►
From YouTube: City of Evanston - Electoral Board Hearing - 12/11/2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
All
right,
good
morning,
good
morning,
everyone
we're
going
to
resume
the
municipal
officers
electoral
board
of
the
city
of
evanston.
This
meeting
started
on
monday
of
this
week,
then
was
recessed
to
yesterday,
thursday
and
now
to
today.
Our
hope
is
that
today
will
wrap
up
this
electoral
board
meeting.
B
B
B
But
what
I'd
first
like
to
do
today,
because
the
news
I
just
learned
this
morning
is,
I
would
like
to
move
item
number
nine
on
our
agenda,
which
is
case
number
20,
20-m-o-e-b
ev-07,
which
is
evie
krause
russell
versus
eleanor
revell
who's
a
candidate
or
has
submitted
petitions
to
be
a
candidate
for
the
seventh
ward
here
in
evanston.
I
understand
miss
gandursky
that
there
has
been
a
motion
that
was
made
last
night
by
the
objectors.
To
dismiss
their
objection.
Is
that
correct.
C
D
Yes,
that's
correct.
The
the
objective
saw
initially
that
there
were
a
number
of
candidates
that
were
objected
to,
based
on
the
paperwork
now
being
stapled
together
and
then
noticed
that
candidate
revel,
or
you
know,
alderman
older
woman
ravel,
who
had
previously
submitted
nomination
papers
and
presumed
to
know
how
to
do
this
process.
E
Yes,
I
do
miss
gandursky.
We
we
object
to
the
language
in
this
motion.
Let's
recognize,
there's
a
political
campaign
going
on,
and
this
motion
is
an
attempt
to
politicize
the
process
here
and
to
simply
be
an
attack
on
a
candidate
who
we
believe
under
the
law,
has
followed
a
statute
and
has
followed
proper
procedure.
E
We
obviously
have
no
objection
to
this
to
the
objectors
withdrawal
of
her
petition
to
object
to
the
candidacy
I'm
sorry
to
to
the
court
reporter.
These
words
may
be
getting
confusing
if
mr
finkel
wants
to
withdraw
his
case,
he's
certainly
quite
able
to
do
that,
but
the
contents
of
his
motion
are
an
attempt
to
mislead
what
the
actual
facts
are.
We
have
taken
the
position
in
all
of
our
memoranda
that
what
miss
revell
did
was
entirely
proper.
Admittedly
not
the
way.
E
These
petition
filings
are
often
filed
where
everything
is
attached
together,
but
that
she
did
file
adequately
under
the
law
and
that
under
the
law
there
was
substantial
compliance
and
no
violations.
This
this
motion
is
to
set
up
an
attack
and
we
do
not
believe
that
the
board
should
simply
dismiss
based
on
this
motion.
If
the
board
wants
to
dismiss
the
case,
please
do
so.
We
don't
think
it
ever
should
have
been
filed.
D
E
And
that's
not
accurate.
If
I
may,
may
I
respond
that's
not
accurate
that
it's
simply
restating
it's.
It's
saying
that
she
knew
or
should
have
known
it's
saying
it's
in
two
packets.
You
now
have
the
papers
before
you.
You
now
have
the
case
law
before
you.
You
know
it's
not
accurate
to
say
that
it's
two
documents,
it's
not
accurate,
to
say
that
she
knew
or
should
have
known.
That's
that's
simply
an
attack,
and
I
would
ask
that
this
board
simply
enter
an
order.
Dismissing
the
objection,
I
don't
care.
If
you
don't
list
any
reasons.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
gentlemen,
for
the
argument.
Mr
finko,
I
do
have
a
question
and
again
for
the
record.
I
am
not
the
judge
for
this
board.
I'm
not
the
judge,
a
jury,
I'm
here
simply
to
advise
the
board
and
to
do
so.
I
have
two
questions
for
you.
My
understanding
is.
The
position
was
based
upon
an
allegation
that
candidate
revel
did
not
staple
her
statement
of
candidacy
to
the
nominating
papers.
Is
that
correct.
C
Okay,
but
I
did
not
recall
reading
and
maybe
I've
I've.
My
memory
is
short
based
upon
all
the
cases
that
we
heard
this
week.
I
did
not
recall
reading
whether
or
not
any
of
her
papers
were
stapled
together,
or
I
believed
that
it
was
just
your
allegation
or
ms
russell's
allegations
that
the
statement
of
candidacy
was
separated
from
the
nominating
papers,
which
was
the
crux
of
your
objection.
Is
that
correct.
D
D
D
Right
and
the
argument
that
I
was
presenting
was
that
let
me
see
that
the
there
was
a
separate
group
and
so
there's
some
case
law.
That
says
you
can't
submit
two
sets
of
nomination
papers.
It
has
to
be
one
set,
and
you
know,
as
mr
krieloff
noted,
that
typically
candidates
submit
one
group
that
is
bound
with
either
staples
or
these
two,
these
little
echo
acco
binder
clips
that
have
two
pieces
of
metal
that
lock
together.
D
The
nature
of
the
objection
is
that
there
were
two
groups
of
documents
filed
for
this
candidate
and
taken
separately.
The
electoral
board
would
then
have
to
decide
which
group
do
we
accept
and
which
group
do
we
reject.
One
group
of
papers
is
bound
without
a
statement
of
candidacy.
The
other
group
of
papers
contains
no
signature
petitions.
C
All
right,
I
I'm
thank
you
very
much
for
your
response.
I'm
going
to
recommend
to
the
board
that
you
accept
the
motion
to
withdraw
without
rendering
any
findings,
since
it
is
the
objector's
motion
to
to
withdraw
this
objection,
and
there
hasn't
been
any
evidence
heard
on
the
merits
of
this
case.
All
of
the
pleadings
are
on
file
and
will
remain
on
file
on
the
city's
electoral
board
website.
C
F
B
C
F
B
F
F
B
Guess
we're
voting
on
calling
the
question
fine,
so
we
don't
have
any
more
discussion.
I
I
think
it's
lousy
that
clerk
reed
is
shutting
down
discussion
honestly
when
we
have
been-
and
I
have
been
very
patient
over
the
last
week,
allowing
you
to
carry
on
with
conversation
and
you're,
shutting
it
down
right
now,
but
that's
what
he
moves
so
you're
an
eye
clerk,
reed.
B
C
The
the
council,
sorry,
the
board-
is
accepting
the
withdrawal
of
the
entire
case.
The
order
does
not
have
to
reflect
the
allegations
that
are
set
forth
in
the
motion
to
withdrawal.
Mr
krieloff
has
asked
that
the
order
enter
a
line
stating
that
alderman
rebel
refutes
the
allegations
and
the
motion.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
put
anything
in
the
order
other
than
the
motion
to
withdrawal
is
accepted,
and
there
is
no
objection
before
the
board
period.
B
B
F
B
F
B
Okay,
all
right
so
we're
now
going
to
move
on,
so
we
that
case
now
has
been
handled.
So
we
have
heard
all
the
cases
that
were
before
the
board
we're
now
going
to
discuss
the
open
written
decisions
that
need
to
be
filed
in
these
cases.
So,
ms
gendorsky,
if
you
want
to
take
us
through
what
we
need
to
to
review
and
accept.
C
Well,
in
order
of
a
hearing
yesterday,
we
heard
a
consolidated
matter:
20-m-o-e-b
ed-03,
and
we
consolidated
that
with
dash06,
that
was
mile
davis,
catherine
whitcomb
at
all
versus
eric
young,
and
we
have
prepared
a
written
order.
Miss
ruggy.
Can
you
please
share
your
screen
and
make
sure
that
it's
the
font
size
is
able
to
be
read.
You
know
if
we
can
zoom
in
this
time.
C
B
I
A
A
A
A
So
this
is
a
little
different.
The
other
issues
wouldn't
remain
silent.
I
mean
there's
lots
of
things
go
on.
Oh
I'm,
sorry.
This
issue
is
a
little
different
because
there,
the
other
or
at
least
the
cases
that
we've
decided
thus
far
weren't
necessarily
apparent
conformity.
Maybe
miss
carrillo's
was.
I
wasn't
involved
in
that
one,
but
this
one
is
an
issue
that
would
other
jurisdictions
may
look
at
it
and
say
you
know
it
wasn't
in
apparent
conformity
and
just
administratively
remove
the
petitions
for
not
being
potentially
bound.
A
So
I
think
it
might
be
important
to
note
that
this
jurisdiction
did
not
do
that,
which
may
even
support
the
case
of
why
we're
putting
them
on
the
ballot.
The
fact
that
the
clerk's
office,
who
accepted
them
did
not
say
that
they
were
not
in
apparent
conformity
which
is
allowed
under
the
statute
and
in
fact
most
other
jurisdictions
would
would
would
do.
C
A
Yeah
it
was,
it
was
discussed
during
the
case.
I
I
asked
it
to
attorney
dale
yesterday,
but
it's
I
think,
it's
important,
because
if
the
clerk
has
the
ability
to
administratively
remove
this
person
for
non-uh
conformity
and
the
clerk-
and
I
did
not
do
that-
I
think
that
supports
the
fact
that
you
know
this.
This
gentleman's
on
the
ballot
we
had
the
ability
to
just
administratively
remove
them
and
did.
F
A
B
G
B
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
F
F
F
C
A
C
A
Yes,
okay,
and
so
with
that,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
word
this,
so
we
are
making
sure
that
we
have
a
valid
reason.
You
know
so
we
are
meeting
at
least
that
standard,
because
I
do
know
the
courts
tend
to
side
with
a
board.
As
long
as
we
meet
the
standard
that
you
just
outlined
here,
it
says
substantial
compliance.
I
I
really
think
the
standard
for
binding
isn't.
A
Substantial,
I
think
it's
mandatory,
and
I
think
that
I
think
in
part
again
my
determination
was
that
you
know
he
met
the
not
substantially,
but
he
met
maybe
the
compliance
by
the
fact
that
he
put
it
in
a
binder.
I
mean
not
in
a
binder
in
a
in
a
folder
in
a
envelope
and
that
there's
also
well,
we
can
scroll
down
and
see
what
else
is
is
listed.
C
C
C
B
C
I
C
C
B
Honestly,
I
would
drop
the
whole.
I
would
drop
that
and
just
say
to
the
clerk's
office
period.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
determined
the
integrity
of
the
nominating
papers
was
not
called
into
question
yeah.
You
know
we,
we
know
they
were
submitted
by
him.
I
think
it
gets
confusing
if
we
add
buy
it's
like
okay.
Well,
they
weren't
the
integrity,
wasn't
called
into
question
by
eric
young.
You
know
I
mean
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
both
attorneys
said
you
know,
there's
no
claim
of
fraud.
B
The
deputy
city
clerk
reiterated
nothing
had
been
added
or
subtracted
from
these
papers.
They
had
been
numbered,
so
I
think
adding
the
buy
eric
young
just
sort
of
makes
it
a
little
confusing.
I
just
leave
it
the
way
it
is,
and
I
still
don't
think
it's
a
perfect.
I
just
don't
think
it's
a
perfect
sentence,
but
I
know
we
have
other
cases
to
get
to
and.
C
C
H
B
H
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
H
B
C
A
A
A
A
If
we're
issuing
a
decision
here,
I
think
the
factual
finding.
If
I
recall
I
know
the
candidate
withdrew
their
motion
to
dismiss.
But
if
I
recall
within
it
the
candidate
did.
It
seems
as
though
the
candidate
acknowledged
that
they
had
905
valid
signatures,
and
you
know
for
issuing
an
order.
So
I
think
either
we
issue
an
order
that
says
that
the
board
found,
based
on
the
candidate's
testimony
that
she
had
905
valid
signatures
or
similar
to
the
revel
case.
A
A
I
think
we
should,
I
think
the
candidate
has
to
actually
submit
in
my
experience,
maybe
kelly
you
can,
if
you've
looked
into
this.
In
my
experience
when
boards
have
issued
this
kind
of
letter,
the
candidate
has
actually
submitted
their
official
statement,
their
their
official
withdrawal
form
you
you
bring
that
to
the
hearing,
you
look,
look,
I've
issued
a
withdrawal
and
then
that's
our
finding
our
finding
is
that
they.
A
C
Has
withdrawn,
he
hasn't
done
that,
so
I
I
the
more
that
I
think
about
it.
We
could
probably
get
rid
of
paragraph
three
responded.
Jane
grover's
motion
dismisses
is
withdrawn
by
respondent,
petitioner,
objector,
allison,
harnad's
objection
to
the
respondent,
jane
grover's
nominating
petition
is
granted
and
just
leave
it
at
that.
A
But
well,
but
we
I'm
I.
I
voted
against
this
because
I
I
think
procedurally,
we
might
be
making
I'm
concerned
procedurally
here,
and
you
know
we
if
we're
finding
that
the
candidate
is
to
be
removed.
You
know
we're
saying
that
they
removed
from
the
ballot
based
on
what
we
did.
No
records
examination
we,
you
know
just
simply
the
candidate
miss
grover
withdrew
her
motion
to
with
you
know,
to
conceded.
A
Then
we
should,
we
should
have
a
factual
finding
that
she
conceded
that
she
does
not
have
you
know
that
she
that
should
be
in
the
factual,
finding
we're
essentially
saying
that
she
concedes
that
the
objectives
were
correct
and
that
she,
you
know,
had
500
or
whatever
signatures
that
were
invalid
and
thereby
she's
below
the
minimum
signature
requirement.
Or
we
say
that
she
admitted
that
she
had
900
that
she,
you
know
perceived.
C
Here
really
quick
really
quickly,
so
I
don't
know
I'm
saying
numbers,
I
recall
her
saying
we
didn't
quite
get
there.
That
was
the
quote
that
I
remember
her
saying
with
this
requirement.
If
so,
if
this
were
to
somehow
get
appealed
to
the
circuit
court
along
with
this
order,
also
goes
with
it,
the
entire
transcript
of
all
the
proceedings
for
a
judge
to
read
exactly
what
was
said
word
for
word
and
all
the
findings
that
were
made.
So
while
this
order
is
important,
the
transcript
is
also
very
important
because
it
discusses
word
for
word.
C
C
A
A
C
Signatures
all
part
of
the
record,
so
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
like
put
every
single
detail
in
the
order.
We
just
need
to
determine
what
what's
happening
with
this
candidate
she's,
not
going
on
the
ballot
correct,
because
the
objections
sustained
so
she's
not
going
on
the
ballot,
it's
the
same
as
shelley
carrillo,
who
also
didn't
get
on
the
ballot.
We
put
she's
she's
not
going
on
the
ballot.
So
I
my
personal
opinion
is
my
legal
opinion.
C
Her
name
will
not
appear
on
the
ballot
like
the
other
candidates,
names
will
appear
and
if
this
were
to
get
appealed,
somehow
there's
an
entire
transcript
and
there's
pleadings
of
the
proceedings
reflecting
every
allegation.
Every
fact
every
concession
everything
that
was
said
this
is
simply
just
to
dispose
of
this
matter.
That's
what
the
purpose
of
the
order
is.
F
C
C
A
C
A
For
public
office
within
any
district
or
political
subdivision,
less
than
the
state
may
be
made
by
nomination
papers
signed
in
the
aggregate
for
each
candidate
by
qualified
voters
of
such
district
or
political
subdivision,
equaling,
not
less
than
five
percent
nor
more
than
eight
percent
or
fifty
more
than
the
minimum.
Whichever
is
greater
of
the
number
of
persons
who
voted
and
here's
the
key
part
at
the
next
preceding
regular
election
in
such
district
or
subdivision.
A
A
A
I
just
really
you
know.
My
experience
tells
me
it's
really
important
that
we
include
some
factual
reason
for
why
we've
made
this
decision,
and
you
know
we
should
say-
have
some
factual
finding
that
either
candidate
grover
acknowledged
that
she
did
not
have
you
know
the
minimum
number
of
signatures
that
she
didn't
meet
the
minimum
requirement,
or
you
know
we
didn't
do
a
records
examination.
I
just
don't
see
within
the
four
corners
of
our
board
decision
here.
A
B
I
just
I
just
look
at
it
that
we
accepted
jane
grover's
motion.
To
dismiss,
I
mean
jane
grover,
you
know,
presumably
either
herself
or
with
her
attorneys
looked
at
looked
at
all
the
facts.
Looked
at
the
objection
and
you
know
made
a
conclusion
that
she
is
going
to
withdraw
her
motion
to
just
to
dismiss.
B
A
So
you
know
right
we're
not
an
investigative
authority,
and
what
would
happen
is
that
the
county
board
or
the
county
clerk's
office
would
look
through
the
petition
signatures,
and
you
know,
based
on
the
objections,
to
determine
whether
they're,
sustained
or
not.
We
just
haven't
done
that
step
and
you
know
where
we
are
based
on.
A
You
know
the
candidate
withdraw
alderman,
I
can't
say
it
jane
grover,
withdrawing
her
motion
to
dismiss
does
not
automatically
mean
that
the
board
would
look
at.
You
know
if
this
is
a
normal
situation.
The
board
wouldn't
just
take
objector,
harned's
objection
at
face
value
and
say,
of
course,
to
your
500
signatures.
There
should
be
some
finding
that
either
alderman
that
jane
grover.
You
know
stated
on
the
record
that
no,
I
did
not
meet
the
minimum
signature
requirement
of
you
know
whatever
it
is
922
or
820-922.
A
I
didn't
meet
the
minimum
extinct
requirement.
I
you
know
I
had
905
signatures
as
she
said
in
your
motion
to
dismiss
you
know.
I
think
there
should
be
some
factual
finding
of
why
we
arrive
to
this
decision
because
otherwise
we're
essentially
just
removing
it.
Can
it
from
the
ballot.
I
know
this
is
her
wish
as
well
based
on,
but
we
or
she
should
file
the
proper
document
her.
A
You
know
her
motion
to
withdraw,
I'm
sorry,
her
withdrawal
of
her
candidacy,
it's
a
document
that
she
files
with
the
clerk's
office
and
the
finding
should
be
the
candidate
withdrew,
their
their
nomination
petitions
and
thereby
that's
the
board's
finding.
The
issue
is
moot
because
they've
duly
filed
a
withdrawal.
This
is
really
based
on.
G
C
The
facts
that
the
board
found
was
that
jane
grover
withdrew
her
motion
to
dismiss
and
is
not
contesting.
That's
the
fact
there
was
no
hearing.
There
was
no
investigation.
There
were
no
other
facts.
There
was
pleadings
that
were
submitted.
That
will
all
be
part
of
the
record,
but
that
isn't
there
was
no
determination
made
on
that.
So
essentially.
C
A
F
C
A
B
F
I
A
B
H
B
B
B
I
Okay,
thank
you
good
morning
my
name
is
larry
downey
donahue.
I
live
in
the
third
ward
and
I've
been
an
evanston
resident
for
35
years,
having
lived
in
the
fifth
sixth,
seventh
and
third
ward
over
the
years.
I
listened
to
the
conversations
yesterday
morning
and
I'm
really
disappointed
in
the
way
my
city
handled
the
challenges
to
several
of
the
candidates
seeking
elective
office
and
what
I
heard
were
some
technical
and
legalistic
objections
to
the
candidate's
applications.
I
I
I
There
seems
to
be
almost
an
unwritten
requirement
to
have
a
lawyer
going
forward.
Perhaps
the
city
could
maintain
a
list
of
pro
bono
lawyers
familiar
with
illinois
election
law,
who
could
assist
individuals
who
do
not
know
any
lawyers
with
this
kind
of
specialized
experience?
Not
everyone
knows
or
can
afford
a
lawyer
with
this
specialty.
B
You
larry
all
right.
That
concludes
public
public
comment.
We
have
no
further
people
that
have
signed
up
for
that.
We
are
going
to
just
do
a
little
break
here,
while
alex
ruggy
does
the
work
she
needs
to
do
alex
or
kelly.
If
you
just
want
to
tell
us
how
much
time
do
you
want
us
to
sort
of
break,
because
once
we
do
that,
we
all
three
of
us
will
sign
these
documents.
Our
attorney
will
provide
them
to
the
different
parties,
and
then
we
will
adjourn
this
meeting.
B
B
All
right,
hello,
kelly,
my
my
understanding
is
all
the
electronic
documents
have
been
sent
to
the
board
members.
I've
signed
off
on
all
of
them
and
I
believe
alderman
rainey
and
clark
reed
are
doing
that
right
now.
So
once
you
have
completed
signing
off
on
those
kelly,
gandurskiyer
board
attorney
will
let
us
all
know
and
then
we'll
come
back,
and
we
will
adjourn
this
meeting
or
we
will
come
back.
Miss
gandursky
will
provide
these
documents
to
all
of
the
different
parties.
Explain
next
steps.
C
B
A
I
just
want
to
make
one
comment
and
I
want
to
say
to
mrs
gandersky:
you
know
we
had
a
number
of
maybe
legal
disagreements.
You
did
an
a
and
a
fantastic
job.
I
would
say
of
running
the
procedures
here
and
making
sure
that
we
created
for
the
court
reporter
clean
record
and
made
sure
folks,
were
you
know
you
didn't
you
weren't
biased
in
any
way?
So
I
just
want
to
say
a
really
good
job
of
running
the
hearings
today
or
over
the
last
week.