able to choose a management firm that CAN run it.  I realize that I cannot make everyone happy but I have more reasons why I chose leasing as an interim step. For those who might ask why I didn't vote with #4 (outright sale), I explain that #3 leasing would assure that we would protect the vulnerable, the seniors in our home.  The current residents should not notice a change- other than improvement. With leasing, if there were problems in quality of care, we could find another firm to manage our home.  When that right management company was running Hope Creek with the same quality care and sustainably, I would work towards a sale to that firm. I may be overly cautious, but I wanted that safeguard.  If we sell the home and it turns out badly, I've broken my commitment on which I ran, which was to listen to the vulnerable in our community that do not have a voice!  If we lease the home to an outside management firm and it goes well, then we can sell to that firm and I've assured that I have protected those whom I said I would protect. When running for county board, I ran on this "I represent all residents and realize that vulnerable in our community do not have the loudest voice."  That said, I made the decision that is best for the continuation of the Hope Creek institution, preserving our county investment in the facility and continuing the level of care that Hope Creek provides. I will be on "The Cities- With Jim Mertens" on WQPT Ch. 24, Thursday, January 22nd at 6:30pm and Sunday at 5:30pm.  In today's interview, I was asked "As a Republican board member, are you concerned about the new Republican Governor cutting funding that would hurt Hope Creek?"  I answered:  "I have heard Governor Rauner speak several times and in every speech here in the Quad Cities he emphasized that we care about the most vulnerable who need our support, and we will become the most compassion state in the United States."  I went on to say that Hope Creek does not limit its residents to Rock Island County but yet Rock Island County taxpayers support it.  I expect that Governor Rauner will not look at cutting programs but rather looking at cutting the bureaucracy-  are our tax dollars really going where we think they are?  Or are they being siphoned off in waste? Our state suffers from a spending problem!--  Not a revenue problem!  We raised taxes to pay down debt and what happened?  We spent more!  Those are the things I expect Governor Rauner to look at." I also told Mr. Mertens that "I am not against having a public nursing home.  But we need one that is sustainable. In Illinois, there are only 21 public nursing homes left.  This is not just us!" Whether one agrees or disagrees, I want you to know that I worked hard to make the best decision for my district by listening to their feelings, their views, and combining that with prudent, reasoned measures that I believe would improve Hope Creek and bring it to a sustainable level. Note, I am not in favor of keeping Hope Creek county owned in the state it is in now.  I am ok with it if it could be sustainable.  In today's show, I stated "We need to look at Hope Creek as AN INSTITUTION.  Be it public or private, it needs to continue and maintain high standards of care.  I am looking out for the institution and the residents and I believe we are not equipped as a county to run it anymore." It has been a great privilege to be given the honor of representing.  I will always do my best to discern and make the best decision looking at all aspects. Please contact me if if ever I can help. Drue Drue Mielke Rock Island County Board Member District 22- Coal Valley- Moline www.DrueMielke.com
Special Hope Creek County Board Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:30 PM Rock Island County Office Building 1504 3rd Avenue, 3rd Floor Rock Island If you have any interest in Hope Creek Nursing Home, please attend an informative meeting this Thursday, 15 JAN at 5:30 P.M. on the 3rd floor of the Rock Island County Office Building in the County Board Room, which is located at 1504 3rd Avenue (3rd Avenue and 15th Street, Rock Island) to listen and give feedback to Rock Island County Board members about the future of Hope Creek. Chairman Maranda has arranged for Steve Meersman and others to explain options the Rock Island County Board is considering for a vote on the following Tuesday, January 20th.     I will be in Springfield this day and have arranged to attend this important meeting via phone with Shelly Chapman, the Rock Island County Executive Secretary. It is my goal that our seniors will remain well taken care of by choosing the best options to continue Hope Creek Care Center for our community well into the future. The people have spoken to not raise taxes and we will now look at the best options we have.  Please consider attending this meeting if you have any questions about the choices we are looking at.
November 14, 2014 My feeling after the vote on the Hope Creek referendum- we must do what's right-  we must protect the vulnerable in our community   Here’s how I feel about where we are regarding Hope Creek…. The Members of the Rock Island County Minority Caucus wished to know the public’s will for the continued ownership and operation of Hope Creek by the county before asking for a tax increase this November 2014. The Hope Creek Advisory Referendum was not allowed to be placed on the ballot due to a lack of support from other board members. Those who were against it favored a specific path rather than reaching out and asking the public how they felt about the issue. .   I am hopeful that the new and current board members will join together to take action to do everything they can to work in the best interest of the people of Rock Island County, Hope Creek’s residents-- who I view as the part of the vulnerable in our community that we must protect, and the employees of Hope Creek who do the hard daily work in a difficult and critical job of taking care of our vulnerable. We are all called to promote the wellbeing of all, especially the weak, the vulnerable, the voiceless. I view our residents of our nursing home as some of the vulnerable in our community.  In realizing that, I wish to make the decision that will best for the residents and also follow the will of the people. If the board chooses outside management and continue ownership of the home, I am hopeful that full support is in place that will enable that management group to just that- manage. Just a few years ago, the Rock Island County Board chose the management group MMP to perform outside management. That board did not allow the management team to manage, giving as little leeway as possible. That effort failed because they weren’t allowed to manage.   I was in Moline when Governor-Elect Rauner spoke on how "Illinois cares about the folks who are the most vulnerable, who need our support!"  I taped that portion of his speech.  Click here to hear Governor-Elect Rauner's speech at River House in downtown Moline on November 7th. If the county board that I am a part of votes to have outside management, we should give that firm the authority to take the steps to save our home.  We must put 100% into doing what is best to achieve the results we desire, which is a sustainable home and the utmost effort to continue to protect the vulnerable in our community! I ran for county board in 2012 as working to help the vulnerable in my community. I haven't veered from that commitment. Whatever choices the county board makes, we must assure that we do the BEST for our residents of our Hope Creek Care Center and adhere to the will of the people.
November 11, 2014   Veteran's Day Veteran's Day Ceremonies Veterans' Day Service Hero Street Monument Tuesday, November 11th at 11:00 am to Noon 145 Hero St, Silvis, IL 61282, USA Please join us in remembering and say thank you to a Veteran. Veterans' Day program Rock Island Arsenal Tue, November 11th at 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. National Cemetery, Rock Island Arsenal, IL, United States An honor salute, taps and remember our fallen Veterans' today.
A solemn prayer....   God Bless America "God Bless America" takes the form of a prayer "as we raise our voices, in a solemn prayer" for God's blessing and peace for the nation "...stand beside her and guide her through the night...".
November 4, 2014   Election Day A reminder that if you haven't voted, your voice hasn't been heard! Polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7 p.m.. Where do I vote? Sample Ballot List of Candidates Thank you for voting! Election Results Rock Island County Election Results Henry County Election Results Whiteside County Election Results Carroll County Election Results   Jo Daviess County Election Results Stephenson County Election Results Mercer County Election Results Peoria County Election Results Tazwell County Election Results Winnebago County Election Results Fulton County Election Results
November 3, 2014 Letter to the editor published in The Rock Island Argus, The Dispatch, and The Quad City Times. I wanted to keep you updated on a new wrinkle in the downsizing county board issue. My printed documents were purloined from me in January 2013 have turned up in a political attack ad.  This seems contrary to the current revisionist history that everyone on the Rock Island County board has been in favor of investigating if the board can be downsized. They were not.    I was fought on many levels and hit obstacles from my initial request to put this issue on the agenda, to the committee level where information was presented to me in committee without any prior review, to outright attempts at intimidation and threats if I would not cease in my efforts.to follow through on my pledge to follow the will of the people on this issue.   But I would not have imagined that documents would be taken without my permission, withheld from me without my knowledge, and would not be returned to me but instead would be used in bald face lies in a political ad.   I suspect I join many in seeing the end of this political ad season.    But more importantly, those who fought against following through on the downsizing issue were not successful, I prevailed and the Attorney General Opinion was written in agreement with my original statement that the board could be downsized prior to 2022.   This letter to the editor appeared in Friday's paper. http://www.qconline.com/editorials/letter-wozniak-mielke-served-public-on-rico-downsizing/article_65d75df1-94f2-50aa-b5c4-742f346aaed1.html     When elected in 2012 to the county Board, I pledged “that the people clearly spoke that they wanted the board to be 15 members, and I am going to do everything I can do to support that.” I embarked on answering the question of “CAN” the county board be decreased prior to 2022 which became a fight with elected officials in Rock Island County.  Intimidation and threats were made by a county board member insisting I stop or “people are going to get hurt” and “I should be very careful.”    Documents on downsizing were taken from me after a board meeting in January 2013 to later surface in a political advertisement paid for by “Mike Smiddy for State Representative” containing allegations against me and Jim Wozniak regarding a request made for information compiled on private time, where no county resources or county email were used.  In my time on the county board, no one has ever asked me to lie.  Nor have I ever lied during my public service. Jim Wozniak and I fought for and followed the will of the people.  That fight continues in false political attack ads.  Politicians should run on their record rather than manufacturing falsehoods about elected officials.  Democracy is not served when those committed to people are besmirched with falsehoods for political gain. I was proven correct that the board could be downsized prior to 2022 and Jim Wozniak was serving the public by adhering to the will of the people.
July 18, 2014 Statement For Immediate Release Attorney General Finds Rock Island County Board in Violation of Open Meetings Act   A proposal was presented to the Rock Island County Board in April 17, 2012 by then Coal Valley Village Board Trustee and county board candidate, Drue Mielke, to reform Rock Island County Board’s rules that govern the manner in which citizens can address their county board. Attending county board meetings, Mr. Mielke noted the stiking disparity in how the public is given access to address the county board differed dramatically from his Coal Valley Village board. The county board lacked a public comment section and those wishing to address the board must do so with a two working day advance notice. Mr. Mielke petitioned the Rock Island County Board to adopt new rules for the public to speak at the full county board in April 2012 and then in committee on April 12, 2012, which provided a framework for the revised rules. The response to this request was delivered at the May 7, 2012 Governmental Affairs Committee that “with all due respect to Mr. Mielke, he is not an attorney. We have had our procedures reviewed by legal counsel and they have repeatedly been found to be consistent with the law.” No change was made. http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=35012&libID=1000002871 Filing a request for review with the public access coordinator of the Illinois Attorney General on October 7, 2012, Mr. Mielke ask that the rule stating “any citizen or representative of a group wanting to address the Board shall put their request in writing and submit to the Chairperson of the Board at least two working days prior to the regularly scheduled Board meeting.” be reviewed. (Rule can be found at http://www.rockislandcounty.org/CountyBoard/Home/ ). In the October 2012 request, it was sited that Mr. Mielke was denied the right to speak as a member of the public at the September 2012 county board meeting regarding the issue of the drawing to be conducted to determine the county board terms. Mr. Mielke felt that determining the county board terms was related to the then pending advisory referendum to change county board size from 25 members to 15. Mr. Mielke felt that if board member terms could be kept to all two year terms, it would allow for implementation of redistricting if the referendum passed. Mr. Mielke had missed the two-day written requirement to speak and asked Chairman James Bohnsack for the right to speak to the board per the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mielke was denied by Mr. Bohnsack and Mike Miller, Rock Island County State’s Attorney. In May 2014, an elected county board member, Mielke was advised that two people were denied the right to speak to the board regarding Hope Creek and decided it was time to again bring the proposal back a second time to the governmental affairs committee (this time as a county board member) to reform the county’s rules. “Before, I was denied the right to speak and I filed a request for review. Now, I am on the board and am responsible for change to address any wrong doings. Even when following rules that violate the spirit of openness that the Open Meetings act sets down, two citizens were denied the right to address our board. That is unacceptable.” At Tueday’s county board meeting, the governmental affairs committee presented Mr. Mielke’s draft for 30 days to be voted on at next month’s meeting. “It isn’t necessary for me to wait for my a response to request for review with the Attorney General. Since I am now a county board member, I can make reforms now, and that is what I was elected to do.”, Mr. Mielke explains. http://www.rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=37608&libID=1000005469 A ruling to the Mr. Mielke’s October 2012 request for review was received yesterday, July 17, 2014 from the Office of the State of Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan. (A copy is attached.) In that answer it states, “the current rule regarding public comment CLEARLY discourages, rather than promotes, public participation, contrary to the spirit of the OMA. The Board has not demonstrated that the advance registration rule is reasonably necessary to ensure that its meeting proceed in an orderly and efficient manner. Accordingly, this office concludes that the rule requiring any person or group to put their request in writing and submit such request to the Chairperson of the board two working days prior to the regularly scheduled board meeting” violates section 2.06(g) of OMA. The Board is directed to modify its current rules for public comment to eliminate the requirement that individuals who wish to address the Board submit a written request to do so two working days before the meeting commences.” Relating the first impressions of the county board meeting’s lack of openness at the March 3, 2012 Candidate Forum, Mr. Mielke spoke saying, “The first time I attended one of those meetings, I got a horrible pit in my stomach because the difference of what goes on in the county board and our local village is dramatic. Right now there is a new law that was passed a year ago, the Open Meetings Act... and every open meeting must have public comments- a portion where the public can speak and that is not being given currently and I would like to fix that before getting elected.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfV7QfobQo Mr. Mielke now states “As an elected official, I have fought to reform our county board and to assure that people’s right to access to government is not restricted. This statement from the Attorney General ensures that the public’s rights are maintained. Being a former Coal Valley Village Board Trustee, I learned and adhered to the Open Meetings Act and continued that commitment to citizens as a Rock Island County Board Member.
July 1, 2014 Moderate Flooding Expected along Rock River in Coal Valley and Moline The Rock River at Moline is now expected to rise to 15 foot on Thursday causing moderate flooding on South Shore Drive and North Shore Drive. Also it is expected to cause flooding at 52nd Avenue, Moline. We had over ten inches of rain in June. http://water.weather.gov/resources/hydrographs/mlii2_hg.png Summary for Gauge mlii2 http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/index.php?wfo=dvn Location: Rock River at Moline Flood Stage: 12 ft Latest Observation: 12.65 ft Observation Time: 07/01/2014 06:30:00 am CDT Highest Forecast: 15 ft Highest Forecast Time: 07/03/2014 07:00:00 am CDT Last Forecast: 12 ft Last Forecast Time: 07/08/2014 01:00:00 am CDT   Rock River Flood Impacts 15.5:  Water affects the intersection of Highways 150 and 6. Steel Dam is under water in Milan. 15.2:  Water affects the lowest streets on Vandruffs Island. 15:  Water affects business parking lots on 52nd Avenue in Moline. Water also affects most homes on South Shore Drive and North Shore Drive. 14:  Water affects South Shore Drive and North Shore Drive in Moline west of the 27th Street bridge. Water limits access to homes on South Shore Drive east of the I-74 bridge. Water also affects portions of 60th Street south of John Deere Road. 13.8:  Water affects 49th Avenue in Moline. 13.5:  Water affects 60th Street south of John Deere Road in Moline and Green Valley Park. Water is also on Canal Road on Big Island. 13:  Water affects homes on South Shore Drive in Moline and cuts off access to homes east of the I-74 bridge. Water affects Vandruffs Island in Rock Island and 7th Street in Coal Valley. 12.5:  Water affects residences in the Friendship Farm area. 12:  Water affects residences near the 27th Street bridge. 11:  Water affects agricultural land upstream from Moline   Downloads for Rock River at Moline (MLII2) Hydrographs: Default Hydrograph (19k) Scale to Flood Categories (19k) RSS Feeds:   RSS files for MLII2
May 21, 2014 My update from May 20, 2014 Rock Island County Board Meeting I voted to freeze all for the four elected official salary positions due to the county's financial picture. A yes vote was for option D which was to freeze the current salaries. Chris Filbert reminded those on the board that this is a salary set for the position, not the individual since it cannot be base on performance per se because it is an elected position so someone else could conceivably be elected to the position on which we are setting the salary. Often we heard that John Doe deserved a raise which doesn't make sense since Jane Doe might run and win. It was not about the people but the financial situation in our county. We are borrowing money to operate on anticipated revenue. Not a way to run a county in a deficit situation. I also explained to the Chairman and the full board that mileage cannot be given to the chairman from his home to the county office building because IT IS HIS PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS. He explained that he is also a county board member like me, but I explained further that it is an IRS regulation and that the county office building IS NOT MY PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS like it is his, and therefore he is not allowed mileage like the other board members. That is the defining factor. Other issues included Hope Creek and a closed session issue that I cannot discuss. You may add my name to Mssrs. Oelke and Johnston who criticized Mr. Meersman. I took off time from work to attend the Health and Human Services meeting (a committee I am not on) due to a anonymous person calling me and advising me of a situation regarding a survey at Hope Creek. I contend that if the public has access to information online regarding Hope Creek THEN AT LEAST the members of the committee that has oversight of Hope Creek should be apprised of that situation and not left in the dark. The public IS BETTER INFORMED than the people responsible for oversight of that fine institution. That is wrong and I pointed that out. To allay any concerns, Hope Creek is now in full compliance. Problems can occur at any home. How a situation is dealt with is important. Corrective actions have been taken. People deserve to know how I represent them. It is my intention that this vote represents the majority wishes of the people in our Rock Island County District 22.
May 15, 2014 Fighting for your right to address your county board I am working with the Governmental Affairs Committee to assure you may address your elected officials.   I will bring a proposal to the governmental affairs committee next month modeled after counties around the state.  I am asking that all that should be required is notice just prior to county board meeting by filling out a request card like the one below. . Related articles: Article:  RI county board member seeks easier public comment rules  http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=680918 Editorial: RICO, let public speak-  http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=681226
May 11, 2014 WQAD News 8 examines the downsizing issue WQAD News 8 reporter Shane Simmons asks what happened to Rock Island County board downsizing issue, finds out who's holding up the process, what it costs to run the current board, and compares what's happening in Rock Island to Scott County. Monday, May 12th, 10pm WQAD News 8.  "We are going almost a year out here and I've not heard anything. It certainly isn't going away. The people demand an answer because they should." Our State's Attorney requested a new opinion from Attorney General Lisa Madigan last March. That question asks if a county board can be reapportioned at a time other than a non-decennial census. I have had bipartisan support to ask for an update on this request last October with fellow Rock Island County Board Member Scott Terry. This request was denied but now one year has passed.  The issue remains open and is not forgotten.
May 8, 2014 Town Hall meeting for Hope Creek well attended I was very impressed with the number of residents that attended last night's town hall meeting for Hope Creek organized by Rock Island County Board member Scott Terry, Rock Island.  Good questions from residents.  One common theme was that we all realize what a critical and also emotional issue this is. A video and article can be found at CBS4's website and an here. I want to give my heartfelt thank you to the residents who came out to hear the case made for keeping our home under county ownership.  We need to listen to all sides to make an educated decision in November.  Thank you, this is important for our seniors. My decision was to put Hope Creek referendum on the ballot so their voice is heard.  It is in the voter's hands now to make the final decision.  As a county board member, I believe that it is my duty to get ALL information available to the voters.  I maintain that it is important to be impartial so I can truly show all sides of this issue.  One endorsement I will make is that when I toured Hope Creek last week, it is one of the best maintained and cleanest nursing homes I have ever seen.  The residents are well taken care of. As we debate and search for the right answer, we need to remember that we have good employees at Hope Creek.  They are dedicated and truly care.  Also, we need to be careful to marginalize or demonize those whom we have differing views.  All need to be heard. I am dedicated to looking after the vulnerable in our community.  There is no group more vulnerable than those needing nursing home assistance. We need to be ready for any eventuality the voters decide and I will be preparing with a plan B, C, and D- be it a leasing option, selling to a qualified provider, or seeking additional funding from state or other sources. Last night I read a passage from a document that guides my citizenship-  "A basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst."  This moral imperative should include charitable contributions.  Mr. Josh Schipp from the K.I.S.S. referendum committee mentioned the creation of a charitable endowment organization.  I emphasized that our moral responsibility to our seniors starts at home, in our churches... Our responsibility should not be confined to tax increases.  We have a foundation for Niabi Zoo but we don't have a foundation for our seniors?! Mr. Schipp gave a very detailed Powerpoint comparing Hope Creek to all the homes in Rock Island County.  He is very concerned that privatization will decrease the level of care and employee staffing.  He cited staffing situations in other homes where employees work back-to-back shifts. In the question and answer portion, County Board Mr. Steve Meersman, Moline, a situation in another home in East Moline that closed abruptly due to financial stress.  I pointed out that that closing was illegal (a 90 day notice must be given) and I also pointed out that the illegal transfer of a resident in Galesburg died a day later.  “I will work to assure that our seniors will remain well taken care of by choosing the best options to continue Hope Creek Care Center for our community well into the future. When the people have spoken, we will do what is best and right. WE WILL ALWAYS PROTECT OUR SENIORS.”
May 7, 2014 Town Hall Meeting to Make Case to Continue County Ownership of Hope Creek -  Powerpoint presented by Joshua Schipp of the Quad City Labor Federation and questions and answers.  County Board Members Scott Terry and Drue Mielke attending. On May 7th, there will be a town hall meeting "The Case for Hope Creek-  Why Preserving Hope Creek Care Center as a Public Institution is the Best Option for Rock Island County Tax Payers".  The purpose of this town hall meeting is state to Rock Island County voters why Hope Creek should be continued under county ownership. Rock Island County Board Members Scott Terry and Drue Mielke, and Rock Island County Board candidate Brian Flaherty will be sharing information and taking questions about Hope Creek. The town hall meeting will be held at the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 25 Hall, which is located at 4600 46th Avenue, Rock Island. The meeting will be from 5:30-7:30pm. Light refreshments and snacks will be available.  The meeting is open to the public. I am listening to options available to continue operation under county ownership and am available for questions. My decision was to put Hope Creek referendum on the ballot. It is in the voter's hands now to make the final decision and I will share all information as it comes in. I want an educated public who are making important decisions with good information; and with as complete information as possible. Hope Creek is too important to not spend the time and thorough investigation it deserves. The K.I.S.S Hope Creek Referendum Committee has just begun to make the case why residents should vote for the tax increase. I encourage those from all sides to speak on this very important issue. My mission is to protect the vulnerable in my community. I cannot think of any more vulnerable than those needing the assistance of Hope Creek Care Center. We need to be ready for any eventuality the voters decide and I will be preparing with a plan B, C, and D- be it a leasing option or selling or seeking additional funding from state or other sources. I favor further investigation into state funding. One option has been a lottery that Mr. Donald Lind has proposed. As there are fewer and fewer county owned homes in our state, the demand is moved onto the remaining homes and the obligation to support remains with Rock Island County property owners. I would like to investigate having a state-wide agency that can spread that obligation fairly and equally. As a Rock Island County Board Member, I will work to assure that our seniors are taken care of by choosing the best options to continue Hope Creek Care Center for our community well into the future. . When the people have spoken, we will do what is best and right. WE WILL ALWAYS PROTECT OUR SENIORS CBS 4 WHBF Video Story CBS 4 WHBF Article
April 4, 2014 Iowa and Illinois DOTs to hold 2 public informational meetings (April 23rd & 24th) regarding I-74 road construction The Iowa and Illinois Departments of Transportation, in cooperation with other agencies and elected officials, are presenting final design elements of the I-74 Central Section. Two (2) public information meetings are scheduled for April 23 and April 24, 2014. The same information will be presented at both meetings which will include stations to allow for interactive displays of the following key elements of the final design: Corridor Construction Phasing Moline Advanced Local Road Work Bettendorf Advanced Local Road Work Central Section Staging & Schedule Costs Aesthetics & Landscape No formal presentations will be made; the above will be open stations to visit. Personnel will be available at each station between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. to individually discuss the project. All interested persons are invited to attend these meetings. The meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.   April 23, 2014 4 p.m. - 7 p.m. I-Wireless Center 1201 River Drive Moline   April 24, 2014 4 p.m. - 7 p.m. Waterfront Convention Center 2021 State Street Bettendorf, Iowa
March 20, 2014 Your Rock Island County Board Report-  District 22 Newsletter is currently being distributed I have hand delivered 90% of my district.  If you haven't received a newsletter, you can view below.  I will deliver an updated newsletter to the homes that I could not reach before the primary on March 18, 2014.  You can view the newsletter here:   Spring 2014 Rock Island County Board District 22 Newsletter
I think most people would agree that our county is in trouble and we have to look at ALL options to address the courthouse issue. I attended the last Vision for the Future Ad Hoc Committee meeting on Thursday, January 23, 2014 and asked the committee if the county board could be provided more options.  One option could be a bare bones minimum as a starting point.  I asked that we look at addressing the lawsuit ONLY and to build courtroom facilities adjacent to the existing courthouse and near or adjacent to the existing justice center.  This would address the issue at hand and relieve the county from the threat of a lawsuit.  How did we get here? The current situation didn't just happen overnight. It is the result of years of neglect and inaction on the part of past county boards.  We are at the point where the can cannot be kicked down the road any longer.   The Rock Island County Board was brought to the table due to a lawsuit from the judges to provide adequate courtroom facilities.   I stated to the committee that the March  $118 million cap that failed as a referendum differs very little from a $72 million referendum that was just proposed.  I am told by the ad hoc committee renovating the court house is not cost effective. I would like to know what the cost of demolition and/or continued maintenance of a vacant building while efforts are made to find a usage?  Would that change the equation of renovation not being an option?  Also, is demolition desired by the public?  If it is not feasible, then if continued maintenance is required, then would that make renovation of the existing courthouse a more viable option?
January 19, 2014 We need more options for the courthouse-- Voting “no” to placing a $72 million courthouse referendum on March 2014 ballot was a vote for more options. We are working on establishing those options. Ten months of research by the Visions for the Future ad hoc committee produced a $72 million recommendation for a referendum which is too costly. The recommendation said to build a new courthouse, fix the county office building, and leave the courthouse a vacant building. The space needs study data produced by the Vision committee has value, but the proposed referendum that came after is not the right answer. We need to focus on the issue at hand- inadequate courtroom facilities. Now is not the time to roll the county office building into the equation and should not be part of the courthouse solution. The referendum just proposed is very similar to the referendum placed on the ballot in April 2013. The only difference is that this went from "the blank check" cap for a public building commission of $110 Million to $72 Million. That 2013 courthouse referendum failed soundly. Some county board members stated they voted “no” for fear that it would decrease the chances for the planned Hope Creek tax levy increase to pass in November. But one does not have to look further for a reason to turning down the courthouse referendum other than it is not the right answer. A better answer is needed that residents will want rather than a referendum that mirrors the failed referendum from last April and hoping that the voters will change their minds in one year's time. Certainly, asking the judges to sue the county, after the county board voted the referendum proposal down, is not that answer. As county board members, we have a fiduciary duty to look out for the best interests of the county and the residents and we ask the judges to continue their patience as we look at more options. The current situation didn't just happen overnight. It is the result of years of neglect and inaction on the part of past county boards, before our tenure. We are firmly committed to addressing the threat of a lawsuit and are working towards a solution that will address our county’s courthouse obligation during one of our county’s bleakest financial periods. Chris Filbert- Rock Island County Board Member- District 1 Dr. Rod Simmer- Rock Island County Board Member- District 18 Drue Mielke- Rock Island County Board Member- District 22 Ron Oelke- Rock Island County Board Member- District 24 Bob Westpfahl- Rock Island County Board Member- District 25
Rock Island County Board Member Ron Oelke, District 24 and I were guests on The Jim Fisher Show on WOC AM 1420 in Davenport, Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013.   You can listen to the segment at this link:  http://druemielke.com/documents/Oelke_Mielke_Hope_Creek.wav Most importantly, it was explained that no one is talking about closing Hope Creek.  That has never been on the table-  the facility is needed, the employees are needed, and the care it provides is needed by the community. On the show, we discussed the proposed advisory referendum for Hope Creek Care Center to be placed on the March 18, 2014 ballot. "Shall Rock Island County continue ownership and maintenance of Hope Creek Care Center?" I explained the purpose of advisory referendum      • To give the voters a voice in the Hope Creek decision      • To give direction the county board should take      • Avoids waiting an entire year from now in November 2014 and with a tax increase referendum question in November 2014. Ron Oelke and I also gave information on the proposed November tax increase levy for November 2014 that was originally proposed to be in March 2014     • $78 yearly increase on tax bill for a $ 150,000 home.     • State’s Attorney said state statute only allows an increase in a tax levy in a General Election (November 2014)             • Not at a primary election I explained to Mr. Fisher that when I ran for election last year, I stated that I realize that the vulnerable in my community may not have the loudest voice.  I want to assure that vulnerable are protected. The residents of Hope Creek are the vulnerable.  Mr. Oelke explains that we are looking at all options to continue the home "If we sell or lease, our residents stay in the nursing home.  It's just owned and operated by a different entity."  When I ran for county board, I ran to represent the voters in my district and I have an obligation to give them a voice in something so important as Hope Creek.  Rather than approaching the Hope Creek crisis with a foregone conclusion, we are looking at all the options and are presenting them to the public. It is my intention to give the voters a voice in March 2014 and not wait until a year from now with a tax increase referendum in November 2014.
Sunday, November 24, 2013-  Dispatch and Argus Editorial today: Editorial: Insist RICO explore every option for financial crisis http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=660786
Tuesday, November 19, 2013-  Advisory referendum drafted for Hope Creek Nursing Home FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Christine Filbert, Rock Island County Board District 1 Dr. Rod Simmer, Rock Island County Board District 18 Drue Mielke, Rock Island County Board District 22 Ron Oelke, Rock Island County Board District 24 Contact:  Drue Mielke Phone:    (309) 235-7493 Email:    druedarrin@aol.com Website:  www.DrueMielke.com Advisory referendum drafted for Hope Creek Nursing Home Moline – A proposal has been made to place an advisory referendum on the March 18, 2014 ballot to give residents of Rock Island County a voice regarding the continued ownership and operation of Hope Creek Care Center by the county.  The question that is proposed to be placed on the ballot is: “Shall Rock Island County continue ownership and maintenance of Hope Creek Care Center?” and was proposed by Drue Mielke, Rock Island County Board and introduced to the Hope Creek Blue Ribbon Committee last week by Blue Ribbon and Rock Island County Board Member, Dr. Rod Simmer.  This question will now be discussed in the Rock Island County Board Governmental Affairs Committee on December 9th. Originally, a proposed tax increase referendum was to be placed on the March ballot. Rock Island County State’s Attorney advises that tax increase referendums must be on the November 2014 ballot.  “One year is a long time to wait before getting public input on the direction voters wish to take for Hope Creek.”, Drue Mielke, Rock Island County Board Member states.  “I wish to know the public’s will for the continued operation of Hope Creek by the county before November 2014.  As members of the Rock Island County Board, we are seeking the public’s input and direction on this very important issue.  We are looking at all options to assure that the right decision is made for the residents of the county, the residents of the home, and the employees of Hope Creek.  Rock Island County Board Member, Chris Filbert believes, “Good business always looks at what the options are; great business looks for vision.  I’m hoping that the Rock Island County Board are visionaries. Let’s see where this will lead and who the leaders are.” It is our hope and intention that this question be moved from committee to the full county board meeting on December 17th for consideration and placement on the March 2014 ballot. ###   Proposed Rock Island County Board Resolution Regarding Advisory Nursing Home Referendum to be delivered and discussed at Governmental Affairs Committee, December 9, 2013 "Shall Rock Island County continue ownership and maintenance of Hope Creek Care Center?
Friday, October 25, 2013-  Hope Creek Ad Hoc Committee established An ad hoc committee called "Blue Ribbon" has been created to address the issues of Hope Creek Care Center. It was created by county board chairman Phil Banaszek to investigate, research and review all potential solutions regarding Hope Creek Care Center. The next meeting is on Wednesday, October 30th at 3pm in the Rock Island County Office building located at 1504 3rd Avenue, Rock Island.  The meeting will be in the county board chambers on 2nd floor. The agenda can be viewed here. The Hope Creek Ad Hoc Committee scope and members can be viewed here. Also, on Rock Island County's official site is a letter of concern explaining the county's position on this issue.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013-   A report to constituents on October 15, 2013's Rock Island County Board Regular Meeting October 16, 2013 Our entire packet is available to the public at http://rockislandcounty.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=36994&libID=1000004855 Previous packets can be viewed online by going to county board minutes and agenda and click on the date of the meeting to download the pdf at http://rockislandcounty.org/CountyBoard.aspx?id=35955#CB A lot of serious issues were discussed at last night’s Rock Island County Board meeting:  The courthouse referendum Recommendation to build a new courthouse Recommendation to vacate the existing courthouse Recommendation to rehabilitate the county office building Ľ ˘ sales tax increase- proposed Discussion of a property tax increase for Hope Creek Nursing Home Discussion of ways to avoid sale or leasing of Hope Creek Courthouse Referendum It was recommended by the space/needs consultant, CGL to the Ad Hoc committee tasked with reviewing the courthouse issue to build a new court faculty, vacate the existing building (leaving it empty), and refurbishing the existing Rock Island County Office Building at 1504 3rd Avenue, Rock Island. The location for the new building would be in the existing parking lot for the courthouse, which is option 2, county owned north site below: A referendum is planned for the March 2014 ballot.  The Ľ ˘ sales tax proposed referendum: The Ľ ˘ sales tax proposed referendum is an effort to balance the general fund deficit of $ is to fix the $1.5 million budget deficit for the general budget.  The sales tax collected would be put into funds that will go towards public safety. This will decrease the obligation from the general fund budget thereby helping with the deficit, offsetting what would have come out to the Sheriff's budget. No change in the Sheriff's budget just where the money comes from.  Right now the deficit stands at: Revenue: $25,100,313 Expenses: $26,882,758 Deficit: $1,782,445   Save Hope Creek: Last Wednesday, we were hit with a press release (click here to see release) regarding the possible sale or lease of Hope Creek Nursing Home.  What the county board was going to vote on last night (but didn't have the language ready) was a referendum to raise the tax levy.  The proposal would seek to raise the average homeowner of a $150,000 home would pay an estimated additional $79.55 per year on their real estate taxes.  From the packet online at the county web site:  2013= 150,000 x .3333 (assessed value) = 49,995 - 6,000 (owner-occupied) = 43,995 x .0168 =- $469.87 Compared to the current 2012 rate = 150,000 x .3333 (assessed value) = 49,995 - 6,000 (owner-occupied) = 43,995 x .008872 = $390.32. $469.87 - $ 390.32 =$79.55 proposed increase for in property tax rate. One reason sited for the financial trouble with Hope Creek is the changing the mix of the Medicaid ratio.  We were told last night that Hope Creek loses $70 per day for every resident on Medicaid.  That is $9380 loss per day.  Hope Creek has over 50% for Medicaid.  $14,650 per day is spent on a average range of between 30 and 34 residents while awaiting Medicaid approval where the county pays 100% during that period. We were told that this amounts to a $3,423,700 annual loss. Another major issue facing Hope Creek is the lack of reimbursement from the state.  We were told last night that by March 2014, Hope Creek will be out of funds.  Legislative action could be a possible route to change the state statute for payer mix reducing Medicaid.  Also we were told that the county wishes to look at short-term borrowing mechanisms The committee is asking for cooperation from labor, the county board, and the community to assure Rock Island County cares for its senior residents. To maintain ownership of Hope Creek, it has to be sustainable by the county. Please email me at druedarrin@aol.com or call me at (309) 235-7493 if you have any questions or wish to share your views..   Thank you,    Drue
October 13, 2013 I spent many hours on the phone with several people yesterday (Saturday, October 12) regarding Hope Creek.  I was glad that people involved in the situation and residents are communicating and sharing their thoughts and opinions.   In talking yesterday, I stressed that I do not want to sell Hope Creek.  The problem the county board is faced with is "Do we have a choice?"  "Do we have to sell or lease Hope Creek to keep it open?"   Should the county be in the nursing home business?   Would a firm that is in that business be better situated to run our home?   Should the county remain in the nursing home business because it offers that stop-gap service to poor seniors and if removed, where would those seniors requiring nursing care go?   Do the residents of Rock Island County wish to continue support (with their tax dollars) this type of service to our seniors and others needing nursing care?   I asked a key stakeholder involved in Hope Creek to show the county board the options that they have that the committee does not currently see?  The reason I ask that in that way is the same county board members last year that rallied to "save Hope Creek" right before the election are the same who tell me we have no other choice.    In yesterday's Dispatch.... Dino Leone, president of the Quad City Federation of Labor, called on the Democrats who opposed selling or privatizing Hope Creek last year to stay true to that promise.   "Don't be hypocritical," he said of those board members. "You hammered one party about selling the nursing home and caused some of them not to get elected and now you're going to turn around and do the same?" "   http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=655653     To me, this issue is even more critical than the courthouse issue.  I am not minimizing the need for a new courthouse.  I am stating that this will affect many people in a very personal way for many years and also affects taxpayers who will be required to fund it if they chose to continue running a county nursing home. In a quote from the Dispatch and Rock Island Argus: "Mr. Meersman says the county has no option but to consider selling or leasing the nursing home, which would end the county's more than 170-year history of running a long-term care facility for the elderly. Mr. Meersman chairs the county committee that oversees Hope Creek." Source:  Hope Creek's future hangs in the balance, Originally Posted Online: Oct. 11, 2013, 7:02 pm By Eric Timmons, etimmons@qconline.com  http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=655653   What are your thoughts on what about Hope Creek?  Please email me or call me at (309) 235-7493.   Thank you,    Drue   Drue Mielke Rock Island County Board District 22
Wednesday, October 2, 2013-
In today's paper I am happy to see the Representative Verschoore has decided to withdraw Illinois House Bill 3682 that he sponsored would remove the public from the process of building and or remodeling our courthouse. Verschoore plans to withdraw courthouse bill By Eric Timmons, Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=654375 This bill drew criticism from the public who remember a similar attempt in 2011 to bypass voter referendum for courthouse projects.  Although the bill would allow a back door referendum to stop the non-referendum project, it should be noted that in any given election cycle only three referendums may appear on a ballot in a normal election.  Hopefully this legislation is now again put to rest with the help of a vocal public.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013-  In the paper today (Tuesday, October 1st) you may have read an article in the Dispatch and Rock Island Argus written by Eric Timmons titled "Bill would allow new Rock Island County courthouse without voter OK" http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=654246 Well, I am not ok with that. As Rock Island County Board Member, District 22, I do not favor State Representative Pat Verschoore’s House Bill 3682 as it silences the voter’s voice and their right to make decisions in Rock Island County on the future of our courthouse-- a right they currently have in the direction of indebtedness for building or renovating a courthouse. I support the Rock Island County Board formed an ad hoc committee to investigate a court house and county building needs study which is currently summarizing the consultant’s findings. I wish to bring this information to the voters so that they can vote in a referendum on a finite project to address the need for appropriate court facilities that meet the needs of our court system. Currently for counties under 300,000 population, a referendum is required obtain funds to construct, reconstruct or remodel a courthouse The proposed legislation attempts to amend the Counties Code allowing the county incur indebtedness for the reconstruction and remodeling of an existing courthouse or the construction of a new courthouse. If this bill passes, the only voice the voters would have in building a new or renovating our courthouse in Rock Island County would be to circulate a petition for a back door referendum to stop it. As an elected official, I pledge to continue listening and respecting the will of the people. View press release here
Update Speech given April 23rd at the Milan Community Center On Tuesday, April 23rd, I gave an update on the county board for the annual Lincoln Day event.  Here's a portion of what was presented in my speech: So far, it’s been a busy year. The issues we have had before us include: The threat of a lawsuit over the condition of the court house The public building commission referendum The task of working on a new referendum to address the court house A referendum regarding single member districts- a question that confused the voters and obscured the will of the people Addressing issues in the county highway department The Clean Line Wind Farm Transmission Line issue that affects Chris Filbert’s district and all rural district.  Working to receive a new opinion from our Attorney General on downsizing- not an opinion from 1974 and awaiting its 40th anniversary. I have been busy working on several issues specific to my district. But in addition, despite much pushback, I continue in my pursuit to answer the question whether the county board can be downsized before 2022. I am obligated to answer this question as 72% of the electorate voted in favor of board member reduction. I am pledged to do my job to assure we listen to the voters. I have received veiled threats to intimidate-- and it only tells me I am on the right path and doing the right thing. I won’t back down from doing what I think is right. I am not here to protect the few or to feather my nest. I am here to serve the public. As Abraham Lincoln said “Right makes might, And in that faith, Let us to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” I believe that. It gives me strength. I continue what I started on the Coal Valley Village Board. Informing residents in my district by sending out a county board report to everyone in my district and maintaining my web site. Continuing to work to assure that I give voice to the vulnerable and oppressed in my district, who do not have a voice. Continuing to assure that the laws set in place to protect residents are also applied to those who need protection the most. I received an email last week thanking me for real, visible progress that is occurring. By far….I didn’t work alone. But I assured that progress would happen. I spoke up! On the county board--- we’ve moved the mark. We’ve moved the mark- by offering leadership that looks out for the real interests of the residents rather than the interests of the few. We’ve moved the mark- by providing honest and accountable government rather than machine politics and business as usual. But we still have a long way to go… We are looking forward to even better days for our Rock Island County Board as we deliver on our promises of: Limited Government Government that is Effective Responsible Responsive and Adheres to the Will of the People In closing… I would like to tell you what a tremendous honor it is to serve on your Rock Island County Board! Thank you!
April 13, 2013-
The oath I took-  I won't be intimidated from my obligation to serve I am continuing to do my job to represent everyone in my district. That includes follow-up on the non-binding referendum in November.  Our State's Attorney has been very helpful and responsive to my follow-up request.  I am pleased to report that progress is made in the letter being sent to our Attorney General to provide an updated opinion on downsizing the county board.  Thank you, Mr. McGehee, for your hard work during these very busy times in the county.  From other areas though, I have received tremendous push back, threats, and veiled threats if I persist in getting the answer.  I want to tell everyone that I am not intimidated nor going to back down from my obligation to serve the people who voted for me and to whom I took an oath to fairly represent. I ran for office to be fair, to bring honesty and accountability to the county board and to assure ALL people in my district are represented and have a voice.  I have convictions that I believe in.  We may not all agree, but I listen to all sides and will represent everyone in my district and will vote with the will of the people in my district. This is why it is so important to me to send a letter out to everyone in my district and ask for feedback. The video below is from early last year.  It tells who I am and why I accepted the challenge to run for county board.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfV7QfobQo I haven't watched it since I got elected but it still applies today.
April 10, 2013-
Change the topic for a moment...  I attended the Quad Cities Interfaith and Case Guanajuanto Quad Cities at Casa de los Nińos Early Childhood Learning Center in Moline.  I went to listen and to gain more understanding of an issue that we face right here in our community and our nation regarding immigration. It reminds me of the gift of freedom we have been given living in this country. Drue
April 5, 2013-
Voting Yes OR No on Public Building Commission (PBC) expansion referendum will give different results: I have not spoke out in favor nor against the referendum.  I have sent out a constituent newsletter to get information out to the voters in my district.  But I haven't told the voters how to vote.  I can educate them, tell them what's fact, but I choose not to tell them what and how to think.  I attended the April 3rd Rock Island County Board sponsored forum at WIU-QC.  In that meeting I said this regarding how I see what a YES or NO vote might mean.   YES:    If you vote for expansion of the PBC you will be authorizing the county to build "something".  It could be a courthouse, a courthouse and refurbished county office building, a combined services from the other auxiliary buildings, county courthouse campus... but you are authorizing the PBC to conduct studies to make those determinations to present to our county board to approve or disapprove.   NO:    As it stands now, if you vote against the PBC you will get a courthouse.  Paid over a 10 year period from a lawsuit where the judges will prevail.  But you will ONLY get a courthouse.    The PBC will give the lowest increase to property taxes as it spreads the cost over 20 years versus 10 years. I also said that if the PBC passes, it would not be a bad idea to do a non-binding referendum ASKING the people AFTER some studies are developed if they wish to build A, B, or C.  I believe that the public wants more input in WHAT is going to be built and that's the problem with the PBC. No one knows what is going to be done.   If you only wish to build a courthouse and absolutely nothing else, then the safest way to assure that is to vote no and let the courts take action and force the issue.  Much like was done when the jail was built.  In my newsletter, if you read between the lines, I leave it out there that perhaps that's the way we do things in this county.  It gives me cause to wonder.
March 29, 2013-  Good Friday
	Notes on the PBC referendum: I attended the public forum on the Public Building Commission extension of powers last night at the Plumber and Pipefitter’s Union Hall in Rock Island. I agree with the residents that voice that, we (the county board) should have a plan first of what is going to be built and where. The problem is there's no funding and no money to do any studies that would require architects, space and need analysis to make those decision. That could be funded through the Public Building Commission (PBC). One of the issues the residents have is that no one knows: • Is a new courthouse going to be built? (likely it will be) • Is this new construction going to include the county office building? (consolidating those offices and court building) • Where is a new building going to be built? It leaves everyone wondering if they pass this referendum, what will we get. The Ad Hoc Committee favors passing this referendum for the PBC and we don't have answers to the questions yet of what is to built or refurbished and where because there's no funding to make these determinations. There are those who are concerned that the PBC would have too much power and would not be accountable. The PBC only takes direction from the county board in spending decisions and what is to be built, and where. Chairman Banaszek stated last night that a super-majority is needed from the county board members on these decisions. I take that to mean that issues won't be hanging in the balance of one or two votes from the county board members that represent their districts. I do have the concerns of who is on the commission and how long they serve, how they are appointed and how they could be removed. The county board has the say in this.		Notes on the Single Member District referendum: This referendum was put on the ballot in October by the past county board. It was in reaction to the citizen's putting a non-binding referendum on the ballot stating "Shall Rock Island County elect 15 county board members from 3 districts with 5 members each?" I am not sure why the November 6th referendum even mentioned single or multiple districts. It's direction was to decrease the size of the board. You may view the discussion on this topic from the minutes of the October 2012 county board meeting here.  Excerpt from county board minutes on this referendum. I have just included the portion that dealt with the issue but the full minutes are on http://www.rockislandcounty.org/CountyBoard.aspx?id=34617#CB The reason given by the past board for adding this was "to help alleviate misinformation and confusion on the existing question on the ballot regarding possible reduction in board members." It is my opinion that adding this referendum to our ballot on April 9th was in reaction to the November 6th referendum but not a service to the residents. I believe this referendum should have been removed as it confuses the voter (they just voted on this in November) and it will likely REMIND the voter that nothing has happened in response to their last vote. I have had several residents tell me it angers them to be asked again. I don't like when voters get angry. Rather than looking at ways to follow the will of the people in looking at possible paths to downsize the board prior to 2022, we are now looking at similar issue. I was the only board member to aggressively pursue whether it is POSSIBLE to downsize the board outside the mandatory reapportionment. I believe it can be done and no one has presented evidence other than opinion from the Attorney General in 1976 that it cannot. When I ask the downsize question, I don't get a "no." I have gone to Springfield and spoken to the Illinois State Board of Elections which agrees that the board could be downsized in 2016. When I ask the question, I get "well, it would be difficult but with a skillfully worded referendum, having all board members terms ending on the same time, and the county board passing an ordinance reflecting 15 members" it can be done. That's not a "no". Should the board be downsized? That's not the question I am working on. I am working on "can" not "should". But to follow the will of the people in the last vote, I feel obligated to follow through and pursue downsizing that 72% said to do. I support single-member districts as I wish to assure the rural areas of our county maintain the districts that represent them. But, I find this question to be empty and not meaningful or helpful. It's my opinion that this referendum should have been removed given that 72% voted to downsize the board and this just muddies that issue. Personally, I favor single member districts but I served on the Coal Valley Village Board for 6 years as trustee and we all were serving at-large, meaning we had "one district". Here's what I see as the pros and cons: Pros for single member districts: One person in which to contact Your board member would have a smaller district in which to concentrate his efforts Smaller districts make it easier for "the average guy" to campaign to be a public servant Cons to single districts: I really can't think of any. I think single member districts work. Pros to multi districts: You have more than one person representing you which implies that you can contact the person with whom might likely best understand your issue. Cons to multi-districts: Representation to rural districts may be diminished. Those districts would be combined with suburban districts Candidates would have a much larger area to campaign, which would drive up campaign costs which implies people like me would find it difficult to enter that arena of public service
March 22, 2013- Retired Circuit Court Judge Donald O'Shea wrote a very good opinion editorial in today's Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on our courthouse.  "RICO Courthouse -- The young lady grew old" Last year, Judge Jeffrey O'Connor wrote a a letter to the editor of the Dispatch and Argus that points out that past county boards have not planned a fund for future capital obsolescence. "R.I. County courthouse pronounced DOA by engineer" Pat Wendt, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee writes a letter to the editor in favor of voting for the expansion of the public building commission.  Letter: Panel member says yes to county building commission In yesterday's paper, it was noted that in the county board meeting, I asked to have removed a line in a resolution of support for the Ad Hoc Committee which stated the board acknowledged the usefulness of county buildings has expired. "County buildings" includes the county office building where the county board meets and I see no reason to make a forgone conclusion on all county buildings prior to engineering studies or other needed information.  Courthouse committee gets county board support
March 15, 2013- I wish to present as much information to you as possible about the upcoming referendum regarding the expansion of the public building commission.  I have created a new link called "courthouse referendum" on the left that will take you to relevant documents and information. Link to Courthouse and Public Building Commission Expansion Referendum Documents Also, there are a number of public forums regarding the referendum question to expand the public building commission.  These dates, times, and locations can be viewed at Voters asked to expand Public Building Commission Voters are being asked to expand the powers of the existing Public Building Commission that was used to build the new jail in Justice Center in 2001, near the courthouse at a cost of $13,000,000, which added jail cells and three new courtrooms. The new cells addressed a federal lawsuit alleging jail overcrowding.   A referendum is on the April 9th ballot to expand those powers to include all county buildings to enable the county to address the issues with other building such as the Courthouse and County Office Building. Again the county is faced with new pending litigation. This time the county is being called into question to not be providing adequate courthouse facilities. In response to this, the county board voted January 15th to place on the April 9th ballot, a referendum asking the voters to expand the existing public building commission’s scope. The referendum is worded as follows: Shall the County Board of The County of Rock Island be authorized to expand the purpose of The Rock Island County Public Building Commission, Rock Island County, Illinois to include all the powers and authority prescribed by the Public Building Commission Act? If this referendum is approved, only the elected County Board can tax, debt is capped at 5% of estimated assessed value (EAV) by statute, which is a cap of about $120 Million. Money can only be used for public building construction, renovation and maintenance. The County Board’s decides how much to spend, what, where, and when to build. Without a signed lease, the Public Building Commission cannot issue bonds. The decision of expanding the public building commission now lies in the hands of the voters in Rock Island County. Documents relating to this issue can be found on my web site here: Link to Courthouse and Public Building Commission Expansion Referendum Documents. Tour of Courthouse shows need for action Last year I attended the Consolidation Committee meetings that were looking at solutions to problems with the aging courthouse and county office buildings. As a resident, I asked what has been done in the last 20 - 30 years to maintain these buildings in good repair. My answer from a board member was “very little has been done” and the past boards have not addressed maintenance of the courthouse. Now as a member of the Administration Committee on the Rock Island County Board, I toured the Rock Island County Courthouse on January 25, 2013 and Mr. Jeff Jacobson, Sheriff Maintenance Supervisor, led the tour. You may review my report to the Administration Committee here. Notable observations and findings include: Public traffic volume- As civil and traffic cases from auxiliary courtrooms in East Moline, Moline and Milan have been moved back, there is not enough courtroom space and halls are clogged with standing room only at times. Heating and cooling issues- The Law library has extreme heat of 85° at times. The windows are left open to alleviate heating issue. At the north end of the courthouse indoor temperatures have been recorded as varying between 106° recorded high and 50° low. Structural issues- I viewed signs of leakage from outside along window in rotunda has caused plaster damage. Masonite ceiling tiles are crumbling and pieces are dropping. A 2008 KJWW Consulting Engineers’ study identified the roof to be in poor condition and in need of replacement. The KJWW study can be viewed here. Sprinkler system needed- The courthouse lacks a sprinkler system and proper air handling system in case of a fire. The elevator shaft, rotunda and open stairwell all would accelerate a fire by acting as a chimney to draw oxygen to a fire. Elevator Breakdowns- The courthouse elevator breaks down frequently, not only trapping people inside, but forcing disabled to be physically carried down staircases. Prisoners must use stairs in leg shackles to get to and from court. Rotunda Safety- The rotunda itself presents a safety and security issue. During my tour of the courthouse I was told that security has had to intervene to prevent people from being pushed over the railing to the floor below. It was suggested netting is needed. ADA Compliance- Compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) that would allow all residents equal access. Clearly, the condition of the courthouse needs to be addressed as well as numerous safety issues which, when speaking to Judge Jeffrey O’Connor, he states that the courthouse is unsafe. You may review my report to the Administration Committee here.
December 17, 2012- I met with Mr. Scott Christiansen from LRC Developers tonight to listen to his proposal for a solution to the state of the court house and county office buildings.  Mr. Christiansen approached the prior county board earlier this year with his proposal.  A committee was formed to review his proposal and other options. His proposal is located at www.ricountycampus.com There are several option that were presented in the consolidation meetings which I attended prior to being on the county board.  These are located at: Information provided to the committee: Estes Construction's County Administration Building and County Courthouse study:   Estes Construction Study   Estes Construction Study Findings Options Cost Range Construct a new consolidated Courthouse and Administrative Center. $47,000,000 to $49,000,000 Rehabilitate each of the existing structures to meet modern standards and codes. $40,000,000 to $41,000,000 Convert the existing four story building at Quad City Industrial Center for a consolidated facility to house Administration and Courthouse. $34,000,000 to $34,500,000 Do nothing. $6,000,000 to $7,000,000*   To view entire study, click here -->  Estes Construction Study * Due to the significant Life Safety, Building Code and non-compliance with the Minimum Standards for Courtrooms in Illinois, this is NOT recommended. After meeting with Mr. Christiansen and reviewing the issues, I understand that the solution to problems with the existing facilities may be one of the four measures above. Please share your opinions by emailing me at druedarrin@aol.com
December 7, 2012- Thank you!   Over the last year, I went out to meet everyone in our district-  many people who I represented on the Coal Valley Village Board and many that live in Moline and South Moline and Coal Valley townships.  During the campaign, I have stressed that as an elected official, I represent ALL residents-- including the vulnerable who do not always have the loudest voice.  It was a close election and in my acceptance speech I stressed that now that the election is over I become the representative for all.  On the Rock Island County Board, I pledge to continue my mission to assure that the vulnerable in our community have a voice and to be accountable in how our county is run.   There were many issues in this campaign but the one that stands out the most is the public’s will to decrease the size of the Rock Island County Board.  I will work with my fellow members on county board to begin the work that will achieve this goal. We have much to do to make Rock Island County even better than it is.  Your thoughts and prayers were very much appreciated during the campaign and I ask for your prayers and ideas as I become your new Rock Island County Board member for District 22.  Please feel free to contact me.  I always listen. Ready to serve,   Drue
Interview with Drue Mielke and County Board Member Don Johnston on KWQC KWQC reporter Johnna Klossing interviewed Rock Island County Board Member Don Johnston and myself on the day after the election.  4:00 airing on Wednesday, November 7th 5:00 airing on Wednesday, November 7th
November 11, 2012- The idea of selling Hope Creek nursing home is contrary to my mission of representing all and defending the most vulnerable in our community. As a lifelong Coal Valley resident, I wish to state that the Coal valley community had a close relationship with the county home when it was south of the village. Although now relocated to East Moline, my home Parish, St. Maria Goretti Catholic Church in Coal Valley, still maintains a mission to Hope Creek, celebrating Mass every Friday at 10:30am. I am grateful that my parish supports the spiritual needs of Hope Creek residents. Addressing the privatization issue, as an elected official, I have a fiscal obligation to taxpayers and a moral obligation to our most vulnerable residents’ well-being. Rather than privatize, if conditions would ever merit it, I would favor investigating an affiliation agreement with other healthcare providers to maintain the highest quality care in the most cost-effective manner with retention of current employees. As an elected official and county board candidate, it is my mission is to represent all residents, especially the most vulnerable in the community who may not have the loudest voice.
October 24, 2012- My message to the Moline City Council regarding Route 6 / 150 Redevelopment Project TIF by Moline City Council During the public comments section of Moline’s TIF review hearing on Tuesday, I spoke to the Moline council as a Coal Valley Village Trustee.  I stated to the council that I understand that the strip of land in front of the cement crushing plant is in the TIF and the land where the cement crushing plant is to be placed is not.  I feel that it is a moot point that the plant is outside the TIF, as the cement crushing device is mobile and not attached to land, the land in front of the plant that is in the TIF would likely be building that would support the plant. I also stated that as a municipality, the Village of Coal Valley has no direct say but 95% of the residents of the Village of Coal Valley live in Coal Valley Township where this TIF is occurring and that speaking as a resident for those fellow residents, we oppose this TIF linked to the cement crushing plant.  I do not feel this is the best use of land.  In my opinion, the best use of land would be Business 1, Business 2, or Commercial.  The proposed plant entrance occurs at a merge area on a highway that goes from a four-lane divided highway to a two-lane undivided highway at a point of the a main entryway to the Village of Coal Valley.  Traffic tie-ups will be an issue. Coal Valley residents that spoke before me expressed concerns about noise levels.  I disagree with the pro-cement crushing plant opinion that noise level threshold issues already exist from planes.  Noise generated from planes is not constant.  Also, adding to the noise level is making a situation worse  Steps should be taken to decrease noise levels, not add to them. Drue Mielke Trustee, Village of Coal Valley Candidate, Rock Island County Board, District 22 Resident, Coal Valley Township
October 4, 2012- Candlelight Village mobile home park and Village of Coal Valley working together for improvements View article in Dispatch/Argus This progress is a positive sign of better things to come in our village.  The village has established a working relationship with the property owner for the betterment of both the park and the village.  The new issue is the cement crushing plant only yards from where friends of mine live in that park. So, I am now concerned about issues that affect the park and the residents ability to enjoy their home in peace. I wish to assure that our residents' rights are defended and their voice is heard. I will be attending the meeting concerning plans adjacent to the Candlelight Mobile Home Park at the Moline City Hall, 619 16th Street, Moline, on Tuesday, October 23rd at 6:45 p.m..  I urge all residents that will be affected, to attend with me.
News concerning our area of the county...
At Wednesday, September 19th's Coal Valley Village Board meeting we learned that the cement crushing plant project is back on again and that the City of Moline is pursuing at Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district.  Tonight, (Wednesday, September 26th) I went walking in the Country Courts neighborhood and talked to some of the residents.  A very nice family let me borrow a letter to share with everyone in Coal Valley Township in my District 22, Rock Island County.  A letter was sent out to property owners with 750 feet of the proposed TIF. Letter from City of Moline Read the letter from the City of Moline to adjacent property owners in the unincorporated area of Coal Valley Township in the Country Courts subdivision.  The Route 6 / 150 Redevelopment Project Area Boundary Map View the proposed project area (I have added the area that is specifically targeted for the concrete crushing plant) I wished to share what is online:  Coal Valley concerned about planned cement crushing facility http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=608887  I am opposed to having this kind of development in close proximity to our residential neighborhoods of County Courts in Moline and in Coal Valley's Candlelight Community and adjacent neighborhoods. You do not have to live in the City of Moline to have a say in this TIF.  Coal Valley, Coal Valley Township, and Moline residents DO have a voice in this TIF as we are residents of these taxing bodies where the TIF is proposed:  Coal Valley Township Black Hawk College Moline School District #40 Metropolitan Airport Authority I will be attending the meeting at the Moline City Hall, 619 16th Street, Moline, on Tuesday, October 23rd at 6:45 p.m.. I have concerns why this project should occur in a residential area near U.S. 6 and U.S. 150.  I wish to work towards a goal that is beneficial for both Moline and Coal Valley and support our securing legal counsel to represent the village and residents' interests in this project in one voice. But, If helpful or necessary, I will lend my voice as a Coal Valley Village Trustee and resident in conjunction. These concerns are the adverse effects on:  Coal Valley property values Residential property values in Country Courts area near FedEx and the old Horace Mann School Rights of residents to peaceably use and enjoy their property due to noise issues Future development and residential growth As a resident of Coal Valley Township I am concerned about Country Courts residents' concerns Dust Increased Traffic Noise Residential property owners I have talked to already have noise issues with adjacent industrial plant.  I do not believe this is the best use of this land and is not complementary to the residential areas that will be affected. In addition, I will be putting the (Moline) public meeting notice in The Village of Coal Valley's municipal newsletter, The Village News. so that residents are aware that they can attend. Please share this Moline meeting date concerning the TIF district with whomever you feel would be interested.  The meeting is at Moline City Hall on Tuesday, October 23rd at 6:45 p.m. Thank you, Drue

Telephone

309-235-7493

FAX

309-799-3543

E-mail

General Information: druedarrin@aol.com

 

Facebook

            www.facebook.com/drue4you

Facebook Page

www.facebook.com/friendsofdruemielke

Copyright © 2015 Friends of Drue Mielke