This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

City's Electoral Board Continues Smart Meter Objection Hearing

The Electoral Board has set two additional hearings related to an objection that was filed against a non-binding referendum being placed on the March primary ballot.

A hearing held Tuesday afternoon to address an objection to the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness group’s seeking to have a non-binding referendum question placed on the March ballot was not resolved and was continued for additional hearings. 

During the hearing a number of issues were raised including the objector’s attorney seeking to potentially subpoena 17 volunteers who collected signatures on petitions, the attorney for the Smart Meter group asking that the objection be dismissed, and the Naperville Electoral Board saying it needs more time to make a decision.

The hearing was held before the Naperville Electoral Board, which is comprised of Mayor George Pradel, City Clerk Pam LaFeber and most senior Naperville City Council member Doug Krause. The city of Naperville’s Attorney Margo Ely served as an advisor during the hearing.

Find out what's happening in Napervillewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

On Dec. 27, Naperville resident William C. Dawe, filed an objection to the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness group’s proposed question seeking to ask residents if they want the to halt the Naperville Smart Grid Initiative, a $22 million project funded partly by a federal matching grant that the city has said will use the latest digital technology to increase reliability, reduce operating costs, improve efficiency and reduce waste. The city plans to install 57,000 of the meters in homes and businesses.

The ballot question specifically would ask voters:

Find out what's happening in Napervillewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“Shall the City of Naperville immediately and permanently stop the implementation of the $22 million smart meter project and dismantle all related equipment?”

The is comprised of residents who are concerned about the city of Naperville's plans to install smart meters in homes in Naperville, which begins this week.

The group has cited the smart grid project’s costs, security issues, health concerns, invasion of privacy, along with problems with smart meters in other communities across the country as reasons the city should hold off on pursuing the program.

The group submitted petitions in November seeking to have a non-binding referendum placed on the March ballot. December 27 was the last day an objection could be filed. The group has also filed for injunctive relief in federal court seeking to stop the city of Naperville’s Smart Grid Initiative.

Dawe’s attorney, Kevin McQuillan is seeking to have the question removed and the objection claims that there are issues with names on the petitions and also that the question is a two-part question. The objection sites four specific objections to the question being placed on the ballot.

He is seeking to potentially subpoena 17 volunteers who collected signatures on petitions because he said that some of the volunteers were not Naperville residents and because there are questions as to the validity of some of the signatures, claiming that many of the those who signed are not Naperville residents and also suggesting that some of the names were written by one of the petition circulators.

“Even with the evidence we have, they refuse to stipulate that there are people on these petitions who are not residents in Naperville or registered voters,” McQuillan said.

Ibendahl repeatedly asked that the board deny the objection, stating that McQuillan showed up to the hearing without evidence to prove his client’s case. Ibendahl also said that McQuillan’s seeking to subpoena the volunteers amounted to harassment.

Ely told McQuillan that he needs to find case law that shows it is within election law to subpoena the petition circulators.

Ibendahl took issue with the suggestion that the volunteers had tampered with the petitions. Ibendahl said this accusation makes his clients look like they committed "fraud."

“That’s absurd; that’s why I was objecting so much,” Ibendahl said. “He’s got no evidence for that. It’s a Hail Mary pass to disenfranchise good people from voting.”

Ely ordered McQuillan to submit a reduced list of subpoenas by 5 p.m. Wednesday with an offer of proof with the statutes and court cases supporting his objection that the signatures should be struck. Ibendahl has a chance to respond by 5 p.m. Thursday. McQuillan then has until 5 p.m. Thursday to file a response to the petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Ibendahl must file his rebuttal by 5 p.m. Friday.

The Electoral Board will decide 10 a.m. Friday on what witnesses will be subpoenaed and the board will reconvene 10 a.m. Monday for the continued hearing and the presentation of proof.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?