Candidate Summit Neither A Peak Nor A "Peek"

Overall:

1. More voters should have shown up.

2. When you only have two minutes to speak: less talk about your church (don’t care), your spouse (don’t care), and your kids (don’t care) and more talk about your ideas—if you have any.

This is my own list of winners and losers, and why:

For Plainfield Village Trustee (need 3): Chmura, O’Rourke, and maybe no one else?

Mark Chmura is the first and only candidate to come out with documented positions and ideas, something concrete a voter can hold him to saying. And, he’s made major effort to connect with voters, something none of the others have done well at all. So, I think he’s earned the chance to practice the preaching. Our village board could use a little more of a dynamic of challenge and some differing perspectives and methods.

Ed O’Rourke presents as an intelligent, reasonable guy. He’s been on the Plan Commission, he’s been coming to meetings (and not just Village Board meetings—I’ve seen him out in the community at others). His policy answers weren’t as specific as they needed to be, but he could make a good trustee because he doesn’t seem to have a big personal agenda.

I HATE under-voting, but I’m underwhelmed by the remainders.

I’m good with someone else taking a turn in Bill Lamb’s spot after what will be 10 years of service (and I think he is, too). I think he’s played out.

Mike Lambert is a smart guy, but it bugs me that he’s done very little out-reach to the community AND he didn’t mention even briefly that he’s been a trustee before and quit. Not dealing with that openly is a problem because it says that maybe he doesn’t think he has to deal with anything he doesn’t want to deal with.

John Green’s Facebook page promoting his campaign was a useless Plainfield travelogue. Let’s put that under “don’t care”, too. He’s a very educated and friendly man, but he’s not cutting it. His idea of corporate sponsors/advertising to cover the cost of above grade rail-crossings was at best unrealistic and at worst just plain nuts. Given that he’s worked in the rail industry that was a shockingly bad answer to a question at the summit.

Brian Wojowski is the worst of the lot, though.

He wasted time working the crowd with his hands stuffed in his trouser pockets, rocking on his heels and asking “why are we all here”. Well, I was there to hear you tell me about YOU, “Wojo”. And, don’t answer your own dumb question with goo like “we’re all here because we love Plainfield”. Not when you’re supposed to be informing voters of your qualifications for office.

On that line, Wojo’s FB page for his campaign was pathetic. “I am running for Trustee in Plainfield and am seeking your support. I support positive change while remaining true to our historic past.” What does that even mean, in the important, nitty-gritty details?

Wojowski is a New Lenox police officer who, with his statement about his “chosen career path”, clearly came off like he’s desperate to put in his 20 years and then dash for the exit. When someone is that eager to flee a job, I wonder how good they are doing it. My bet is that he’s going to law school and wants to be a trustee so that in a few years he can climb the ladder to the bench. There’s nothing wrong with climbing, but you have to want to do a good job on each rung of that ladder. I think he’ll barely get both feet on one rung before he bends a knee toward the next one.

I don’t like resume fluffing, either. Wojo received honors/medals from four different organizations for a work incident that occurred in late 2006. He’s listing the awards in campaign material in a way that implies that he got four medals for four separate actions, not four medals of recognition for one. When you’re intentionally ambiguous this way it telegraphs that you’re trying to get over on people.

Lastly, Wojo lifted the Village of Plainfield logo for his campaign materials. That’s obnoxious and sneaky.

For Park District (need 4): Ludemann, Newton, Poling, and Ayres

These four are good people who are already serving well and are really energized about doing more, doing better. Mystery candidate John Ledvina didn’t show and hasn’t said “boo”, except to make some snotty and, again, uniformed and non-informational comments in a Herald-News article a few weeks ago. Who is he? Who cares.

For Library District (need 4): —Andel, Gilmore, Kinley, and Puetz

They don’t need my vote but I’ve watched Andel, Gilmore, and Kinley serve the library and the district residents for a couple of years and they work hard. Puetz is new and on record that he specifically wants to help us get the bigger, better library we need and deserve, instead of the over-stuffed shoebox our library has become. Again, he’s a candidate who put out an idea that is concrete that a voter can hold him to. Amen to that and to the idea.

For School District 202 (need 3): Kirberg? Maybe?

Kevin Kirberg came across fairly intelligent at this event. I’ve been told that he might be too “I’ll go with whatever is going”, but I thought he spoke fairly well at the event.

Greg Nichols lost me a little talking tough against Common Core. I don’t need that much whine with my ballot, thanks.

I understand that many on the provider side of education have problems with Common Core. It does need work. What I don’t understand is what they want to do instead besides the disgraceful idea of euthanizing public education so we can turn yet one more great American idea into a money-printing machine that won’t deliver a better education. If you don’t want Common Core, let’s hear about the better ideas you’ve crafted. We need something besides “no”. It’s a cute idea to let local people determine education in their own community, but HOW, specifically?

I thought Heather Drake was “meh”. She’s been active from the parent side of the equation, in several parent organizations, but that’s not always a key indicator of good board service. I don’t know anything about Sharlyne Williams, who wasn’t there.

In February, both Kirberg and Nichols did vote to send a student who was accused of making threats to a teacher back to class, and that vote went against the recommendation of building administration at Plainfield Central HS. (They along with Rod Westfall and Michelle Smith voted to allow the student to return to class, while Roger Bonuchi, Dave Koch and Bill Slabich voted no.) I know that’s important to some of you.

For Fire District (need 2): Paul and Reynolds

I’ve talked with Tom Paul a few times and he has been in the fire service for decades as a volunteer, etc. He seems like a good man without an agenda for a political career. Mark Reynolds has seemed to be a decent trustee since his appointment last year to fill a vacancy on the board, though he did not speak as well as I’d hoped at the summit. Dennis Bennett and Jim Sossong aren’t strong enough candidates, generally.

The worst of this cluster is Jacob Snitko, a Wheatland Township precinct committeeman.

Bluntly: he’s a Garrett Peck-esque lackey. Snitko is a “computer engineer” in an ill-fitting suit who like a good little parrot squawks the word “taxpayer” like it’s magic (or, maybe Magik?). I’ve seen this movie before. It’d be entertaining if it weren’t so pitiful. When he wasn’t at the podium, Snitko sat slumped over with this head in his hands, like he was waiting to make bail.

Snitko claimed the PFPD board has “no taxpayer representation”. Wrong. Those on the board now and the others running are taxpayers, too. And, when it comes to a specialized public safety entity, like fire protection and emergency services, it’s kind of good to have people who have worked in the industry on the board vs. having a know-nothing political hack.

I’ve never seen Snitko at a PFPD meeting in the months that I’ve been going to them. So, yeah, Snitko is a beard for the unethical in our midst. Snitko knows nothing about the fire and emergency services, which is sadly familiar. We’ve seen what that kind of ignorance brings. Ironically, the thing it brings in greatest measure is harm to taxpayers, the very people they keep puckering up to and promising to serve.

Snitko is just ignorant to say that a main goal of his would be to balance the PFPD budget because the PFPD budget is balanced. Try actually knowing something about the unit of government to which you want to be elected.

The way Snitko says he’d balance that PFPD budget that isn’t out of balance would not be by cutting staff or services (oh, of course not!), but by cutting “the benefits for the top guys”. Yes, the jealous paranoiac position: “Someone who has a job I don’t have or even understand is getting something they shouldn’t, never mind that I couldn’t tell you what that is and who’s getting it! I’m just sure they’re ripping me off because I can’t manage to hop the free ride I’ve always wanted!” It’s hard to take Snitko seriously when he never said WHO those “top guys” are and WHICH BENEFITS they should not be getting and how much that might save.

Finally, I don’t know anything about the Ed Service Region candidates on our ballot locally (and they were not included in the summit), but I did want to add that I support for Joliet Junior College Trustee (need 2): Klen and Wunderlich, the first two names on the ballot.

Early voting has started and Election Day is April 7th. Please go vote. No matter who is elected, keep an eye on them as they serve and make them accountable to all of us.