Justice

2005-03-12T00:22:00.001-06:00

03/04/05 - The Judge has overruled the MEB and Robert Gillette WILL be on the ballot for mayor of Petersburg, Il!
Congratulations & good luck with what this should have been about from the beginning...
THE ELECTION & THE CITY!

Justice

2005-03-12T00:22:00.000-06:00

Petersburg Happenings

2005-02-05T13:27:00.000-06:00

There has been a notice of objection served to Bob Gillette regarding the petition that he submitted to run for mayor. Here is a copy of what was submitted and the letter he received - http://www.petersburg-illinois.com/city-letter.pdf (suggested resolution 1024 x 768 - trying to make it accessible to those with dialup connections ~ sorry if it is illegible otherwise.)

Response-

Monday, February 7, 2005
Petersburg City Hall
Petersburg Electoral Board
Response to Ms. Williamss objections

In response to the objection filed by Ms. Linda Williams, I submit the following:

MS. WILLIAMS OBJECTIONS
A. Ms. Williams alleges a conflict of interest because I am employed by Petersburg Plumbing and Heating which she says submits bids and does work for the City of Petersburg.

RESPONSE: There is no conflict for a per-hour employee of a company, that occasionally does work for the City, to run for elected office in a municipality. My Economic Interest statement was properly completed and filed with the county clerk, which attests to this fact. This allegation is without merit and I request the Electoral Board find it as such.

B. He has not fully filled out all the information required on the nominating petitions: 1. The sheets are not numbered 2. Top portion of petitions are not filled out 3. Date of election and identify of municipality not included

RESPONSE: (1.) Numbering the petition sheets would eliminate confusion in the case of an objector challenging a specific signature on a specific page. That is not the case with Ms. Williams objection. She has not objected to a single signature on any of the four pages. Her objection is simply that the page numbers were not included. I hope the Electoral Board does not feel that this omission is critical and/or essential to the election process and will allow my petition to stand so that the citizens of Petersburg are not denied their right to choose a candidate, based on a minor clerical detail.

(2 & 3). The intent of the Election Code was met when individuals who signed my petitions knew the circulators, clearly could see my name, office for which I was seeking to run, and my address at the top portion of the form. They also knew that they were signing a petition for the upcoming municipal election in April, for the mayoral seat, in the City of Petersburg, County of Menard. The information at the top of the form is either duplicated at the bottom of the form, which is completed and notarized, or is offered somewhere else in the package and brings no confusion to the electoral process.

These are basic clerical errors and regrettable but should not warrant an Electoral Board the right to disenfranchise the voters of their rights to choose a candidate. Ms. Williams made objections to other petitions but after reviewing all the petitions that were submitted, it is clear that she was selective in which candidates she filed objections against even though the very same errors were evident on other petitions. I ask that these objections be dismissed and that the citizens right to vote prevail.

C. Date of election is incorrect on Statement of Candidacy.REPONSE: It does appear that there is a number 1 in front of the 5. Evidently this error caused no confusion to anyone who signed the petitions for me to run, nor for the individuals who circulated my petitions or those who notarized my papers. In addition, the error caused no confusion to Ms. Williams who is objecting to my petitions as she is asking the Election Board to remove my name from the April 5, 2005 ballot. And, the Election Board evidently is not considering taking my name off of an election on April 15 since there is no election on April 15 nor even a primary race to confuse the situation. Clearly, this was an error that is harmless and does not constitute a worthy enough objection to remove my name from the ballot.

In conclusion it would be an egregious error for this board to disallow 51 citizens, who signed my petitions, based on a technicality which has no bearing on the integrity of the candidate or intent of the people signing. The objector failed to show that my petitions intended to misinform or mislead the petitioners. Those who signed the petitions were not defrauded but if the Electoral Board finds in favor of the objectors complaint, the voters will be defrauded based on clerical errors and simple technicalities.

We should remember that the people of Iraq recently walked long distances, under threat of death to vote. But, here in Petersburg we are using tax dollars to consider eliminating competition in a local city election.

It is my request that this board find Ms. Williams objection without merit and respect my right as a qualified candidate to be placed on the ballot to run for the office of Mayor. Let the voters decide whom they want for mayor. This would respect the 51 voters who signed my nominating petitions in good faith. This would allow the voters their right to choose.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Gillette

Info for Residents

2005-01-20T13:38:00.000-06:00

Thought we would use this space to keep folks up to date concerning the election for mayor, city events and other observations.