OREGON — An Electoral Board hearing to review certain signed petitions in response to a recent Flagg-Rochelle Community Park District ordinance got underway Monday morning at the Ogle County Courthouse.

County clerk Laura Cook, state’s attorney Eric Morrow and circuit clerk Kim Stahl make up the board, while former state’s attorney and Byron lawyer Doug Floski is serving as the hearing officer.

Floski explained to the parties that the Electoral Board’s duty was to review the challenged signatures in question and rule on their validity.

“My purpose is to conduct the hearing and I won’t participate in any decision,” he stated on Monday. “Today we will take some preliminary actions, adopt rules and procedures, identify the parties and take some comments from both sides on the matter.”

The hearing was called by Cook last week after Flagg Township resident and registered voter Richard Ohlinger objected to 114 of the 603 signatures turned into the park district on petition sheets in early February.

The signatures were gathered between Jan. 9 through Feb. 7 by 10 separate Flagg Township residents who want to make sure that the park district can only issue alternate revenue tax bonds for a community recreation center in Rochelle if the voters decide so in a referendum.

In a Jan. 7 special meeting, park commissioners unanimously passed a resolution to put a referendum on the upcoming April 2 election ballot, asking voters permission to issue $11-$14 million in general obligation bonds to build the facility.

However, in a separate 5-1 vote that same night, the board also passed an ordinance that could potentially give the district another option to gain authority by issuing up to $14 million in alternate revenue bonds unless at least 526 registered Flagg-Township voters petitioned the park district to force a referendum to gain authority for that type of funding. If fewer than 526 valid signatures were not turned in, the park board could legally move forward with issuing the alternate revenue tax bonds without voter approval.

Ohlinger’s attorney, Aaron Szeto, of Rockford, told the hearing board on Monday that his client is objecting to the signatures based on three points– they were not bound in any way, none of the petition pages were numbered or sequenced, and there are fewer than the required number of valid signatures.

Response

Tom McDermott spoke on behalf of the petitioners to express their concerns about the objections.

“I’m not a lawyer, but we took the petitions out to be signed and dropped them off in one repository location- the park district office,” McDermott said. “The only people who had them all in one location was the park district staff. If they didn’t bind them and number them and that is a violation, they shouldn’t be able to benefit from not handling them correctly.”

McDermott acknowledged that any signers who aren’t Flagg Township voters should be excluded, but voters whose signatures can’t easily be read is not reason to invalidate a petition.

“It’s a simple matter,” he said. “Some need to be thrown out for address or voting district issues, but that still leaves an ample amount. To err on the side of a technicality is taking away the people’s right to vote.”

Petitioner Tom Lower pointed out that the signatures were gathered during some of the worst winter weather years, and often on a clipboard in the cold.
“I think we’ve done everything in good faith,” he said.

Belen Martinez echoed McDermott when speaking to the Electoral Board.

“This is a $14 million project that will raise our taxes,” she said. “People are on budgets and it just should be up to the voters to decide.”

Floski reminded the parties that the hearing has a narrow and specific scope.

“Please everyone, understand that this board’s purpose is to determine the validity of the petition signatures, not whether a referendum should be held,” he stated.

Floski asked both the petitioners and the objector if they were wanting to each provide a witness during the review process by a staff member designated by Cook, and each side stipulated that witnesses weren’t necessary.

Cook said an internal review of the signatures would take place in the coming days and Floski set a deadline of March 5 for any further legal filings by either party.

Cook also cleared up some confusion about the duration of the hearing. Originally, it was published that the entire process had to be completed within five days, but Cook stated that there was miscommunication about that and the hearing process just needed to begin within three to five days after the objection was filed.

“We want to get this done in a timely manner, so it won’t drag on,” she assured.

Floski then announced the next public hearing meeting would be held on Thursday, March 7 at 9 a.m. in the Ogle County Courthouse.