5th Ward Alderman to Resign due to Re...
cant wait tio move

Forest Park, IL

#69 Nov 15, 2012
if this has been going on for a year so far nothing is going to change. the alderman could have found somewhere to live in a years time city hall could have applied pressure in a years time, but they are all above us the little people that only pay taxes and dont know the problems of big city government
Dan Ensing

United States

#71 Nov 15, 2012
I posted a response back on Post #27, which is missing for some reason.

This has not been going on for a year, I have been a resident of the 5th Ward from Nov. 2001 until Nov. 1, 2012 (approx. 11 years). I recently had to move out because I was unable to resign my lease, which is explained in the memo issued by the City Attorney and is available in the agenda packet from the Nov. 13, 2012 City Council meeting. I currently reside with my wife and we are in the process of selling her townhome and will be looking for a home in the 5th Ward.

Nothing has been kept secret; no conspiracies or nefarious actvities are being supported by the City Council. The Mayor and I met on Nov. 5th, 2012 and conferred with the City Attorney. He issued a memo based on current law and recently adjudicated court cases. It was decided that the best, most transparent way to make the memo public was to bring it up under New Business and give the City Council and the residents of Oak Forest an opportunity to ask questions. No residents came forward to ask questions.

This issue came up a few months back on a previous thread and I answered it then, too.

If anyone has any questions please contact me via email through the City of Oak Forest website. Or, call City Hall and they will give you my cell phone number. I will be happy to discuss this.

Dan Ensing
5th Ward Alderman
Dan Ensing

United States

#72 Nov 15, 2012
Danny Inuyasha wrote:
While we have mr. Toland here could you explain the whole using tax payers money to revitalize the private lake in the Landings. If it goes through expect to see me fishing over there next summer. Let them call the cops on me.
Lake Emily is not a private lake, it isn't really a lake at all. "Lake Emily" is a retention pond that is part of the flood control system for the City of Oak Forest. For years it has been mismanaged and suffered from a lack for regular maintenance. This caused the retention pond to become shallower and wider than it was supposed to be. This is causing problems that the City needed to address. Had the planned upkeep of the retention pond been continued like it was supposed to be we wouldn't be addressing it today.

Public funds are being used for a public retention pond, not a private lake.

Dan Ensing
5th Ward Alderman
Resident

Chicago, IL

#74 Nov 16, 2012
PUBLIC CONCERNS wrote:
<quoted text>Mr.T Would you know of any particular reason The Mayor or even Mr.Ensing should not have explained their position on the matter when given the oppurtunity at council Tues.? It was an agenda item which makes the subject the residents concern and opens discussion to all. But, the staunch silence on the matter implies arrogance and leaves the miniscule amount of information provided lacking in complete fact and substance. The manner in which this was handled leaves the entire subject open to speculation. You're invitation to contact you to discuss these issues is admirable, but in this instance, I believe all of the residents are owed an explanation, not just those who reach out to you.
From what I could tell this was not a agenda item, it was brought up under new business. I don't think some of the Aldermen even expected it.
public access

Chicago, IL

#75 Nov 17, 2012
Dan Ensing wrote:
<quoted text>Lake Emily is not a private lake, it isn't really a lake at all. "Lake Emily" is a retention pond that is part of the flood control system for the City of Oak Forest. For years it has been mismanaged and suffered from a lack for regular maintenance. This caused the retention pond to become shallower and wider than it was supposed to be. This is causing problems that the City needed to address. Had the planned upkeep of the retention pond been continued like it was supposed to be we wouldn't be addressing it today.

Public funds are being used for a public retention pond, not a private lake.

Dan Ensing
5th Ward Alderman
So we will have public access for the public retention pond funded by public funds .....correct?
Deakre

Chicago, IL

#76 Nov 18, 2012
Resident wrote:
<quoted text>From what I could tell this was not a agenda item, it was brought up under new business. I don't think some of the Aldermen even expected it.
The only way these aldermen would not have known about it before the meeting is if they never read their packets that they receive before the meeting! Don't kid yourself this was a time bomb waiting for this administration and they needed to act on it now, before the election comes up! What better time to do it, before a holiday when most folks are not paying attention!

If I remember my history this is the way one other mayor used to do business! Just seems to come back to the same old Oak Forest Politics! So much for an open transparent government! As far as the 5th Ward Alderman, it was up to the Council folks to decide, since they said nothing but silly things I guess they all believe it is fine to move out of their wards for any length of time and still function to help their wards! Maybe that will work, or maybe after a certain time there will be a resignation and the mayor will appoint another political friend! Only time will tell! When again does all the OPEN TRANSPARENT government start to happen? When do we start to fix the problems that were pointed out before the last election? Maybe it will start to happen before April 9, 2013, or maybe it should happen by voting them out on that day!
I hope Alderman Ensing will do a better job now for the 5th Ward than this mayor and council has done for the rest of the taxpayers!
Greg thomas

United States

#77 Nov 19, 2012
Deakre wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way these aldermen would not have known about it before the meeting is if they never read their packets that they receive before the meeting! Don't kid yourself this was a time bomb waiting for this administration and they needed to act on it now, before the election comes up! What better time to do it, before a holiday when most folks are not paying attention!
If I remember my history this is the way one other mayor used to do business! Just seems to come back to the same old Oak Forest Politics! So much for an open transparent government! As far as the 5th Ward Alderman, it was up to the Council folks to decide, since they said nothing but silly things I guess they all believe it is fine to move out of their wards for any length of time and still function to help their wards! Maybe that will work, or maybe after a certain time there will be a resignation and the mayor will appoint another political friend! Only time will tell! When again does all the OPEN TRANSPARENT government start to happen? When do we start to fix the problems that were pointed out before the last election? Maybe it will start to happen before April 9, 2013, or maybe it should happen by voting them out on that day!
I hope Alderman Ensing will do a better job now for the 5th Ward than this mayor and council has done for the rest of the taxpayers!
And yes there is a santa claus
Neighbor

Chicago, IL

#78 Nov 19, 2012
What exactly do you want them to do? You want them to break the law? I still question why this was brought up at this time, especially since there is no wrong doing involved.
Deakre wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way these aldermen would not have known about it before the meeting is if they never read their packets that they receive before the meeting! Don't kid yourself this was a time bomb waiting for this administration and they needed to act on it now, before the election comes up! What better time to do it, before a holiday when most folks are not paying attention!
If I remember my history this is the way one other mayor used to do business! Just seems to come back to the same old Oak Forest Politics! So much for an open transparent government! As far as the 5th Ward Alderman, it was up to the Council folks to decide, since they said nothing but silly things I guess they all believe it is fine to move out of their wards for any length of time and still function to help their wards! Maybe that will work, or maybe after a certain time there will be a resignation and the mayor will appoint another political friend! Only time will tell! When again does all the OPEN TRANSPARENT government start to happen? When do we start to fix the problems that were pointed out before the last election? Maybe it will start to happen before April 9, 2013, or maybe it should happen by voting them out on that day!
I hope Alderman Ensing will do a better job now for the 5th Ward than this mayor and council has done for the rest of the taxpayers!
Daisy DUKE

Chicago, IL

#79 Nov 19, 2012
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes there is a santa claus
Boy, did you ever get it right. If you don't learn from history you are DOOMED to repeat it. We taxpayers can't see the treees trough the OAK Forest.
4th Ward Resident

Chicago, IL

#80 Nov 19, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
What exactly do you want them to do? You want them to break the law? I still question why this was brought up at this time, especially since there is no wrong doing involved.
<quoted text>
I for one would have been much more convince if one of the other Aldermen would have asked the council, how long does an alderman have to move back into this ward! I think the folks of the 5th ward would have been happier to hear from their current alderman or maybe the mayor, or even better how about the legal council explaining the opinion he rendered to the viewing audience? One Alderman stated he had talked to the mayor a year ago and then another alderman made some crazy statement that proved he was not sure what was the correct opinion! This is not the first time this has come up in our fair city!Break the law - how about just explaining the law! Good for Alderman Ensing, I hope he gets back to the 5th ward soon, but there really is no deadline is there? Nothing was stated, nothing was questioned, when my alderman then comes up and asks for the same consideration, who will ask any questions, not the rest of the bunch! Just keep quiet and let the buddy system explain the issue! People that are paying the freight here, the taxpayers deserve an answer not just a political save the timebomb answer! Did you see this Mayor stand up and say anything to explain this issue? Did you see any of the Aldermen ask one question to get a cleared up opinion from legal counsel?

Is being open and upfront on this when the 1st move happened asking too much for the taxpayers? Now we have a 2nd move outside of the ward, explain why this is OK and give us the time frame! Honest and open goverment, isn't that how these folks ran their platform? So what does it tell me, no explanation, everyone shuts down except for some crazy guy and the coaching buddy and the worst part is the leader sits by and says nothing! I can understand why maybe Ald. Ensing was quiet, but the other guy, doesn't give me any confidence he really is the leader up there!
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#81 Nov 19, 2012
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think they can violate the State law. In reading it, I couldn't find any time frame that is required to return to the ward after moving out. I think that is why they were all quiet. What were they supposed to do? The most they could have done was admonish him. Is it right? I don't know. I don't know the whole story, and I don't know about 2 moves or when all this actually happened. Does it matter though? I may not like it as a resident, but no laws or rules have been broken.
4th Ward Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
I for one would have been much more convince if one of the other Aldermen would have asked the council, how long does an alderman have to move back into this ward! I think the folks of the 5th ward would have been happier to hear from their current alderman or maybe the mayor, or even better how about the legal council explaining the opinion he rendered to the viewing audience? One Alderman stated he had talked to the mayor a year ago and then another alderman made some crazy statement that proved he was not sure what was the correct opinion! This is not the first time this has come up in our fair city!Break the law - how about just explaining the law! Good for Alderman Ensing, I hope he gets back to the 5th ward soon, but there really is no deadline is there? Nothing was stated, nothing was questioned, when my alderman then comes up and asks for the same consideration, who will ask any questions, not the rest of the bunch! Just keep quiet and let the buddy system explain the issue! People that are paying the freight here, the taxpayers deserve an answer not just a political save the timebomb answer! Did you see this Mayor stand up and say anything to explain this issue? Did you see any of the Aldermen ask one question to get a cleared up opinion from legal counsel?
Is being open and upfront on this when the 1st move happened asking too much for the taxpayers? Now we have a 2nd move outside of the ward, explain why this is OK and give us the time frame! Honest and open goverment, isn't that how these folks ran their platform? So what does it tell me, no explanation, everyone shuts down except for some crazy guy and the coaching buddy and the worst part is the leader sits by and says nothing! I can understand why maybe Ald. Ensing was quiet, but the other guy, doesn't give me any confidence he really is the leader up there!
Greg thomas

United States

#82 Nov 19, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think they can violate the State law. In reading it, I couldn't find any time frame that is required to return to the ward after moving out. I think that is why they were all quiet. What were they supposed to do? The most they could have done was admonish him. Is it right? I don't know. I don't know the whole story, and I don't know about 2 moves or when all this actually happened. Does it matter though? I may not like it as a resident, but no laws or rules have been broken.
<quoted text>
The deal here is the city paid its legal counsel for exactly what it wanted them to say.
anyone else

Midlothian, IL

#83 Nov 19, 2012
It seems to me that Alderman Ensing is dedicated to Oak Forest, regardless of where he lives. Would all of you people whining rather that he resign and chance that someone who doesn't care or know what they're doing replace him? Why don't you all give him a break and realize that he made changes to his life and had to move. Did anyone consider that selling/buying a home is not easy right now? I believe that he did say in a post here that once his current home is sold he is looking to move back into the Oak Forest area. That being said, I hope that he sticks to that, as best as he can. Take it up with Mr. Mayor if you have questions about why it wasn't publicized well enough or discussed at meetings. He does run the show, doesn't he?
Resident

Chicago, IL

#84 Nov 19, 2012
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
The deal here is the city paid its legal counsel for exactly what it wanted them to say.
How stupid.
Greg thomas

United States

#85 Nov 19, 2012
Resident wrote:
<quoted text>How stupid.
truth hurts sometimes... I can tell it hurts your feelings because you felt the need to belittle your self with name calling.
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#86 Nov 19, 2012
I really doubt that the legal counsel said what the City wanted it to say. They do have ethics rules to follow and I don't think someone is going to be willing to lose their license and their ability to earn a living for the City. I don't believe their is a conspiracy issue between the lawyer and the City, though I would question the timing of bringing this up now.
Greg thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
The deal here is the city paid its legal counsel for exactly what it wanted them to say.
Wheres Waldo 5th Ward Ald

Chicago, IL

#87 Nov 20, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
I really doubt that the legal counsel said what the City wanted it to say. They do have ethics rules to follow and I don't think someone is going to be willing to lose their license and their ability to earn a living for the City. I don't believe their is a conspiracy issue between the lawyer and the City, though I would question the timing of bringing this up now.
<quoted text>
Why don't we go to the State Law and not worry about the what the city did or did not do!

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
Wheres Waldo 5th Ward Ald

Chicago, IL

#88 Nov 20, 2012
10 ILCS 5/Election Code!!
FRANK S

Chicago, IL

#89 Nov 20, 2012
Wheres Waldo 5th Ward Ald wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't we go to the State Law and not worry about the what the city did or did not do!
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
WOW, good research! After reading that State Law , I would say the citizens of O.F. need a difinitive authoratative answer from a higher authority as to what's proper and what's not so proper.
Neighbor

Forest Park, IL

#90 Nov 20, 2012
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).
Wheres Waldo 5th Ward Ald wrote:
10 ILCS 5/Election Code!!

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.

Richton Park Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Public Moving and Storage (Sep '16) 12 hr will 437
Pizza in Midlothian Sun Midlo is a cess pool 3
Poll What Do The Residents Of OH Really Think Of Chief (Apr '10) Sun BEST EVER 15
Glenwood Academy - EEOC Investigation for Discr... Sun MoreCasesFiled 37
Are we trying to hide a shady past Arty? Jun 24 Obumer 20
Scumbag settlement leach and woman beater ART TOTH Jun 24 Obumer 6
Bill Torrence Torrence Construction (Oct '10) Jun 22 dontworry bout it 7

Richton Park Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richton Park Mortgages