Election 2022 Update

Hello everyone – I wanted to share an update about my decision for the 2022 election.

I have had the honor of serving the constituents of District 1 for nearly four years. Below is a summary of just some of the fantastic work I’ve been able to accomplish in these four years:

• In December 2020, I was unanimously elected as the first Democratic woman to serve as Vice Chairwoman, and the first Democratic vice chair in nearly a century.

• Covid Relief: In March 2020, the entire County Board shifted its focus to supporting public health. My first thought was how my family would have weathered those early months when I was growing up as the child of a single parent. I worked with a local nail salon to coordinate donations of their excess PPE, coordinating donations in my driveway to be handed off to the Office of Emergency Management to provide supplies to hospitals and first responders. As time has gone on, I’m particularly proud of the work we’ve done to keep the County operations open, retain staff and increase pay, and of the board’s close partnership with the Health Department.

• Flu shots: In 2020 and 2021, I worked with the DuPage County Health Department to allocate federal funds to supply flu shots for the uninsured in our County. When we decided to continue this program for a second year, we had more vendors donating to reduce the cost for the county, and more participating in order to make getting flu shots as easy as possible.

• Reinvest DuPage: In early 2020, we saw PPP loans from the federal government to support struggling small businesses. Unfortunately, we also saw many of our local businesses unable to access those loans. I asked our economic development partner, Choose DuPage, if we could recreate a similar loan program to support DuPage County residents. Experts ran with this idea, and in a few short weeks, we began making loans throughout the county. We’ve assisted small businesses with over $36M in grants, allowing our businesses to survive these difficult few years.

• Representation on the County Board: I was honored to chair our Ad Hoc committee to determine the size of our County Board. We used data from Illinois counties and from peer counties throughout the nation to determine the representation that would best fit our residents. We preserved your representation on the County Board. You can read the full report here: https://www.dupageco.org/CountyBoard/Docs/63184/

• Modernized the County Board Rules: In 2021, I was honored to chair our Ad Hoc committee on County Board rules. While we were continuing to tackle the challenges of COVID-19, we took the time to evaluate how we conduct business. Making sure our meetings are as accessible as possible to the public, utilizing technology, and being sure rules aren’t set to favor one party, we’ve passed a set of rules that will serve our county well for years to come.

It’s difficult to summarize nearly four years of working with constituents, meeting with community members to hear and address their needs, and working with the amazingly talented and dedicated county staff and fellow elected officials to tackle problems and find creative solutions – I can simply say that it’s been the honor of my life to give back to a county that has given me so much.

These four years have been incredibly long for us all, especially as the federal government left much of the management of the COVID-19 pandemic to local officials, and county governments in particular. I am incredibly proud of how the DuPage County Board has worked in a bipartisan spirit to not only save lives during this pandemic but also manage our finite finances to set DuPage’s recovery path towards success and growth in the future.

Unfortunately, after conversations with my family, friends, and closest supporters, I made the difficult decision to not seek reelection to the DuPage County Board in 2022.

As has previously been covered in local press, there are members of my own political party who have a long-standing history of harassment and bullying within the workplace. I have experienced this personally over the last three years including: deliberate and coordinated reputational damage caused by lies spread by members of my own party, having to intervene to stop a member of my own party from physically and verbally attacking another member, and immeasurable hours spent limiting the repercussions of such unprofessional conduct to prevent damage to our county’s institution and initiatives. Furthermore, this influence has permeated the local party’s leadership as well. I know this because I have personally (along with other hard-working members) have brought evidence of these concerns and the resulting damage to leaders for years with no action.

I am incredibly proud to be a Democrat, because for me, it’s always been an adjective. To me, being a Democrat means serving with a diverse group of individuals who want a flourishing democracy and a government to be of service to its neighbors so everyone thrives, not simply following the party line.

I’ve had the absolute pleasure of working with colleagues – both Democrat and Republican – who have had no interest in these political games, or at the very least, had the courtesy to leave them outside of the county campus. I’ve learned an incredible amount from my colleagues – neighbors of various backgrounds – and can truly say I feel like bipartisanship is not dead at the local level. Especially at the county and municipal level of government, those we serve with are truly our neighbors – we run into them while doing our grocery shopping, out walking the dog, or as they drive by and you’re outside mowing the lawn. Treating each other with basic respect shouldn’t be too much to ask, nor should it be too much to ask party leadership to require it of its elected officials. We must demand professionalism, kindness, and compassion from our elected officials as voters, not continue down a toxic path of us-versus-them.

After years of asking leadership at the county level and state level for help to address this pervasive culture of harassment and bullying, it’s clear there is not a willingness to change from those who have most benefitted from this power. It must change so future leaders who break barriers, create programs to help the county’s residents, and rebuild relationships across the county with necessary partners aren’t forced out of the party or simply turned away by constant unprofessional behavior.

Redistricting -- why I voted "No"

This week, the DuPage County Board voted on the district maps which will exist for the county for the next decade — I voted “No” and wanted to explain my vote.

When the Democrats took the majority in 2020, it was the first time our party has held the majority since the Great Depression. In the last 5 years alone, our board has gone from having one Democratic member to eleven and the majority- clearly our county has changed dramatically. The changing demographic and economic identities of our neighbors has changed- their map should reflect that.

Personally, I wish elected officials didn’t draw their own districts. I’m not sure exactly what a better solution is, but under current Illinois state statue the County Board has this responsibility. I did not serve on this committee either; each district chooses its representative among its three members and as the minority party member in my district (there are three of us serving District one, myself as a Democrat and two Republican colleagues), I was not chosen. However, because the Democrats won the majority in 2020, there were 4 Democrats and three Republicans on the committee (one member per district and chaired by the longest serving board member).

As you may recall, the census in 2020 was delayed both by actions of the previous presidential administration and the effects of Covid-19 during the data collection process. We received the data from the federal government later than we hoped but we’re still able to meet the state deadlines - regardless of whether I think the final product is the best map for the county, it’s still an accomplishment to have met this rushed goal.

I’ve never been part of a mapping process, but I did follow the meetings closely, reading the memos published by the attorney advising the committee, communicating with members on the committee, and anxiously awaiting maps to review. I was surprised that at the end of the day, we had one map composed and voted on, rather than multiple options to consider. While every redistricting year may not require options, DuPage County in 2020 absolutely did.

This shows the old and new maps together (minus a few minor amendments which were passed on the floor during the 10/26 meeting relating to District 5). The green lines are the old map, the brown lines are the new map. Not much difference from the 2011 map.

Instead, if you look at the new map (see here on page 9), you see small changes. Surely there are some items in my district I think are great changes- we now have all of Roselle (a small community full of economic growth and families which should be in one district and not divided) and none of Glendale Heights (previously one precinct was in my district with the rest of the town in District 4). The southern boundary of the district mostly follows main roads and dividing lines (like North Avenue and the railroad) - that will make communicating with constituents and identifying which district they live in easier.

Unfortunately, there any many issues with the county map in general that earned my no vote:

Minutes from the September 7, 2021 Redistricting Committee Meeting. Video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ntEExO1Gg

1. Incumbency- as is clear in videos, in the meeting minutes (page 3), and even in person (as the foam boards with the maps had pin holes where addresses were indicated), where elected officials currently lived was always considered. It was not a requirement given to our map makers, however it was a layer of data considered. When you see how many current elected officials live on the edges of the prior map it’s clear this limited what changes could be made. Saying otherwise (some have argued it was never required, implying then it wasn’t even considered) is a semantic argument, not a factual one. The fact that none of the 18 county board members nor any of the 6 forest preserve members were redistricting into a new district is proof enough to show of course the addresses were considered and it affected the final product.

2. Contiguous communities and precincts- while we followed this rule in some areas, where we didn’t it was glaring that it was not chosen to adjust population. My district has split precincts that meander around areas where a clean line is available and other communities, such as Winfield, remain divided between two districts (4 and 6). While it was claimed the map met this standard, a deep dive on the data shows that just isn’t the case.

3. DuPage’s map is an outlier in the collar counties- I’ve always found it odd that we had such a grid-like map. Any other map of voting districts you can think of looks like a challenging puzzle. If you look at our closest neighbors (Kane, Will, and Lake for example), their maps look similar in that they group communities together. We are the boxy outlier. Is that justified based on the demographics that make up our communities? I have no idea because we never had alternative maps to consider.

4. Communication - the only meeting I was invited to participate in involving the maps wasn’t for my district or even a neighboring district, it was a meeting with other members to help direct the conversation if there was disagreement and I was there as vice chair, not to give map input. Unfortunately in the public meetings it was said that each of the six districts met as a group of 3 and that’s just not true: not in my district and not in at least 2 others that I know of. That’s not transparent, it shows error in the process, and our constituents deserved better.

This is the southern boundary of District 1: This line isn’t done to meet population, I’m curious why expand to Linden Avenue.

Unfortunately this map passed our board with only five “no” votes - I want to thank my colleagues who took the time to dig deep, ask questions, learn about a very complicated legal process, and try to make sure that the map we all have for the next 10 years best represented our constituents. That, I don’t feel was our result, but sometimes, leadership means being firm even when you know you won’t win the vote.

The Process Matters! (Thoughts on ballot questions and COVID response)

Hello everyone! This summer has been absolutely full of activity in DuPage County! Appropriately, most the activity this summer has been focused on COVID-19 and the multifaceted response required by local governments, nearly overnight. The COVID-19 response in the US highlights the importance of local government, especially in crisis. While we’ve received some assistance from the federal government (through the CARES act which allocated $161M to DuPage County) - not only is it not enough to cover all the needs that have arisen, it’s up to the County Board to distribute, allocate, and track those funds.

While the local papers may have highlighted the more bumpy moments this summer, the majority of the time was spent with members of both parties putting their partisan feeling aside and figuring out how to best divide up and use these funds to reduce harm in our county. Any and all ideas were evaluated and perused if we felt they could help.

An early conversation which I was apart of with staff, colleagues, and our federal lobbyist led me to ask if we could use some of our CARES dollars to create our own PPP-like program for DuPage County Businesses. Within a week, staff and non-profit partners researched and created a program which has over $7M allocated to help local businesses survive. I recently also inquired about using CARES dollars to help us combat the upcoming flu season (the CDC has warned that the flu season could be particularly strenuous on our healthcare system this year if less people are vaccinated due to the loss of jobs and insurance and were are still fighting COVID-19) and the health department is already working with their partners to see what that could look like in DuPage County.

I’m incredible grateful to DuPage County staff for all their tireless work over the last 6+ months. They’ve been absolutely amazing. I’ve often said, due to the pandemic and the inadequate federal response, local officials have a platter of mediocre-to-bad solutions and were left to pick the least bad and hopefully most helpful solutions. None of it is enough and it can’t be until the federal government responds with testing and tracing like our peer nations. But I do think some of the creativity and persistence of my colleagues and county staff have helped DuPage weather these last few months with some highlights of success we can be proud of.

—

This last meeting (8/11) we dealt with some issues which weren’t directly COVID-19 related and I wanted to explain my votes because I haven’t agreed with the news coverage which I think has forgotten the origin and context of some of these conversations.

First, the recorders office merger. On August 11, I voted to keep the question on the ballot about consolidating the recorders office into the clerks office. When this issue first came up, the initial proposal was that we would put this binding question on the ballot without a study - I opposed that. I’m a data driven person and I don’t ever want to make a decision based on speculation. The compromise was to put the question on the ballot but commission on a study to evaluate the data in the meantime to confirm the idea that this consolidation would save money and be efficient.

Where I diverged with some of my colleagues is in how I read the report - and probably more accurately, what my expectations were approaching that report. When the idea of consolidating these two offices arose - I initially thought the savings would be minimal, based on what we saw in the election division consolidation. Yes, some salaries and capital (think ordering office supplies more efficiently in bulk or licenses for software efficiency) were realized but the cost of the body of work (conducting elections or recording property records) wouldn’t change magically just because it’s with one manager (aka the County Clerk). The report we received said what I expected - yes, we will save the recorders salary and benefits and perhaps in the future some staff will reduce over time. So for me, it’s a values question- should it be one office like some of our peer counties or is that minimal savings not enough to reduce checks and balances between the two offices? I’m frankly not sure how I feel about that so that’s why I supported keeping the question on the ballot. It’s a values question so let’s ask the voters. The majority of the board disagreed so this question will not appear on your ballot; instead, you will see two candidates running for a 4 year term as Recorder.

The next question would’ve been a non-binding question about reducing the size of the county board from 18 members to 12 members (or three members per district to two members per district). While the media reports have lumped these questions - the recorder and county board size- together, the process to getting to the vote on 8/11 looked very different. (I know when I say process your eyes may rightfully start to glaze but keep reading! The details are always important and how we get to a decision -and if we arrive there thoughtfully- is important. That’s where good government happens - in the details. )

As I described above in the recorder case, first came the ballot question, then the study, then the question removal - I agree it seems sloppy! That was not the case with the county board size question. The idea of reducing the size of DuPage County’s board has long been asked - in fact, the board already reduced from 24 to 18 members when the Forest Preserve District spun off into its own body. Most recently, when the question arose again, we decided to do our homework FIRST, then decide if we needed the voters to help us figure out something values-related, like I describe a above. In this case, the Chairman convened a working group to study the issue and produce a final report with recommendations; I was honored to chair that working group.

My professional background in qualitative and quantitative research and analytics made this a fun task- while I had my own theory of the question, I wanted the group to gather as many questions and attempts at answers as possible so we could make a definitive decision on this long standing question. I was really happy with the level of participation I received from my fellow board members as well - thoughtful questions (even from members not serving on the committee!), willingness to supply data for us to evaluate and publish, full attendance during weeks we normally have a reduced schedule in July- I’m really proud of what we produced.

At the end of the working group, we approved a nearly 40 page, data-driven report which recommend that (1) we not ask voters this question as we found reducing the county board would harm residents, and (2) we also want to reduce the amount of committees our board has. You can read the final report here: https://www.dupageco.org/CountyBoard/Docs/63184/

The only potential “pro” for reducing the board is a potential cost savings - but that savings is a maximum and could easily be consumed by the ripple effects of reducing the board and possibly fully consume or surpass the savings. As we describe in the report, and discussed during debate, members do 45-60 hours of work per district a week, split among 3 members (during “normal” times - the hours are much expanded since March for all members). If that reduces to 2 members, these part-time jobs become more like full-time roles. To continue attracting good elected officials (not just those who can afford to serve), you have to pay officials. If more are working nearly full time, more may also require the health benefits. And more importantly, none of us individual have our own staff - we work with department heads and with the county board staff but they report to the chairman, not to individual members. Without a doubt we’d have to hire more staff - and good, intelligent, qualified staff that DuPage County deserves are worthy of more than bargain basement salaries.

Frustratingly, after that thorough process, some wished to go against the bi-partisan, data driven recommendations of the report and put the question to the voters anyway. That’s why the process matters here - we did the steps properly, we researched, debated, and interviewed staff at other peer counties to make a data driven decision, not a political one.

Luckily on 8/11 the majority of the board trusted the data and did their homework and didn’t vote to lob a question at voters when we knew the consequences could cause harm. I’m incredibly proud of the bi-partisan process and result and I hope we don’t continue debating this now that we have nearly 40 pages of well-researched data.

On a personal note, as we look nationally it’s easy for me to see why fighting for representation (our county board districts are bigger than some state house and some congressional districts!) at the local level - is actually one of the more important things I’ve done during my time on the board. Fighting for facts and information is always the right fight, but making sure residents have access to their local elected officials (especially at a time like this!) couldn’t be more important and I’m proud to have fought for it and will again if we are unnecessarily distracted by this again in the future.

Lastly, the board did approve 3 advisory questions, you can see them here: https://www.dupageco.org/Content.aspx?id=63256

On face value I have to agree with some of the criticism, I’d have loved if they were better worded or perhaps we could’ve combined the 1st and 3rd questions into a more efficient question on an already long ballot, but they are again just data collecting questions. While I agree with some of the debate Tuesday, I think we’ll see nearly unanimous support for the stockpile question, I have no idea how DuPage residents will answer the other two. I’m curious if one will get more or less support than the other, and I’m curious if the results will be heavily weighed towards one response or more split. The point is, I’m curious about the data! I want to know how our residents will respond! Because I’m a member of a minority party, I don’t have much control over the wording of the questions. Nonetheless, I voted yes for these questions because I’m not afraid of the results, in fact, I’m curious what our residents will have to say.

Next up for county business, most of this Fall will be continued action on COVID-19 and the 2021 budget. It’s going to be an incredibly difficult budget year due to the recession exasperated by the public health crisis. If you haven’t already, please take the budget survey to let us know your priorities! Survey found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FY2021Budget

Haymarket in DuPage

Hello all,

It's been a while since I've written, but a lot has been happening in District 1. I'll follow up on some of those items in a later post, but I want to focus today on Haymarket DuPage.

As you likely know, the US is experiencing an opioid addiction crisis. DuPage County deaths from illegal opioids increased 13 percent — from 72 to 81 — from 2017 to 2018. I know those who have been effected by this crisis, and I am sure that sadly, you do too. We absolutely need more treatment resources in DuPage County.

When I first was alerted to the possibility of these resources potentially coming to District 1, I was excited and hungry to hear the details. My first introduction to this project was a meeting on May 17, which I called into (others were attending in person, but I couldn't be in Wheaton during the day that day, so I called in to hear the conversation and ask questions). I recently went back to my notes from that introductory meeting, and wanted to summarize what I was told, as a way to explain why I agreed to sign onto the support letter earlier this summer:

• the location was described as a former Holiday Inn which was located in an industrial area

• we were also told that the tax revenue from the facility had fallen over the years and was very low now, making the loss much smaller than had been reported and that there was no interest in any company taking the building over

• There was no mention of providing ambulance service, or of Itasca's concern around them, but we did discuss security concerns, how residents were monitored, what the program entails for patients and how comprehensive of a treatment experience it was for patients -- not simply detox, but a full recovery program to allow individuals to live productive, sober lives

With this information, I agreed to sign onto the letter. The letter addressed some more concerns, including a stated goal of being partners with Itasca and retaining private ambulance services. After the meeting and the letter, I was under the impressions that there were some issues to work through between Haymarket and Itasca, but that they were small and that this would be a job creator for Itasca, besides the benefit the county and surrounding communities would receive from this treatment facility.

Throughout the summer, I was honestly quite surprised to start seeing the opposition to this facility, and thought it was simply a case of more information needing to be shared.

Since the introductory meeting and the letter, I have been contacted by dozens of Itasca residents by email and phone. Very few comments or concerns expressed to me are anything I would describe as "NIMBY" (not in my back yard), rather, they are more substantive, specific objections to the plan itself. One was from a father whose daughter had a medical emergency and required an ambulance. He informed me that Itasca, because it is such a small village, only has one ambulance. He was deeply concerned about his daughter -- with the addition of a medical facility, would an ambulance respond as quickly if there was a "next time?" He then explained how of course, he knows people need help for opioid addiction, he just felt this specific location would harm families like his when resources were drained.

Last month, I attended an event hosted by Representative Diane Pappas in Itasca on August 22. It was a packed house and people were highly engaged in the conversation. It was an odd event to be a part of a panel of in some ways -- while we signed onto a support letter, no vote on this project will come before the DuPage County Board. In many ways, I saw the event as an opportunity to personally learn more about the proposal, assuming it had been more fleshed out in the weeks since I last received information about this proposal. I was most interested in the economic questions that residents and the Mayor of Itasca have asked, and I have to say, I wasn't convinced by the answers.

• When a resident asked about what financial resources would be made available to Itasca in the event this project came to fruition, the answer was that another facility/community had received $3M in grants following the opening of a treatment facility. I marked down a question mark in my notes because my follow up question in my head was "well, do you have any lined up now?" That was my question, because my professional background is in philanthropy. Typically, when a non-profit is planning to open a facility or plans for a capital project, there are grants and donations that are secured early in the process to show you can raise funds to support the ongoing needs. I am not clear that that has been attempted in this case. I would think, given the business community in our county and the sheer number of families affected by the opioid crisis -- regardless of wealth or class -- that finding an engaged donor base to support a project like this wouldn't be impossible.

• The ambulance/first responders concern was again brought up. One question was if there was any case in which Haymarket would call 911. While I absolutely expect that any individual would call 911 if there was a safety emergency -- and I would assume the hotel currently in that space has utilized 911 services on occasion -- I don't feel a clear answer was provided. They again discussed providing a private ambulance service, but I feel that's a separate question. Is there a limit of how many patients could be transported by a private firm and do your facilities ever exceed that limit at a time? Is there a timeliness concern with an extreme medical emergency in which a private company wouldn’t be able to respond as quickly? I'm simply not sure of how often someone would need medical transportation at a treatment facility. Perhaps the private ambulance service would be enough, but the lack of clarification and commitment worries me.

Most recently, I met with a group of Itasca residents last week. They provided me with a copy of the Economic Impact Study completed for Haymarket. I promised to take it home and read it carefully over the weekend, and I have. There are two main issues that are used to minimize the economic impact of the conversion of this property from a for-profit hotel to a non-profit facility.

• The first issue is that the study repeatedly states that the hotel's taxable income is lower because many of their stays are extended stay. On it's face, that doesn't appear accurate. The hotel does not have rooms with kitchens. The average night stay at the hotel is less than 2 days, which wouldn't meet any typical definition of extended stay. I have a very hard time reconciling this significant discrepancy.

• Second, the study also paints a much more dire vision of the Holiday Inn property than appears to be supported by the facts. While the reports paints a picture of a failing property about to close, the reality is that the property has a contract with Holiday Inn through 2021. The hotel itself has disputed the points about their lack of access to 290 impacting their business as well. While the property may need improvements to continue under the current brand past 2021, that isn't the only option for the property. I again want to re-iterate, I was under the impression from the introductory calls and explanations that the failing of this hotel was a forgone conclusion and imminent. Recent hires, and other feedback from the hotel make it quite clear that that is not true.

I had been reticent to remove my name from the support letter with a zoning hearing approaching on 9/18 because this is an issue for Itasca to decide for themselves. Because I don't have a vote on this issue, I worried that making a statement could have an undue influence when it likely shouldn't. After my meetings last week and reading the economic impact statement, I re-read the letter I'd signed on to. Ultimately my decision came down to "do I still agree with that letter? Do I think the statements made in it are truthful representations of the plan Haymarket has described to Itasca?"

I've decided I no longer agree or have faith in the statements made in the letter of support as a result of what I have learned in the weeks since it was published, and as a result, I asked Haymarket to remove my name from the letter.

The explanations given to Itasca about how Haymarket could address the loss of revenue and expected pressure on their first responders simply haven't been answered in a way I find convincing. Again, I have no vote on this matter and cannot effect if Itasca will be home to a Haymarket facility, however, I can no longer lend outsized support to a plan I find incomplete and that residents have been so organized and fact-based in their objections.

Spring Updates

As DuPage County (finally!) warms up, so do activities at the DuPage County Board.

Earlier in March, I had the opportunity to tour the Marklund Philip Center & Day School (Bloomingdale, IL) with Member Sam Tornatore, my colleague who also represents District 1.

I was blown away by this amazing resource, found right here in District 1! Marklund Philip Center is both a residential and education facility. The residential facility serves medically fragile infants and children, teens and adults with profound developmental disabilities. Services include a comprehensive active treatment program which provides for the intensive medical, social, emotional and physical needs of the residents. The educational side serves residents of the facility and children from throughout the area who need additional assistance with school or behavioral concerns. So many things impressed me, but a couple items really stuck out:

• The residential facility feels warm and home-like, with staff caring for individuals with such compassion and rooms decorated so everyone can feel at home. The staff shared with us the family events they hold so that family members can come and have a fun day with their family members who live at Marklund. While I don’t have children myself, I could only imagine how comforted families must feel when their families find a caring home at Marklund.

• The educational side was not only innovative but the facilities for students who do not live at Marklund really showed how collaboration between government agencies and local organizations can help us find the best outcomes. Students from surrounding school districts can go to Marklund for the help they need, and then return to their home districts. I loved that the classrooms and hallways looked just like any other school – desks, posters on the walls, even lockers. We even got to meet a child who was completing her last day at Marklund’s school and was returning to her home district the next day – what a joy to be able to congratulate and encourage her.

I was able to share my experience with the full board on March 26th and encouraged them to reach out for a tour of this facility – we should all be proud that DuPage County has this amazing resource right at home.

In March, the county board also considered the question of whether County Board meetings should begin with an invocation. This discussion and topic was difficult, but I am happy we discussed it. I thought it might be helpful to explain my views on the invocation, why I voted the way I did, and how you can help make our invocations more inclusive.

I am one of the millennial non-religiously affiliated folks that many of our public comment speakers mentioned. I grew up in Wheaton, IL where many of my closest childhood friends, their parents, and adult mentors have a strong faith and I couldn’t respect them more. Truthfully, some of my colleagues who spoke about why the invocation is important to them and their faith, were also very moving and challenged me to think about my position in a different way. I do not doubt any of my colleague’s expressions of their faith or their words about why this agenda item is of value for them, I found it informative and I was grateful for their candor.

Attending a meeting of your County Board should be comfortable and welcoming – there should be no physical or situational barriers to your entry. It’s your meeting after all, we all work for you. Expressions of faith in invocations can be welcoming, but they can have the opposite effect. In DuPage County’s past, they’ve been predominately expressions of one faith and some felt they were too close to religious expression than an open welcome. That is why I oppose invocations – I do not want to create a situation where someone would take time out of their Tuesday mornings to come see their elected officials only to be uncomfortable when a prayer is offered right at the start of the meeting. Much like how my colleagues of faith expressed why these invocations are important for them, I hope they can consider this other reaction to the same event – both are valid reactions, they just depend on your personal world view.

After our vote, the invocation will remain part of our agendas, so we now have to think about how we can achieve the goal of making these invocations more welcoming, diverse, and open to all. One item I think will help is an internal business practice – I offered to help our Chairman by writing language for a welcome letter for our invocation speakers. The purpose of this welcome letter is to thank our speakers for joining us while also reminding them that the room is full of believers and non-believers alike of many faiths, just like our county, and that messages should be welcoming to all. I greatly appreciate the Chairman Cronin’s willingness to explore and implement this small solution.

The other way we can achieve this goal is with some help from YOU – we need more speakers! If you have a faith leader who inspires you with messages of inclusion and community, please send them along to me so I can get them invited to join us (my email is ashley.selmon@dupageco.org). I would also LOVE to have more humanist, agnostic, or atheist speakers so be sure to send them along as well.

Like I said above, this conversation was very difficult and unfortunately, it was not always respectful. This won’t be the only issue that we tackle over the next four years that is difficult, but I hope future conversations can have more respect for our colleagues when we speak. We do our residents a disservice when we make arguments that are personal attacks or in bad faith and it cheapens our positions when we use these tactics. I certainly disagree with my colleagues – from both parties – from time to time, but I work very hard to not let the emotion of disagreement drive my responses, spoken or in writing. It’s not easy, and I am sure I will not always live up to that standard, but I will always try – and I challenge my colleagues, of both parties, to do the same. Our residents deserve nothing less.

In April two items have been my focus: Animal Services and Wood Dale/Route 83. On the April 9th agenda, we had a contract for $45K to review for a fundraising feasibility study for Animal Services. While I am not on the animal services committee, my professional expertise is in philanthropic strategic planning, so I had some questions about this contract. Since then (we pulled it from the agenda to further explore it), I’ve worked with Animal Services to re-evaluate our needs and what resources we already have and we’re working together to see how we can do a study (I am fully supportive of solid planning before taking on a big project like raising money for a capital campaign!) while using the resources of Animal Services most frugally. We have some follow up meetings scheduled and will hopefully have a cost-savings plan to present soon.

I will also be meeting with Aldermen from Wood Dale soon to discuss some concerns with Route 83 – municipality and county cooperation is so important and I look forward to meeting with them to find some solutions.

If you’re celebrating this weekend, I wish you a happy and restful Passover and Easter!

Serve on a DuPage County Board or Agency (yes, you!)

DuPage County needs you (yes, you!) to apply to serve your county on various boards and agencies. The county relies on community members to serve on these committees and they can be a great opportunity to give back.

Since joining the board, I have been careful to watch who our county appoints to these positions — individuals should be chosen based on their qualifications and passion. I’ve spoken up when members vote to appoint individuals who have made political contributions, especially when those contributions are to the chairman or current sitting members. One way to end this practice is to continue to draw attention to it and to work with community partners to find solutions through an improved ethics ordinance. Another, quicker way, is for you to apply to serve on these bodies yourself.

One of my favorite leaders, Jason Kander, has advice for those who look around at their political leaders — locally or nationally — and are disappointed by what they see. He tells them to “grab an oar” and get to work yourself. Use your skills, talents, time, and passions — whatever they may be — to help make your community a little better.

Ready to grab an oar? Apply to serve DuPage County HERE.

February updates

Hello everyone! I hope you’re staying warm this winter! The County’s public work’s team has been busy making sure the county buildings and county roads are ready for travel, even during the harshest weather. They’re such an impressive, hard working team.

On February 4th, I attended a town hall in Itasca with Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. It was a great opportunity to hear from the Congressman and what he’s working on, particularly given his critical roles on the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees. I greatly enjoyed the questions asked by all those who attended which covered many issues: immigration, national economy, veterans support, climate change, term limits for Congress, health care, LGBTQ+ rights, balance of powers between the branches of government, the Mueller investigation, the electoral college, the affects of the government shutdown, Alzheimer’s research, gun regulations and background checks, and national security. Afterwards, I had the opportunity to speak with his staff about a Housing and Urban Development issue (HUD) which led to the opportunity to set up a meeting for county staff to meet with the Congressman’s staff in Washington, DC. I look forward to continuing to build these partnerships with our state-level and national-level representatives to advocate for DuPage County.

February 5 was a busy day of committee meetings. I began the morning with the Environmental committee where we discussed many issues, including the latex paint recycling program. Member Chaplin, who chairs this committee, shared the budget challenges surrounding this popular recycling program. With staff and committee members, we discussed some possible alternative funding sources, options to make the event revenue generating, and other partnerships, such as with businesses or the Forest Preserve District. I am looking forward to an update on these options.

February 12 was another day of committee and board meetings. The first meeting of the day was the Finance Committee where I noticed there was an abnormal edit to a vendor’s ethics disclosure form. I was able to ask county staff to get us some clarification on this edit — I did not suspect any improper actions, I wanted to make sure we were making the best choices with all of the information. County staff was able to update us in between meetings and we approved this important contract with the caveat that our state’s attorney will review the final explanation from the vendor. I am proud of the county staff’s efforts and quick action to not only explain the edit in the forms to us and ensure the taxpayer’s funds are being protected.

I ended the day with a meeting with Addison Mayor, Richard Veenstra. As a resident of Addison, it was a great opportunity to meet my mayor, as well as discuss issues of importance between Addison and DuPage County. I had the opportunity to tour the Addison Consolidated Dispatch Center. This impressive facility is a great example of communities working together to make sure we are providing excellent services for the bests costs.

A full room for the Congressman’s town hall meeting in Itasca.

Back to work after the holidays

Happy New Year! The two weeks since we have been back from the holidays have been busy!

I began Tuesday morning, January 8, meeting with county staff to prepare for my chair position on the Public Transit committee. Public transportation is a challenge in DuPage County, however, it's not a unique one. Many of our fellow communities have similar challenges: funding challenges, raising customer costs, growing demand for car-less travel options. I look forward to learning what has brought success to other communities and exploring how to bring those solutions to DuPage County. If you have questions, suggestions, or neat ideas about public transit in DuPage County, please send them to ashley.selmon@dupageco.org.

Next was the environmental committee. We received updates on some of the county's most successful recycling programs, including paper shredding partnerships. DuPage County partners with local cities and villages to provide in-town recycling events. These partnerships have increased the amount of materials saved from landfills and allow municipalities to offer these events at a reduced cost. We also received an updated to the Sterogenics situation in the southern part of the County. I admire Member Chaplin's leadership on this issue and look forward to the County's continued advocacy for its residents. I also look forward to continued updates from the Illinois EPA and further testing results from the US EPA (note: results from the US EPA are delayed due to the Federal government shutdown.) I then attended the executive committee for the Community Development Committee. This committee demonstrated the rigor and dedication County staff provide to the community grants process.

Saturday (1/12) I attended a discussion of the impact of the Federal government shutdown, hosted by Congressman Sean Casten (D, IL-06) at the DuPage Health Department in Wheaton. You can read the Congressman's summary of the impacts felt in DuPage County and resources available here. What struck me most is how the most vulnerable in our communities are already being impacted by this reckless and unnecessary shutdown as well as how the impact can be felt by otherwise financially comfortable families as well. Potential delays in the processing of Federal tax refunds will compound this issue and our community partner's capacity to assist will be stretched to their limits. It also appears to me that there will be a significant increase in the impacts of this shutdown as we near the end of January (if, of course, our leaders in Washington have not reopened our government by then). I personally asked Congressman Casten to keep the hardships experienced by federal contract workers in the discussion of legislation to re-open our government. I, and my fellow board members, am very grateful to Congressman Casten on keeping us all informed.

Tuesday January 15, I attended the finance committee, my first meeting as a member of the technology committee, and the County Board meeting. There were two troubling votes during the County Board meeting that I want to explain. The first was the vote to consolidate the Election Commission into the Clerk's office. What the board members disagreed on was the timing -- every member wanted to consolidate the election commission, which as been plagued with significant issues. What the Clerk herself, County staff, and the public told us -- clearly and with evidence -- was that consolidating in January was not a wise choice. The reasons for this could not be clearer. There was no plan developed by the previous Clerk between March 20 (the day DuPage County residents voiced their clear support for this consolidation) and the end of his term. Clerk Kaczmarek was sworn in in December 2018. No one having an honest conversation about the logistics of this change would tell you that a brand new executive should lead a massive consolidation effort after 6 weeks on the job -- let alone when that body is in the middle of operating an election. Let alone when there is no plan, significant (20%) staffing issues in the affected offices, and no budget allocated to make this change. I was proud to vote against this political decision and to stand and speak for logic and good governance. I believe Clerk Kaczmarek will execute this election to the best of her abilities, I simply wish the County Board had made an honest effort to set her -- and thus all residents of DuPage County -- up for success.

The second vote that is concerning was the vote we took to appoint various residents to boards. Far too many of these candidates, again, are political donors to sitting board members. The most egregious example of this was one appointee who gave a member of the DuPage County Board $5K on December 11, 2018 -- after the election. As I stated during the meeting, I do not know how our residents can look at that vote and think anything other than the seat was bought. I firmly believe DuPage County is full of highly skilled and highly educated professionals and volunteers who would cherish the opportunity to serve their county. They should not have to donate to an elected official to serve their county. I reminded the Chairman and Vice Chairman that they’d promised to look into expanding the ethics portion of the application process. I will continue reminding them until they take this necessary action.

Lastly, tonight I attended a presentation for county and municipal leaders by Metra in Glen Ellyn. As the new chair of the Public Transit committee, I'm very grateful for the opportunity to attend this event and to hear from Metra leadership about their accomplishments and significant challenges. Metra's success and safety is essential to the livability and economic development of District 1 and all of DuPage County; I look forward to working with them and commuters.

I will not be able to attend committee meetings next week, unfortunately. I will be out of town on a trip that was planned before election day. I will read the materials provided as to not miss the content.

Last week's board meeting - and happy holidays!

Before we all settle in to celebrate the holidays and the end of 2018, I wanted to cover last week's board meetings.

Last Tuesday (12/11), I attended the finance committee and the county board meeting -- both meetings are represented by all 18 members. The full board meeting was the longest and most eventful. This meeting had a few DuPage County residents speak during public comment -- I want to thank all the residents who attended to draw our attention to issues affecting them and their neighbors.

We also had an opportunity to welcome and thank students from District 1! Students and teachers from Fisher Elementary and Emerson Elementary attended and we thanked them for participating in a program called Cool Yule which utilizes recycled materials to decorate the county buildings. If you're in the county building before the end of the year, stop by and see their handy work!

The first vote of the full county board meeting I want to discuss is the vote on the committee assignments. I had a very open minded approach to the committee assignments. We received a copy on paper at orientation of the proposed committees and another in our emails with updates to that draft. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Democrats, including myself, were assigned chairs. I also noticed that the assignments were pretty significantly different than the original drafts but I found the committees I was on interesting and well-suited for me to represent the concerns residents raised to me during the campaign. I further noticed that some of the committees which move significant amounts of the budget through them were not chaired by Democrats and the representation was more skewed in comparison to many of the other committees.My colleagues raised these concerns as well as a concern that if the goal in assignments was to match experience, strengths, and passion, it would follow that Member DeSart, who had prior elected experience, would have been selected for a chair. I think all of these issues were important to raise and to discuss publicly so that residents could understand our votes. For the reasons outlines by my colleagues Member Chaplin and Member DeSart, I voted no on the committee assignments.

The second vote I want to discuss is my vote on the nominee for the Ethics Commission. As I spoke about during the meeting, I did not find the information included in the packet materials sufficient enough to evaluate this candidate. This is especially true when evaluating someone who will be overseeing our conduct -- they should be someone who is not connected to any of us. I found that the nominee had donated to various local campaigns -- Republicans and Democrats -- so this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of transparency and making sure we are choosing the absolute best candidates, without any conflicts, to serve our County. I appreciated that Chairman Cronin and Vice Chairman Zay agreed to explore what further information about political activities could be included in these applications. I then voted no for the nominee.

One thing I am most proud of following our first meeting, is that despite the discussion becoming fiery at times, each Democratic member voted their conscience. We all discussed the need to end one party rule and return thoughtful debate to the County Board during our campaigns. We all promised our voters that we would be an independent voice and be educated about the issues and transparent about our reasons. We did that in our first meeting. I can't think of a better way to end 2018.

I hope you all enjoy some relaxation and pleasant company over this holiday season. I will be spending lots of quality time with my friends and family. Board committee meetings are cancelled for 12/17 and will resume in January.

See you in 2019!

First week serving District 1!

What an amazing first week serving District 1!

The week kicked off Monday when I was sworn in for my four year term on the DuPage County Board. The evening was a great celebration of public service, with many volunteers and supporters joining us for the Inauguration Ceremony. I was honored to have my oath of office administered by the Honorable C. Stanley Austin (retired). To me, he has always been "Mr. Austin." He was my speech coach throughout my high school career at Wheaton North High School. His support and mentorship in high school and beyond made him my first choice for the evening's ceremonies and I was grateful he agreed to join me.

Bright and early the next morning, we all got right to work. I began the morning attending the Stormwater Committee meeting, observing the judicial/public safety committee, and attending the Public Works Committee. I found them all quite interesting. The Stormwater Committee includes county board members and mayors from the towns we represent -- this is a great opportunity for cooperation across all of our units of government. I especially enjoyed the presentation at the Public Works Committee which outlined their plans for improvement and modernization over the next twenty years. This comprehensive planning is difficult but so necessary to allowing the county to make the best financial decisions going forward. I look forward to hearing more during the next meeting. Tuesday evening, I met with an Addison family to hear some of their concerns. I look forward to working with that family, and all District 1 residents, throughout my term.

The Honorable C. Stanley Austin (retired) before I took the Oath of Office.