Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. JohnM
    Member

    I'm not a member of the Caucus either, but I am fascinated by the way some of the posters on here on here view it as some type of nefarious organization, complete with "private meetings in smoke-filled rooms." Frankly, if I thought there was a chance to have a meeting in a smoke-filled room anywhere in Riverside, I'd be first in line with my cigars.

    The Caucus (and all this information is available on their website, which I found through a very basic Google search) is a political committee, registered under Illinois law. It selects candidates to run for office based on the views and beliefs of its members. It does not (and this is important) determine what other candidates get on the ballot. It does not (and again, this is important) prevent other candidates or parties from seeking office.

    Interestingly, and this is unusual for a political committee (and, to my mind, speaks well of it) the Caucus actively seeks out candidates--in other words, it loooks for individuals who may never have considered running for public office and asks them if they would be interested in running. Hence, the phone call at Disneyland that gave Don so much amusement. However, (and this is again based on their web site) if an individual is interested in running for an office, and would like the Caucus to back them, they can ask for an interview and present their case.

    If you (and, by you, I mean Mike and Don specifically) want to join the Caucus, you can--based on their web site, it appears they have membership slots open. I see nothing secretive about this organization, nor do I see anything inappropriate. If the Caucus has a history of slating unopposed candidates, I submit that this is due to a combination of 1) the fact that their candidates have been viewed as good ones and 2) voter apathy. Indeed, this argument is borne out by the fact that there have been a number of independent (that is, not backed by the Caucus) candidates who won Board seats, including Kevin Smith.

    Having said this, I believe competition is good. I'm glad that there is a real election, and I think the RCA has put forth some good ideas. What I disagree with is the premise that the Caucus has had some type of stranglehold on this village. That is simply not true--the option to run against Caucus-selected candidates has always been there.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 24, 2009 21:36 #

12. Catherine
    Member

    I don't think she's very bright either. To call that sexism is no better than saying people who did not want Obama were racists. She also called the RCA candidates liars the other night, 'lying just to get votes'. I'm pretty sure that's the worst thing I have heard from any candidate.

    No, you don't decide to join the Caucus. They decide whether they want you after you indicate interest. The have a maximum of 90 people. They give money to the candidates that 12 of them choose. That is not a level playing field. If the Caucus would go away, there would be a level playing field. They do have private meetings in private rooms. That is the whole idea of having a limited membership. They were formed at a time when gangsters were running Chicago and the western suburbs. They have outlived their purpose, in my opinion, and just stand in the way of getting the best people through natural competition.

    I'm not surprised by anything I hear about them.

    It's nice to see in the news today that the board has adopted yet another suggestion of the RCA in addition to putting meeting materials online before the meetings: the meetings will be online too.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 24, 2009 22:28 #

13. spatny
    Member

    I don't care anything about Caucus, but the question the other night doesn't match up with the candidates answer. The question from the floor from a Caucus supporter and one who made noises and so forth at the RCA candidates, elicited when and where you decided to run. Maybe the candidate herself will want to correct me or give a more cogent answer. Not like the one she gave about her voting record.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 24, 2009 22:36 #

14. JohnM
    Member

    Ok, so the Caucus picks their own members after application. So what? Can you explain to me how this is not a level playing field? They are a political committee with an interest in seeing candidates who share the values of the committee members winning office. What is the problem with this? Do they prevent other candidates from running? Do they run aggressive campaigns to knock other candidates off the ballot? Again, the option to run against caucus-selected candidates is there, and always has been there. Non-caucus candidates have been elected before and they will be again--perhaps even this year.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 09:14 #

15. Catherine
    Member

    Er no. Candidates do not usually apply, members do.

    I am glad you agree they are a political committee with an interest in people who "share their 'values'" - which they cannot enumerate. Since no one turns out to vote for them unless someone gives them competition, I would say they are a problem. You may as well argue there is no advantage to incumbency, nor to Vito Marzullo having special friends.

    Yes, Smith ran without the Caucus. He was not their kind of person, apparently, nor they his.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 10:33 #

16. JohnM
    Member

    I am aware that members apply--you pointed that out earlier, and I acknowledge my error.

    My point, though, still stands. Why would a political committee nominate people who don't share it's values? That would make no sense. There is an advantage in incumbency, just as there is an advantage in organization. The Caucus is organized, most opponents, until this year, were not. Toughies. That's the way it goes. I'm not sure I get the Vito Marzullo reference in this context--even the most rabid Caucus hater could surely not equate that organization's power with that of the RDO in Chicago from 1950-1975.

    And, Sacchi and Shevitz were Caucus members. They used to be the the Caucus's kind of people.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 11:57 #

17. Catherine
    Member

    Unfortunately, the Caucus has never been able to state what those values are. One of their leaders was on here a couple of years ago and could not answer the question. From what I hear, they try to figure out if you are going to go along with the village manager and the other board members. So much for independent thought.

    Apparently you DO get the Vito Marzullo reference. It also alludes to the fact that the Caucus was formed to keep the Mob out of our politics at a time when they ran this whole part of the state. We don't have that problem anymore, and we don't need them.

    Were would be the operative word there. No, they were not the Caucus' kind of people, nor the Caucus theirs.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 12:09 #

18. JohnM
    Member

    In all seriousness, are you implying that Marzullo had Outfit connections? I honestly didn't know this--my understanding is that his power was derived from the Democratic Machine. His power base was 24th and Oakley, which was predominantly northern Italian. Italian organized crime in Chicago tended to be a Neapolitan and Sicilian thing.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 13:05 #

19. HRCollins
    Member

    Spatny said "I had to laugh at the GOP Forum when one of their
    candidates, when asked when and how she decided to run, answered that
    a friend called her while she was at Disneyland. "

    That friend is Riverside Caucus member Kim Jacobs, the current
    President of the Frederick Law Olmsted Society. Ms. Jacobs called
    Kelly Navarro to ask her to if she was interested in running for a
    Village Trustee position and if so would she like to interview before
    the Caucus' Nominating Committee.

    Please note that I am not using an alias.

    Nor am I insulting anyone.

    I think it is great that we have 9 candidates running for Village
    positions this April. While I may not agree with everyone's ideas, I
    truly believe that all candidates want what in their minds is best for
    Riverside.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 13:17 #

20. spatny
    Member

    HR - I know that. I think the candidate meant it to be a little comic relief after the joking that followed the other four candidates all giving the same response. What do you people get so upset about? I think it is great we have a contested election, I urged this for years. I am not insulting anyone - I am simply stating what happened at an event that was neither televised nor covered by the press. Caucus does what it wants - we can do what we want. Which is advocate that the incumbant candidates run on their records and declare their priorities. Which amounts to handing out costly incentives that were never labeled as such. The giveaways to the VC have caused a lot of this shortfall. If we hadn't raised the issue who knows what might have been given to Wexford. You can go through and document well over a million that was spent or will be without doing anything concrete for the Village, and it goes back to two of the Caucus candidates. The other two say they were in favor of those moves/expenditures, so people opposed to TOD, TIF, tax referendum, oversize development and unmarked incentives to developers can question their wisdom, etc. I don't think any of these people are evil. I think Lesniak is dangerous, because he gives me the impression wants to build... anything. He's in favor of everything I don't like. Kevin and I have laughed and argued and on occasion shouted at each other - and we don't hate each other. We disagree on direction, methods and priorities. He is not Nixon or W - he's an OK guy that is erudite and uses his pulpit o advocate things I oppose, so we argue. I don't have any opinion on the other candidates, don't know them, just formed my view on what they themselves said. What they are for, who they like, what they say they want to do. I'm in opposition to what they advocate. I don't agree with everything on the RCA side either, but they seem to me to have better intentions and priorities more in line with my own - preservation over development, maintenance over replacement, parks before circuses, etc.

    If I was putting on a 4th of July concert i would opt for some quality music and make the audience strain to listen, not blast some mindless noise so you can hear it in Indian Gardens or on Ogden Ave. That's just my view - to which I am entitled. I'm the guy that bitched to the coppers about the overloud car radios and asked them to send out that e-flash. I'm the one that complains about the trend in outdoor lighting that ignores the neighbors and shines in your eyes as you walk or drive. It's my perogative to ask the Village to enforce the codes they created, isn't it. I don't think people, no matter who they are, should be allowed to build in the public right of way - but it happens. I don't see anyone else complain. It's not me bitching against somebody, it's me asking that the codes created to protect the many from the few be enforced. This admin, this Board hasn't done that. They have used the taxper's money to pursue schemes that the majority demonstrably opposed, but they don't take responsibility for it. Talk to them...

    Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 13:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.