Village Council candidate Jim Norris declined to appear at Sunday’s Downers Grove Community Advocates’ caucus, leaving Marilyn Schnell, William Waldeck and Bob Barnett as the only candidates to seek the group’s endorsements for the three open council seats. The event was held at the Community School District 99 administration building and was open to the public.
Each candidate answered eight questions designed to elicit their views on economic development, what the village should do to address home foreclosures and the use of borrowing to finance major projects. Candidates were also questioned about their personal qualifications, what they’ve done to improve the village and how they’ve handled an unpopular decision.
Fairly straight-forward stuff for a trio with deep knowledge of village affairs. Schnell has served on the village council for 20 years, Waldack is completing his first term, and Barnett is a veteran of the Liquor Commission and current member of the Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee and oversaw Mayor Ron Sandack’s 2007 campaign. He is also a founding member of the DGCA.
For the first time, the Advocates recorded the caucus session for a future podcast on their Web site. President Stephen Daniels was uncertain as to when that might appear.
The choice to put up the podcast will go a long way toward addressing past questions about the group’s choices by giving interested citizens a chance to hear candidates’ answers for themselves.
The Advocates plan a second caucus with Park District candidates at a date to be announced.
Downers Grove voters also will have the opportunity to hear both council and park district candidates at a March 18 forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Still no word on if or when school board forums will be held.
Mr. Norris does not appear serious about this race. Could someone provide any insight into his qualifications other than he is one of Brian K’s repubician committeemen?Funny that the story about Jim Norris’ no show does not have a tag under his name.
Just a simple oversight, DG Voter. But thanks for calling it to my attention.
Has anyone ASKED Mr. Norris why he did not participate, or are we all just speculating about seriousness, motive, etc?
His motives are as secretive as his qualifcations. No web site to even check. Seriously, has any of of our well connected regulars here EVER seen Mr. Norris at a Village Council meeting, Park District, School Board, PTA, or other type of public meeting. He has no record of being on any Village Boards.
I’m working on this and will have something up ASAP.
He’s been at the last two meetings I attended. Nice guy. I was surprised he didn’t attend the Advocates caucus, but I can understand why he might take a pass, and I certainly would not use that as a reason not to potentially support him.
I would also point out Bob Barnett is also one of BK’s republican committeemen, in DG008. I think at this point BKDS is a non starter.
And for the record, Martin Tully is also a Downers Grove Township Republican Organiziation committeeman. I wouldn’t hold that against any of them.
The Advocates have the appearence of a Democratic Organization and Jim is a hard R.
Now you know why he is a no show.
The DGCA is a non-partizian group, like the “Watch” and DGCares. The composition of the group runs accross national party lines. If Mr. Norris only appears before Republician bodies, that reflects unusually thin skin and I doubt that is the reason.
The fundamental problem with his no-show is we have very few venues to see and hear the candidates. Consider the fact that the Watch is not holding a candidate forum.
EJ points out the caucus will be on-line. He missed an oportunity to be heard and that is troubling, especially with an unknow quanity. Nice guy or not, a few
appearances at VC meetings of late does not a resume make.
Just because a group, or a politician checks the ‘non-partisan’ box on their filing forms, or on a website, it does not make them non-partisan. This isn’t a good versus evil observation, but for ‘transparency’ sake let’s at least acknowledge that BK’s Republican Township network is often ripped here as having ulterior motives, while the DG Dem’s get a free pass.
I don’t think President Daniels, Secretary-Treasurer Schroeder, Kathleen DiCola, “Tinker” Harvey, Julia Kennedy Beckman, and the other very active Democrats (insert Seinfeld’s “not that anything is wrong with that” here) are checking their affiliations at the door when they initiate these ‘caucuses’.
Why would any middle to hard ‘R’ walk into an impenetrable group? Most of us here could predict the endorsements to any of these groups simply by looking at the board members, so I wouldn’t disparage anyone from not subjecting themselves any mock symposiums.
Before the feathers fly, I’m sure no hard ‘Ds’ would attend, or expect to get an endorsement from a Republican loaded panel. I think it’s more a decision of practicality and time management than lack of commitment by a candidate.
I could not agree more with you DG Voter. Your message needs to be heard from the Mountain Tops. I only wish you had attended the DG Township Republican Meeting last night to hear all the bashing that a certain individule took about the DGCA on how the Republicans need to crush them out.
Please report more fully if you were there, Stephan.
Stephan,
Checked on your report and learned a conversation of that sort took place after the meeting, not during. I suspect both who were party to it may read this blog on occasion, so I’ll leave it to them to comment further if they wish.
The delete button is getting a work out. The Comment Policy is on the left sidebar.
Live by it.