Mayor Noak in trouble?
KeithG

Bolingbrook, IL

#43 Mar 8, 2009
I believe that the process of hiring of police officers is mandated by Illinois State Law and does not include allow any preferences. The only things that the state law allows is extra points for military service, a law enforcement degree, or a 4yr degree. That's it. Nothing else. And officers tested using independent services that follow state mandates and are run by an independent Police and Fire Commission, not the Village Board.

Just in case the facts were important for once.
Eitan Gutierrez

Shorewood, IL

#44 Mar 8, 2009
With such a growing Spanish-speaking population in town, it is important to have officers who not only can speak the language but also understand the culture.

Goitia will balance the white bread establishement, and bring unity to this community!
BSPatrol

Romeoville, IL

#45 Mar 8, 2009
Eitan Gutierrez wrote:
With such a growing Spanish-speaking population in town, it is important to have officers who not only can speak the language but also understand the culture.
Goitia will balance the white bread establishement, and bring unity to this community!
The community welcomes all law abiding citizens .
Ones culture is exactly that,THIER OWN. To be honored and enjoyed by themselves,their families and those they invite and who also choose to share it with them.
This does not exempt them from obeying the law,nor does it allow them to force their culture on others.
The opportunity to become a police officer is open to ALL that apply and pass the required testing procedures. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be.
There have been some outstanding latino officers on our police force for as long as I can remember.
Perhaps each culture should be encouraging their family members to pursue this path rather than complaining about what they perceive as a conspiricy to slight them
DJK

Romeoville, IL

#46 Mar 19, 2009
The Weekly Reporter is so bad, it's entertaining. Wild conjecture intertwined within "news stories", poor writing, and "award winning" in Gabriel's byline makes for high comedy. The article accusing Chavez of being racist really took the cake though. Could there really be people out there that do not realize what a joke this paper is?
BSPatrol

Romeoville, IL

#47 Mar 19, 2009
DJK wrote:
The Weekly Reporter is so bad, it's entertaining. Wild conjecture intertwined within "news stories", poor writing, and "award winning" in Gabriel's byline makes for high comedy. The article accusing Chavez of being racist really took the cake though. Could there really be people out there that do not realize what a joke this paper is?
Be very very afraid..because yes there are.

Presently they are all preoccupied reading the lastest reports of Big Foot sightings in O'Hare woods.
Felix

Tinley Park, IL

#48 Mar 19, 2009
Revision wrote:
<quoted text>
So is the competition then, because there are signs for all three groups up right now. If you take a drive up Belmont you can see each of them.
According to the Village Clerk in Romeoville, signs may only be put up 45 days before an election (within Village limits), which would have been February 21st. Noak's signs were up WELL before then -- and I don't remember seeing any of the other parties' signs up before then.
Felix

Tinley Park, IL

#49 Mar 19, 2009
Ned wrote:
The village doesn't have a limit on how long signs can go up before an election. This varies from community to community. There is a rule that they must come down 10 days after an election.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. All areas of Will County are bound by County rules (60 days before, 10 days after) unless a City/Village or homeowner's assoication stipulates otherwise (which the Village of Romeoville has done, according to the Village Clerk). If the Village didn't have a limit of any kind, Noak could leave his signs up year-round (and he probably would)!
TheTruth

Bolingbrook, IL

#50 Mar 19, 2009
Felix wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid you're mistaken. All areas of Will County are bound by County rules (60 days before, 10 days after) unless a City/Village or homeowner's assoication stipulates otherwise (which the Village of Romeoville has done, according to the Village Clerk). If the Village didn't have a limit of any kind, Noak could leave his signs up year-round (and he probably would)!
Felix (AKA... yet another troll on Topix)you are the one that is wrong and also just trying to stir up NONSENSE. County rules do not apply in homerule municipalities. Nice try, but you are wrong. Romeoville does not have a limit on the number of days. Guess what I checked, in fact I have a copy of the ordinance sitting in front of me right now. Sorry, wrong again. Or did you really ever care if you were right or wrong. Oh yes, that's right you are trolling.
Felix

United States

#51 Mar 19, 2009
TheTruth wrote:
<quoted text>
Felix (AKA... yet another troll on Topix)you are the one that is wrong and also just trying to stir up NONSENSE. County rules do not apply in homerule municipalities. Nice try, but you are wrong. Romeoville does not have a limit on the number of days. Guess what I checked, in fact I have a copy of the ordinance sitting in front of me right now. Sorry, wrong again. Or did you really ever care if you were right or wrong. Oh yes, that's right you are trolling.
I never said that County rules supercede City/Village/Homeowner's Association rules -- quite the opposite, and you and I actually agree on that. Did you even bother to read what I wrote, or were just so excited about the prospect of "catching a troll" that your quest for the truth went out the window?

I based my comments on the conversation I had with the Village Clerk in early February. So unless the Clerk was mistaken (or the Clerk was being impersonated by some troll), it is 45 days in the Village of Romeoville. Would you please give me a link to this ordinance that you referenced? If the Clerk was wrong, then I'd like to know about it.

And God bless you, brave troll hunter! Where would a site like Topix be without the intrepid defenders of truth like yourself! You truly are a king among men! Your noble efforts shall not go unnoticed (Squire Noak will surely hold a sumptuous feast in thine honor!). Now all you have to do is go sniff out that troll at the National Enquirer, and your quest shall be complete! Huzzah!!!!
Fiona

AOL

#52 Mar 20, 2009
Noak's endorsements are mainly businesses and people outside of Romeoville. Also, how in the heck can he have so many accomplishments in 11 months as mayor. Most of these were already in place from the previous administration. Don't forget us residents on the North Side of town. We need loving too...
Revision

Chicago, IL

#53 Mar 20, 2009
Felix wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Village Clerk in Romeoville, signs may only be put up 45 days before an election (within Village limits), which would have been February 21st. Noak's signs were up WELL before then -- and I don't remember seeing any of the other parties' signs up before then.
Felix, did you happen to look at the date on my original reply to you? I have to think you didn't. February 17. Also, you apparently haven't read up on things. Here is a direct quote from the villages ordinances:

" (H) Political signs. Signs or posters announcing or describing candidates seeking a public office or announcing or describing political issues and data pertinent thereto shall be permitted. Such signs shall be permitted according to the following:

(1) Public rights-of-way: None allowed;

(2) Private property: Not to exceed 16 square feet:

(a) Signs or posters relating to such candidates for office shall be "free standing" only.

(b) These signs can not be attached to any utility poles, traffic control devices, street signs or street lights.

(c) Also they can not be placed so as to interfere with visibility or cause a traffic hazard.

(d) The signs or posters must be removed by the person who erected them or caused the erection within ten days following the election, or when mutilated, damaged, or unreadable, whichever comes first.

(3) Political signs/posters are of a temporary nature and shall not be illuminated by any type of artificial lighting sources; i.e. flood light, porch light, Christmas lights or lights that cast light onto the sign/poster placed by individuals, and not exclusive of street lights, traffic lights or existing lighting prior to the sign being placed on the property."

Sorry Felix, you're wrong.
Revision

Chicago, IL

#54 Mar 20, 2009
Fiona wrote:
Noak's endorsements are mainly businesses and people outside of Romeoville. Also, how in the heck can he have so many accomplishments in 11 months as mayor. Most of these were already in place from the previous administration. Don't forget us residents on the North Side of town. We need loving too...
How about because he was a trustee before he was mayor? He was elected trustee in 2005. He was part of the previous administration.

Do you people bother with any of your own research?
Revision

Chicago, IL

#55 Mar 20, 2009
Felix wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that County rules supercede City/Village/Homeowner's Association rules -- quite the opposite, and you and I actually agree on that. Did you even bother to read what I wrote, or were just so excited about the prospect of "catching a troll" that your quest for the truth went out the window?
I based my comments on the conversation I had with the Village Clerk in early February. So unless the Clerk was mistaken (or the Clerk was being impersonated by some troll), it is 45 days in the Village of Romeoville. Would you please give me a link to this ordinance that you referenced? If the Clerk was wrong, then I'd like to know about it.
And God bless you, brave troll hunter! Where would a site like Topix be without the intrepid defenders of truth like yourself! You truly are a king among men! Your noble efforts shall not go unnoticed (Squire Noak will surely hold a sumptuous feast in thine honor!). Now all you have to do is go sniff out that troll at the National Enquirer, and your quest shall be complete! Huzzah!!!!
Oh, and here's your link.

http://tinyurl.com/c8v28t
Felix

Tinley Park, IL

#56 Mar 20, 2009
Sigh. I believe I've been quite clear about where I got my information. The issue I raised (regardless of when you made your original posting, Revision) had to do with the TIMING of the placement of signs.

The rules governing the size and location (etc.) of signs are irrelevant to the point I raised. I think it's funny that you went to all the trouble of cutting and pasting a bunch of ordinances (probably to make yourself sound smarter) WITHOUT EVEN ADDRESSING MY POINT!!! I don't see anything that addresses the TIMING of sign placement in your post (other than the "of a temporary nature" reference in section H3). And your link doesn't seem to be working, but the problem may be at my end -- I'll try again later.

Now, unlike many of the people on Topix, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. But if I am, it's because the VILLAGE CLERK told me that the 45 day rule was in place within Village limits. And in the absence of explicitly stated Village rules governing the TIMING of the placement of signs, County Rules (60 days before, and 10 days after) do apply.

Which begs the question, why would the Village Clerk tell people over the phone that 45 days was the rule, unless...Aaaahhh! Now I get it! ;)
Revision

Chicago, IL

#57 Mar 20, 2009
Felix wrote:
Sigh. I believe I've been quite clear about where I got my information. The issue I raised (regardless of when you made your original posting, Revision) had to do with the TIMING of the placement of signs.
The rules governing the size and location (etc.) of signs are irrelevant to the point I raised. I think it's funny that you went to all the trouble of cutting and pasting a bunch of ordinances (probably to make yourself sound smarter) WITHOUT EVEN ADDRESSING MY POINT!!! I don't see anything that addresses the TIMING of sign placement in your post (other than the "of a temporary nature" reference in section H3). And your link doesn't seem to be working, but the problem may be at my end -- I'll try again later.
Now, unlike many of the people on Topix, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. But if I am, it's because the VILLAGE CLERK told me that the 45 day rule was in place within Village limits. And in the absence of explicitly stated Village rules governing the TIMING of the placement of signs, County Rules (60 days before, and 10 days after) do apply.
Which begs the question, why would the Village Clerk tell people over the phone that 45 days was the rule, unless...Aaaahhh! Now I get it! ;)
Wow, you are a bit on the dense side aren't you. The point is that THERE IS NO RULE AS TO WHEN THE SIGNS CAN BE POSTED. Also, the reference to my earlier post was that you said no signs could be up before February 21, but I clearly indicated on February 17 that all of the parties had their signd up. Do you grasp the 5 day difference there? Do you understand that they went up even earlier because I had seen them 2 days before I posted?

What I pasted above (and provided a link to) is the entire city ordinance relating to political signs. That's it. There is no more. I also really doubt that Mr. Holloway (the village clerk) told you that his own campaign signs were up too early.

So, unless you've managed to digest that fact that you don't know what you're talking about, now would be the appropriate time for you to do this: "if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it." Because you are, in fact, wrong.
Fiona

AOL

#58 Mar 20, 2009
Revision wrote:
<quoted text>
How about because he was a trustee before he was mayor? He was elected trustee in 2005. He was part of the previous administration.
Do you people bother with any of your own research?
Maybe you should get your facts straight and do your own research. He was never elected as a trustee by the citizens of Romeoville. He was appointed trustee by a mayor who retired midterm because of suspicious allegations.

The accomplishments were already in place, not only by the previous administration but also by administrations going back for 20 years.
CluelessFiona

Bolingbrook, IL

#59 Mar 20, 2009
Fiona wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should get your facts straight and do your own research. He was never elected as a trustee by the citizens of Romeoville. He was appointed trustee by a mayor who retired midterm because of suspicious allegations.
The accomplishments were already in place, not only by the previous administration but also by administrations going back for 20 years.
There seems to be a lot of people on here that can't do their research and that includes you! He actually was elected Trustee 4yrs ago with the highest number of votes of any candidate in Romeoville that had an opponent.

Also, if you actually LOOK at the accomplishments that their party talks about almost ALL of them are within the last year and they do acknowledge when others were involved in longer term projects.

It seems it really is the political silly season and people will make us just about anything on here.
Ville

Bolingbrook, IL

#60 Mar 20, 2009
Actually 20yrs ago the Village was in financial disaster and heading into a downward spiral that almost bankrupted the community. We can thank the leader of the Change Party for that. Now there is a good joke... "Change" party... what change back to 1987? Give me a break. No one wants to go backward.
Revision

Chicago, IL

#61 Mar 20, 2009
Ville wrote:
Actually 20yrs ago the Village was in financial disaster and heading into a downward spiral that almost bankrupted the community. We can thank the leader of the Change Party for that. Now there is a good joke... "Change" party... what change back to 1987? Give me a break. No one wants to go backward.
Yep, I remember it well.
Revision

Chicago, IL

#62 Mar 20, 2009
CluelessFiona wrote:
<quoted text>
There seems to be a lot of people on here that can't do their research and that includes you! He actually was elected Trustee 4yrs ago with the highest number of votes of any candidate in Romeoville that had an opponent.
Also, if you actually LOOK at the accomplishments that their party talks about almost ALL of them are within the last year and they do acknowledge when others were involved in longer term projects.
It seems it really is the political silly season and people will make us just about anything on here.
Thank you. I get tired of arguing these facts by myself. I was going to ask Fiona to do the math and figure out when the last trustee village wide elections were. 2005 - the year Noak took office.

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.

Romeoville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Will the REAL Lway taxpayers unite! (Nov '15) 41 min funny 4,039
BHS looking for a new Principal 1 hr Ex BHS Dad 3
I saw Bolingbrooks BIGGEST loser 2 hr Lens a joke 2
Benghazi: Trey Gowdy Clears Hillary Clinton 4 hr Sharky has no minnow 5
Here's the growing list of big-name Republicans... 4 hr M-14 Rifle 2
Shark Entertainment 4 hr Sharky is s Pervert 7
Lory Lynch Meets Privately w Bill Clinton 4 hr Lynching 8

Romeoville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Romeoville Mortgages