Drue Mielke speaks to
Democratic Ethnic Minority Conference on County Board Downsizing Issue
Monday, February 1st, 2016
Click here
to listen to what I had to say regarding downsizing the county board
"...We can we can find other
counties that 24 or 25 (members) and this harkens back to when I was not
on the board, but I was asking for reforms under the Open Meetings Act
and that board, of which most of you people were not there, said 'well,
this county doesn’t do it this way or that county doesn’t do it that
way,or La Salle County does it that way'.
So they would find a county
that does it wrong.
And it just angered me because
I was currently an elected official but I didn’t tell them that. And I
already adhered to the Open Meetings Act.
The point is that we should
look at counties that have done it (downsized). An example is Peoria
county who I think went to 19 from like 25 or 27. They still have
minority representation. Maybe we should talk to them and say “How is
your minority representation?” Maybe we should flesh it out? “How is
your rural representation?”
The other thing is that in 2012 when I ran, and that (downsizing
referendum) passed, that was an advisory referendum, it had no teeth,
but it did give… it did test the waters on how the public felt.
We all agreed that the board
should be smaller. Never did I say that the board should be
downsized. Ever! What I always said was it CAN be downsized, and they
weren’t telling you the truth. And who “they” is up to you guys to
decide, but what I mean is that I am not an attorney, but when I read
the ’74 and ’76 opinion from the Attorney General that says in all but…
“the decennial reapportionment should hold in all but exceptional
circumstances”, that tells me that there is an exceptional circumstance.
We all probably all agree that we do not like the exceptional
circumstance for other reasons that weren’t obvious at the time. Because
when you start thinking about something, you think “oh, what’s the
ramification? “ Will it affect….? This district is going to be too big,
we won’t have a rural district. What about the people that live in a
minority majority district? How are they going to be affected when they
find out all of a sudden their district is part of a (larger district).
So luckily, I never said we should do it, but I got angry when I kept
hitting the brick wall of whatever you want to call it: The machine, The
people or whoever it was whoever it was who said “no”.
I got threatened if I proceeded with it (the downsizing question)! I had
my documents stolen from me! And then they were used in political attack
ads! I mean this is the kind of climate I’ve experienced on this county
board. That was the welcome mat that was put out for me.
And then when I thought I was reaching out with an olive branch, saying
we could get an new Attorney General opinion, which sounded very
credible….. it took two years to get one (a new opinion.)
So you , know, we’ve been down this road… I mean I’ve been down this
road, back and forth. Where I think we are heading the right direction,
I think we should look at because of all the other issues. And the late.
the clock has ran out, I am afraid.
I am going to say that I am the biggest advocate for listening to the
will of the people. We need to explain to the people why, what the
ramifications are if we downsize this late in the game, otherwise they
are not going to get it otherwise (what would happen if we downsize
prior to 2020)
The other thing that I did do,
was not only did I believe in getting this to the people, was that to
the people. That I spoke to the Farm Bureau, I didn’t tell them what to
think but I told them what the facts were. I spoke to the NAACP, I
didn’t tell them what to think, but I told them what the facts were. And
I told them what the threats were, I mean as far as I what the threats
were was that we were going to have eight districts if we are going to
do it (downsize) this other way.
I have never said it “should” be done but I got very frustrated when I
was told it “can’t be done”. And it could. It is just whether the public
wants it.
I don’t think the public really does want to have multi-member
districts. I think you guys all said that with the resolution that was
the second resolution that followed it (the first resolution).
I just want to do what the people want.
Not what the county board wants.
But what the people want.
|
I have drafted a resolution on Monday, October
5, 2015 calling for terminating participation in the Illinois
Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) for all Rock Island County Board
Members.
The resolution was sent
to Rock Island County Administrator Dave Ross and to Nick Camlin, Chair
of the Rock Island County Board Human Resources Committee
for consideration by the County Administrator and with the intent
of placement on the next Human Resources Committee meeting agenda for
discussion on November 10th at 10:00 a.m. for recommendation to the full
county board or consideration and vote on Tuesday, November 17th.
I have asked fellow county
board member Mr. Scott Terry to co-author this resolution with me in a
show of bi-partisan support.
The resolution states:
“WHEREAS, the Rock Island County Human Resources Committee recommends to
the County Board to adopt the IMRF Resolution to terminate County Board
member participation in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund; and
WHEREAS, the County Board has determined that a majority of its members
will not normally be performing the minimum of 1000 hour per year; and
WHEREAS, authorization is given to the County Clerk to sign and submit
the attached
IMRF Form 6.64T (03/12).
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board approve this
recommendation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Clerk notifies the County Board
Office of this Action.”
When I was elected, I was given new employee paperwork from Rock Island
County Human Resources. Included in the new employee paperwork were IMRF
forms. I was not told that once one is in IMRF that a county board
member cannot opt out. Knowing what I have come to learn being on the
county board, I do not believe that IMRF is appropriate for county board
members and I do not wish to participate in IMRF.
In exploring what other counties and
municipalities have done, I discover that a governmental body can opt
out of IMRF participation. That is what I intend to do in this
resolution. It is the right move at the right time and shows we are
committed to working together for the good of the county given the dire
condition of our funds.
|
