5th Ward Alderman to Resign due to Re...
Greg thomas

United States

#91 Nov 20, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
Maybe you want to look at the correct code. Again, we are brought back to the question of what is temporary. General election law, pertains as indicated below. You want to look at municipal code.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-10)(from Ch. 24, par. 3.1-10-10)
Sec. 3.1-10-10. Application of general election law. The general election law applies to the scheduling, manner of conducting, voting at, and contesting of municipal elections.
(c) Vacancy by other causes.
(1) Abandonment and other causes. A vacancy occurs in
an office by reason of abandonment of office; removal from office; or failure to qualify; or more than temporary removal of residence from the municipality; or in the case of an alderman of a ward or councilman or trustee of a district, more than temporary removal of residence from the ward or district, as the case may be. The corporate authorities have the authority to determine whether a vacancy under this subsection has occurred. If the corporate authorities determine that a vacancy exists, the office is deemed vacant as of the date of that determination for all purposes including the calculation under subsections (e),(f), and (g).
<quoted text>
And there has been an abandonment
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#92 Nov 20, 2012
Apparently they don't think so, since no action was taken. Again, the problem is because the law is vague with the term temporary.
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
And there has been an abandonment
FRANK S

Chicago, IL

#93 Nov 20, 2012
YUP More good research. I agree. What are we defining as parameters of "temporary" in this ? Rahm ? I still can't connect the dots on that situation to this one. Corporate authorities didn't take any position from what I viewed. I concluded they were all of one opinion to not speak to the vacancy issue.
Greg thomas

United States

#94 Nov 21, 2012
FRANK S wrote:
YUP More good research. I agree. What are we defining as parameters of "temporary" in this ? Rahm ? I still can't connect the dots on that situation to this one. Corporate authorities didn't take any position from what I viewed. I concluded they were all of one opinion to not speak to the vacancy issue.
There is a huge diffrence..... Rahm was working at the pleasure of the President and still OWNED property or had a residence (as defined by the Il. Sup. Ct. For over 100 years) in the city.... The non resident alderman has none of the above. It's just an example if the city attorney bending the truth as he is paid to do.
whats the big deal

Midlothian, IL

#95 Nov 21, 2012
can someone tell me what the big deal is please? Mr. Ensing is still performing his alderman duties, correct? He is present at meetings, correct? Is he still available for residents to contact? I do believe so. Is there someone else who is looking to replace him? Why is there so much grief being given on this issue, even after it has been explained that a move back to Oak Forest is planned? People have to understand that carrying 2 mortgages is not possible at this time. I'm pretty sure that we have other things to worry about and bring to the mayor's attention besides where an alderman sleeps.
Really

Chicago, IL

#96 Nov 21, 2012
Maybe if there was a little more definition or the Alderman explained it himself, there would not be an issue! I think there may be manyh in the ward that would have to rethink their vote decision if they new this is how their representation would be handled! Council was quiet, the mayor snoozed through it, so there is no other decision than this is how it stands!
Greg thomas

United States

#97 Nov 21, 2012
whats the big deal wrote:
can someone tell me what the big deal is please? Mr. Ensing is still performing his alderman duties, correct? He is present at meetings, correct? Is he still available for residents to contact? I do believe so. Is there someone else who is looking to replace him? Why is there so much grief being given on this issue, even after it has been explained that a move back to Oak Forest is planned? People have to understand that carrying 2 mortgages is not possible at this time. I'm pretty sure that we have other things to worry about and bring to the mayor's attention besides where an alderman sleeps.
Because it was a voluntary abandonment of his residence ( who knows how long ago)..... The people should be represented by a resident of the ward thats all.
Just asking

Chicago, IL

#98 Nov 21, 2012
Who cares?
Greg thomas

United States

#103 Nov 22, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
Too bad the law doesn't state it that way.
<quoted text>
If you did your research and not just spew the words of the CITY PAID ATTORNEY you would see your absolutely wrong and so are they. The Il Sup. Ct. Ruled in many cases that if you leave your residence VOLUNTARILY you have ABANDONED your position.... As far as the city attorney... liar... Lawyer it's all the same
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#104 Nov 23, 2012
No, I think you are misunderstanding it. Sure, if you just move out and away. That isn't what happened here. He had a change to his life circumstance. You may not like that either, but that isn't going to change anything.
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
If you did your research and not just spew the words of the CITY PAID ATTORNEY you would see your absolutely wrong and so are they. The Il Sup. Ct. Ruled in many cases that if you leave your residence VOLUNTARILY you have ABANDONED your position.... As far as the city attorney... liar... Lawyer it's all the same
Greg thomas

United States

#105 Nov 23, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
No, I think you are misunderstanding it. Sure, if you just move out and away. That isn't what happened here. He had a change to his life circumstance. You may not like that either, but that isn't going to change anything.
<quoted text>
What change to life circumstance was that? Dont try to say divorce.
Deakre

Chicago, IL

#106 Nov 23, 2012
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
What change to life circumstance was that? Dont try to say divorce.
When did this life changing circumstance occur? From the City Council meeting it is very strange that it happened more than a year ago, but just came up at the council meeting here in November 2012! To this Council and Mayor it does not mean anything, but if this Alderman had pushed more of his questions or ideas, I wonder if it would have worked differently? If they wanted to say the seat was vacant it sure seems like that could have happened at this meeting! I wonder why it didn't, sure will be waiting for the next action on this one! Hopefully this Alderman will move back in sooner than later! What happens if the next election cycle comes and goes with no move back into the ward, can the council then re-address it? Let's just wait and see!
Greg thomas

United States

#107 Nov 24, 2012
Deakre wrote:
<quoted text>
When did this life changing circumstance occur? From the City Council meeting it is very strange that it happened more than a year ago, but just came up at the council meeting here in November 2012! To this Council and Mayor it does not mean anything, but if this Alderman had pushed more of his questions or ideas, I wonder if it would have worked differently? If they wanted to say the seat was vacant it sure seems like that could have happened at this meeting! I wonder why it didn't, sure will be waiting for the next action on this one! Hopefully this Alderman will move back in sooner than later! What happens if the next election cycle comes and goes with no move back into the ward, can the council then re-address it? Let's just wait and see!
No then he couldnt even circulate petitions to run.
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#108 Nov 25, 2012
Why not? Does the law state under what circumstances you can "temporarily" leave your residence? Again it's a shame it can't be the way you want it.
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
What change to life circumstance was that? Dont try to say divorce.
Greg thomas

United States

#109 Nov 25, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
Why not? Does the law state under what circumstances you can "temporarily" leave your residence? Again it's a shame it can't be the way you want it.
<quoted text>
You really need to stop acting like you know the law... It's a wee bit annoying.

Yes the statute states tit have to be a "resident" of the ward fire one year prior to the election... Not even oak forest paid legal counsel could twist that.
whats the big deal

Midlothian, IL

#110 Nov 25, 2012
It seems to me that some of you are really advocating for Mr. Ensing, while some of you are not. Why don't you show up at a meeting and voice your concerns and opinions instead of on topix? Especially those of you who are so against him holding his alderman position. He's a good person, cares about Oak Forest and had to move out of the town for the time being. Oak Forest can and has done worse!
Greg thomas

United States

#111 Nov 25, 2012
whats the big deal wrote:
It seems to me that some of you are really advocating for Mr. Ensing, while some of you are not. Why don't you show up at a meeting and voice your concerns and opinions instead of on topix? Especially those of you who are so against him holding his alderman position. He's a good person, cares about Oak Forest and had to move out of the town for the time being. Oak Forest can and has done worse!
1. Good person? Thats debatable
2. Cares about O.F.? Again very debatable
3. Had to move? Ummmmm no..... By choice
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#112 Nov 25, 2012
I believe I am interpreting the law correctly. I don't believe his residency prior to the election is in question is it? Again, my apologies for having a different opinion of the law than you do, thereby cause you to feel annoyed. You have the option to not respond. I have the option to voice my opinion.
The fact still remains that the Council chose not to do anything. Done deal. Over.
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to stop acting like you know the law... It's a wee bit annoying.
Yes the statute states tit have to be a "resident" of the ward fire one year prior to the election... Not even oak forest paid legal counsel could twist that.
Greg thomas

United States

#113 Nov 25, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
I believe I am interpreting the law correctly. I don't believe his residency prior to the election is in question is it? Again, my apologies for having a different opinion of the law than you do, thereby cause you to feel annoyed. You have the option to not respond. I have the option to voice my opinion.
The fact still remains that the Council chose not to do anything. Done deal. Over.
<quoted text>
Its not over til the fat lady sings... and shes nowhere ready.
Anonymous

Chicago, IL

#114 Nov 25, 2012
The City Attorney from a reputable and respected law firm gave an opinion that there is legally nothing that can be done at this time. Just how much legal expenditure do you want to put into this non winable issue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Markham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Robert Houlf Blue Island Water Superintendent R... 1 hr Mike 18
Joe Gatrell's vaunted slate 1 hr Mike 110
Alderman Pittmans Home Burglarized 3 hr Change is needed 14
Team Floodlothian 4 hr got to go 14
FBI at city hall 5 hr Drove by 32
Review: Public Moving and Storage 5 hr Joshua Ngo 211
Lies Lies Lies 6 hr In The Know 1

Markham Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Markham Mortgages