Al Popowits, member of a group of residents who oppose the home rule referendum, sent an email to Village Administrator Eric Palm on Oct. 19 saying the materials on the site go beyond providing factual information, which the statute allows.
He argues in the email that “none of the disadvantages of Home Rule are provided to the residents, and only the alleged virtues of Home Rule are explored.”
According to the statute that addresses election interference, which Popowits cites in the email,
“No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or can be appropriated for political campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization.”
He added that the minority report from a committee that studied the issue in 2006 was deleted from the site, but Palm said both the minority and majority reports were taken off when the site was redone earlier this year.
On Oct. 23 — the day Popowits said he would contact the Cook County State’s Attorney if the village did not respond — Palm sent a response, written by Village Attorney Scott Uhler, which said the statute does not impose a mandate to balance positions on the home rule question.
“There is no standard or mathematical formula for ‘equalizing’ arguments about a public question under this statute,” he wrote.
“At all times, the village has made good-faith efforts to ensure that the information being provided residents about this public question is factual.”
Uhler added that the length a local government may go to provide possible pros and cons are controlled by the government, not the Election Code.
Popowits insists the village is denying they have done anything wrong.
He said the group will present the village response to their attorney, who will advise them on future steps.
“I think what they’ve done is they have selected their facts in such a way to make home rule attractive,” he said Friday. “We don’t believe they can do that with taxpayer money.”