Vicenik and Yarbrough use taxpayer resources for political work

West Suburban Journal-News (L. Nicole Trottie with Kevin Williams contributing) covers the criticism Broadview Village President Henry Vicenik took over letting Rep. Karen Yarbrough and U.S. Rep Danny Davis use a village-owned property rent free.

Vicenik said the board’s decision to offer the space rent free was never a board agenda item....

Vicenik counters, the decision by the board is justified as providing a service to Broadview residents.

“I thought it would be good for the village and residents to have a state representative and congressman here as a resource for the people of Broadview,” Vicenik said Tuesday.

Having a village subsidize constituent services is at least an unusual arrangement. And unusual arrangements need more specific contracts. And contracts need to be approved by the governing boards, or they formally delegate this power.

Broadview has been in financial trouble for years. Why wouldn't it ask its tenants to pay for using village property?

IMO, Yarbrough and Vicenik are in some legal trouble, or should be, for using public resources for political activities. I assumed that Yarbrough and her organization were paying rent and that there was a contract which separated the political portion of the premises from the government part of the premises. I'm pretty sure my assumption was based on this being claimed or implied by Yarbrough. Maybe I'm misremembering.

If Yarbrough and Vicenik knew that the space was provided gratis by the Village of Broadview they both know that there should be no political activity being done there. I made a formal complaint to the Cook County State's Attorney against Eugene Moore and District 209 for a comparatively minor transgression.

h/t Proviso Insider

BTW, there is something of a back story to Trottie's interest in this building. Trottie sought to acquire use of the property for free from Vicenik. Trottie mentioned the arrangement to Yarbrough. Apparently Vicenik decided it was more advantageous to him to give the property to Yarbrough and Davis than to Trottie's newspaper which was brand new at the time.

However, whether Trottie has an ax to grind with Vicenik and Yarbrough over this property, it doesn't mitigate the wrongdoing by Vicenik and Yarbrough.

Trottie column on Yarbrough and Nyberg

L. Nicole Trottie (West Suburban Journal) has a column taking Karen Yarbrough to task for accepting campaign contributions by Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, the Village of Maywood's law firm. Karen's husband Henderson Yarbrough is village president.

Maybe I should have explicitly praised West Suburban Journal for the news story, but I rarely praise other newspapers for doing their jobs. If I praised West Suburban Journal it would probably be in the context of pointing out how boring and useless most of the paper's journalism is. Or outright defamatory.

West Suburban Journal has migrated editorial perspectives from being allied with Bellwood Village President Frank Pasquale and District 209 board president Emanuel "Chris" Welch to being allied with Karen Yarbrough (and critical of Pasquale and Welch) to being aligned with Welch again.

But I may be oversimplifying. Trottie felt double-crossed by Pasquale on some advertising revenue. Trottie later accused Pasquale of cutting off the advertising money when she refused to have sex with Pasquale. And Trottie had been dating Welch, but turned against him with a vengeance.

So, Trottie was not so much a Yarbrough fan--she felt Yarbrough or Yarbrough's staff--leased some office space out from under Trottie, space Trottie wanted for the office of West Suburban Journal. This predated Trottie becoming anti-Pasquale and anti-Welch.

Later Trottie's relationship with Karen Yarbrough went sour. According to a comment posted to Proviso Probe by someone using Trottie's name, Yarbrough's father, Don Williams, failed to complete an advertising contract because he disagreed with some editorial decision made by Trottie.

So, Trottie ended-up in the anti-Yarbrough camp and the newspaper eventually settled on covering Maywood.

This is a decent situation from the point of view the media is supposed to be skeptical of the government. And the Yarbrough political camp dominates village politics.

However, Trottie seems to believe the enemey of her enemy is her friend. And perhaps she's pressured into this thinking because she has to chase after advertising revenue.

By focusing on political factions instead of principles, Trottie's column is weaker than it would be otherwise. It also contains statements that seem debatable. And the sniping at me (Carl Nyberg) is irrelevant to her larger point.

One good point made by the column is that Karen Yarbrough didn't respond to West Suburban Journal's request for comment. I share West Suburban Journal's frustration at elected officials not returning phone calls and emails because they don't want to deal with the issue at hand.

Trottie wrote:

A taxing body that accepts contributions from a no-bid vendor is a very big issue. In fact, it’s a federal hot topic.

I wish this was true, but it's not. Law firms are hired through no-bid processes because they fall under the exception for professional services. Law firms giving money to the politicians that hire them does not automatically trigger a federal investigation. If Trottie had a broader perspective on local issues, she'd know that Odelson & Sterk contributed to Welch's campaigns and Giglio & Del Galdo contributed to campaigns of Melrose Park village president Ron Serpico. Welch and Serpico are under federal investigation, but the investigation wasn't triggered by contributions by law firms they hired.

The interrelationship between the village counsel and Yarbrough’s political parties imply that something of value is given in return for something of value.

This statement goes too far. This statement would appear to damn all campaign contributions. And defenders of the status quo on campaign contributions would probably respond to Trottie by saying that it often appears there is a quid pro quo relationship between her editorial perspective and her advertising revenue.

If a politically-connected law firm, let’s say, Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, is hired by the Village of Maywood to defend the wolf’s actions in “Little Red Riding Hood,” it would not focus on the wolf’s unbridled desire to consume Little Red Ridding Hood; instead, it would argue that said wolf, disguised in drag as Grandma, should be offered protection under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The attempted consumption of Little Red is of little worth.

Can someone explain this analogy to me. If a law firm is hired to defend the wolf then the law firm should defend the wolf to the best of its ability, right?

[The Yarbroughs] should give the money back and amend the Village Code ethics portion to prevent such messy contributions from happening in the future.

On this point Trottie and I agree.

Finally, I will defend my honor. Trottie called me the president of the Karen Yarbrough fan club. I like Karen, but she's not the only person I like locally. In 2007 I've spent far more time on the phone with Arnie Bryant, Charles Flowers, Theresa Kelly and probably Mike Manzo than I have with Yarbrough.

You don't especially have to take my word, look up what I've written on Karen Yarbrough on Proviso Probe. Since January 1, 2007 I have written 20 entries that mention Karen Yarbrough out of over 375 entries. Of those 20 entries a number have been less than complimentary.

* Yarbrough political committees hit up village's legal counsel
* A07, election analysis

Most of the entries are neutral, in many Yarbrough just gets mentioned and is not a central character in the entry.

I disagree with Trottie labeling me the "president of the Karen Yarbrough fan club". It's not accurate. And mentioning me is superfluous to the point of her column.

[UPDATE: The Proviso Insider responded to this post under the title, "Carl Nyberg Admits Relationship With Anti-Welch-Serpico-Moore Group!!!". How should I respond? My Naval Academy roommate would have used sarcasm.

"Insider, you're right. There is a group dedicated to ruining Welch, Serpico and Moore. It has weekly meetings. Not only are Nyberg and the others there, but Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI attend the meetings too."

I could point at that it's hardly a revelation that I talk to most of these people. How often am I on Bryant's radio show? Who attends board D209 board meetings and hasn't seen me talking with Kelly or Flowers? What's sinister about me talking to the political opponents of Moore, Welch and Serpico anyway?

[If you care about the details of my relationship with any public figures, feel free to ask in the comments.]

LEGAL, Does anyone know a good defamation lawyer? [D88]

West Suburban Journal (Kevin Williams) is not just floating the theory Dr. Nichelle Rivers planted the porn on Principal Paul Glover's computer, it's making the allegation in a headline.

Superintendent plot foiled; Glover retained, Rivers removed

A principal accused of having pornographic material on his district issued laptop, a superintendent accused of planting the material and releasing photos to the media and shredding documents is the latest controversy swirling around Bellwood McKinley Elementary School.

If the board majority and Glover have been floating the theory Rivers placed the porn on Glover's computer, none of the Chicago media outlets even included this in their stories.

Oh wait, I just finished reading the West Suburban Journal article.

The school board president Marilyn Thurman said that she had seen the pictures, and commented that she did not think they were bad, although they were on school property.

So, Glover's patron, school board president Marilyn Thurman is defending Glover by saying the pictures aren't that bad, but West Suburban Journal is floating the theory Rivers placed the pictures in the same article.

Don't you think if the pictures were planted by a third party he'd tell his patron on the school board?

BTW, Thurman's defense doesn't hold water. Employers can fire employees for using work computers for personal activities, although I consider it over-reacting when the personal use is relatively innocent, like checking email. However, after having been warned--especially about porn--almost any employer would terminate the individual in question.