I don't understand why it matters how long ago she completed her undergraduate studies. The fact of the matter is that she did enough of the assigned work to satisfy the instructors and educational institution and they granted her a degree because of her proficiency. That proficiency didn't evaporate after she left - rather, I'd argue that it's become part of her personal knowledge base. That she chose to only practice law for 8 years or so doesn't cast her in a negative light - lots of people have JD's, but don't practice law. Lots of people practiced, chose not to do so, and moved on to something else. Again, it adds to her personal knowledge base and makes her more well-rounded.

If her mailer said "Atty with so-and-so" and you assumed it meant that she was currently an atty with them, that sounds like you read something into it. It didn't say "current atty", just "atty". Again, regardless of how long it's been - it was something she DID do, and which adds to her knowledge base - making her more well-rounded.

It's my understanding that the benefits, by IL law, can't be changed for a person while they're in office, it has to take effect once they're out of office - they're going away, no one's getting them in the future - she didn't approve them in the first place - that happened many moons ago.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but if I recall correctly, most of the sales tax dollars the City realizes are from auto sales - the downtown area only contributes a small portion - perhaps 10-15%. There are other commercial areas in Highland Park - each plays a role in contributing to the pot.

The point most people have made with regard to the Theater is that the City had no business going into the Theater business. There's a lot of things that could help to bring people to the east end, a theater isn't the only one. And as it's been argued before, theater attendance is on the decline due to the economy, and competition from other entertainment sources (many in people's private homes).

A supposed lack of experience is not a bad thing, to me, it means that someone won't be constrained by the same 'ole, same 'ole, and will be willing to take a fresh look at the way things are done.

Our form of City Government means that all have an equal vote. The Council hires a City Manager who actually handles the day-to-day operations of the City. The manager makes recommendations to the Council, based upon the recommendations he receives from his Staff and Department Heads, and the Mayor/Members of the Council vote yes or no.

Besides dealing with some tough decisions in the event of a Civil Emergency, the Mayor is essentially a figurehead representing the City. If you look at it from that standpoint, both candidates have the "experience" - if you listen to both of them speak in public, they're both eloquent. Both have relevant degrees, and can understand the financials.

In my opinion, the difference is that Nancy Rotering is more fiscally conservative. That's what we need right now. Growth of any kind is going to be little to nothing for the next 5-8 years as the marketplace and economy recovers. I want someone who's willing to focus on the gotta-have necessities, and is willing to forgo the nice-to-have's as part of a fiscal stability plan.

I've spent a ton of time looking at the city budget recently and it is pretty close to already cut to "gotta-have necessities". Remember that the city operates separate from the park district and schools, so the city's $83 million budget is already mainly a civil service budget. Does anyone think there is a way to reduce city spending by 20%? 30%? On a per-person basis, the city is currently spending $2767 per human annually; is there some realistic way to reduce per person expenditures in any kind of meaningful way?

One good example is the Movie Theater discussion. We can even put it in context of David's comment about the city government. In 2008, the Council voted *unanimously* to approve the city manager's recommendation to buy the Movie Theatre (page 14-15, http://www.cityhpil.com/pdf/ccMinutes/ccminutes112408.pdf ). The $2.1 million expenditure comes down to $70 per resident, a one-time cost. Sure, there is a shortfall in this year's budget, but it is minuscule (I think like $1 per household). Is that offset by the sales tax and other tax revenue from having this "anchor tenant" at the east end of the business district? What I've looked at says yes. Could the city also recoup that investment in selling? Maybe so.

It is easy to criticize a past expenditure when the critic was not part of the decision process. 7 elected people voted yes after the economy had already turned based on city manager recommendation. Would it really play differently now?

At the time of the vote on the Theater, the idea was to attract an outside Theater group (not movies, but live plays) to HP, work out a deal to rehab the theater building, and turn it into a performing arts venue. If I recall correctly, HP reached out to the Writer's Guild in Glencoe, but that deal ultimately never came to fruition.
So here we are, stuck with a movie theater. Yes, it's a Highland Park icon, yes I've been there. But honestly, I don't ever plan on going back to that theater because I don't see the value in going to a theater to watch a movie when I can watch the same movie at home, on my setup, with sound I can control, food I can make at a decent price, and I can hit pause... There's more advantages, but I've hashed them out in previous posts so I'm not going to repeat them here.

I've presented many cost cutting possibilities to the Council - getting a million in savings isn't that difficult. One way that will cut $200K is forgoing street plantings. They're not a basic necessity, we can live just fine without them until the economy recovers. Lighting is another $5,000/month expense - just over at Port Clinton - I've recommended cost saving measures there too.
Just go through the Warrant List (it's in the Council packets for download) and you'll see what we spend on month after month. The City generally does a good job, but there's room for improvement.

I wouldn't presume to know what her political leanings are or how they would compare to the Tea Party. That'd be something you'd need to ask Nancy.

So if you don't know her political leanings, what makes you believe that she is a fiscal conservative? For instance, she has worked as a legislative aide for Karen May, who recently voted a huge tax increase. Maybe that means she is in favor of higher taxes, though I honestly don't believe that. My point is that we don't know other than voting records, and they both voted the same way on the budget, but for different reasons.

I understand that you seem not to be interested in a long term vision, and that's where we disagree. My point is that when Port Clinton was planned (in a recession, I might add) that if the City took your position, that development wouldn't have happened and the City would have lost.

Two additional points. First, i support Karen May even though I am not in love with the tax increase. Voting for it doesn't make her fiscally irresponsible.

Second, the councilperson who understands the current situation better than anyone is Larry Silberman, who goes to work every day doing workouts on failed loans. He is the probably the most effective council person we have, and he is supporting Terri.

Her voting record and the public statements that I've heard her make are what make me believe she's more of a fiscal conservative than Olian. With regard to having been a legislative aid for Karen May - I don't read anything into that, perhaps she was looking for a job, one was offered, and despite her own personal views, she did the job she was tasked with.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm not interested in a long-term vision. Nothing could be farther from the truth. However, long-term is 10 yrs or more out, short term 2-9.9 years, immediate term 1-2 years. Right now, we can have all the long-term plans we want - the trick is how to get there. If you have an economic situation that's not going to fund your long term plans, but will fund some of your immediate gotta have's - then that's what you focus on, and you revisit the long-term plan from time-to-time to see how you can make progress on that. Sometimes you have to change the long-term and short-term plans because stuff happens.

I do not support Karen May - because she has often said one thing, and then done something else. The tax increase that was passed is the WORST thing for everyone in Illinois. And then coming back to us and saying that they thought the tax increase would fix things, but then they 'discovered' another "billion dollar hole", in my book means they didn't do the homework first or it wouldn't have been a surprise.

Who made the loans now being worked out?

C,Mon Steve, the only reason you are backing her is #1 you know that would have lost again had you run and #2 you and Nancy, if she is elected, will try to at once to get rid of Dave Limardi and then get the two of you a weak city manager that you can control!

I've had the pleasure to meet quite a few people who are in leadership roles in the City government. I've found them ALL to be highly proficient and professional. We may not always see eye-to-eye on certain policies - but that doesn't mean I believe they're doing a poor job. Public Works does a great job, and they have some great policies in place for evaluating things properly when it comes to roads. The Police and Fire are extremely professional, honest and fair. Both Chiefs are nice guys and really know their stuff.

Am I happy about lights at Wolter's shining down the streets? The PA's that are often too loud and audible in my home with the windows closed (1200' away)? Kettle drums from a marching band at 7, 8, 9 PM? People parking on the street without permits during the games? Screaming kids blowing horns on the street? No - of course not, but I've been working with the City and D113 over the years to remedy those issues.

We're getting a new Mayor and 3 City Council members. Other Boards are changing too. It's not just I who believe that Civic leaders should change, it's many other people - including the leaders who decided not to run for re-election. And that's not a bad thing. In my opinion, political office isn't a lifetime job, nor should it be. But that's another conversation...

I never said I was satisfied that the Mayor was a figurehead. I said "the mayor is BASICALLY a figurehead". I said that because that's pretty true - the Mayor is the face of Highland Park to other governmental bodies, or bond houses, etc. The Mayor can't make any unilateral decisions on his or her own. The Mayor is but one vote among the Council, and the Council generally solicits and acts upon recommendations given to them by the City Manager and Staff.

Regardless of whether you're leading a City or a Business or a Boy Scout Troop - the same principles apply. Look at where you are, look at where you want to go, figure out how to get there. If you don't know how to get there, you ask an advisor - which is what the City Manager is to the City Council.

Our Mayor, whomever she is, can't unilaterally create economic growth. There's a lot that goes into it, and today's economy is much different than those of days past. It requires new ways of thinking and conserving resources. Nor can she create programs for Youth and/or Seniors - both are laudable concerns, but ultimately both have costs associated with them that will have to be debated by the Council, Staff, and the Public. So while they can bring ideas and tools to the table, it doesn't automatically guarantee they're going to get anything done any better than anyone else because of how our government is set up.

Joe: Look, I like Nancy. i served with her. I supported her for City Council. I would never question her character or her integrity. Knowing Nancy I find her campaign to be focused on things that really have no bearing on the position. For instance, what is wrong to suggest that not buying the theater would have a greater impact on the City than she realizes? That is debate, not personal attacks. She is campaigning as a "fiscal conservative" and advocates a very limited role for government. In today's political environment, that is the rallying cry of the Tea Party. I don't think she believes that, but I do think Mr. Greenberg does, and he is entitled to, just as well as we are entitled to believe otherwise.

Despite your assertion, I believe that looking at the qualities of the City that go beyond dollars and cents, that make a community is a discussion worth having and is, by its nature, positive.

Joe: Please don't talk about Teri being Negative. Nancy has been negative from the time she got on the council which by the way would never had happened if Mike Brenner had not let himself be talked out of using yard signs

Thanks for bringing perspective back to the discussion. Both candidates are putting out position statements regularly on their websites. Any voter wishing to become informed on the issues should read them. Nancy's site is www.friendsofnancy.com. Terri's is www.olianformayor.com.

Issues should be what matter. Become educated and cast your vote for the candidate who's vision reflects the City you want to see.

Please note that you will not find anywhere, an email or other distribution by the Nancy campaign that tries to shred the opponent, misrepresent the other, or engage in any form of diatribe or mud-slinging. ALL of Nancy's communications focus only on what Nancy stands for, wants to do, is capable of, her vision, etc. Sadly, you cannot say the same for the Olian campaign. It is riddled with strident, defensive, angry, accusatory language. A bullet-by-bullet missive? really? Objection! Argumentative. Every editorial that deigns to support Nancy is immediately met with the team of fire-breathing writers trying desperately to detract from the positive review of Rotering. Do you see attacks on pro-Terri letters? No. Why> Because Nancy supporters do not see the point in arguing when you need to be establishing what you stand for and what you believe in and what you can accomplish for the City of HP. Nancy is the leader in the campaign and she has been clear in her commitment to sticking to the High Road. Focus on the task at hand, do not roll in dirt. You think they are close in qualities. You are entitled to your opinion. If you are looking at the campaign styles to make the difference, they are vastly different.

A final comment, since clearly I seem to be getting no response from you (guess I might have to do some mud-slinging, but I won't): I'm not too familiar with Nancy's emails and communications, but I have seen numbers of articles, comments, and letters to the editor from her supporters that do an excellent job with bashing Olian and her supporters without any factual basis. And the bullet-by-bullet missive you talk about? Hardly argumentative (which in court, just to clarify for the readers who don't have law backgrounds, is an objection which is raised when a question or comment made by a questioning attorney is meant solely to cause an argument, not for a factual basis) - every point in the email you mention was fact based. If Nancy or her supporters want to create a fact-based email or followup to challenge that, so be it. But like the article re: Mike Belsky that you enjoy, since he hasn't denied it, it must be true! Like I said - if you have facts to refute anything that anyone's supporters have said, be it Olian's or Rotering's, excellent. But the reason you haven't seen me throwing facts out here is simple: I don't have any that I feel I need to throw out. The campaign is about the candidates, not their supporters.

A note to readers: I hope you'll read each and every comment on here and take them for what they're worth.

This is utter B.S. the no sign’s campaign was only to Keep Nancy out. And you no that.

Point #2. Steve Mandel is one of the best City Councilmen Highland Park has ever seen. That’s not easy for me to say, because I have had strong differences with him. If you don’t believe me, go look at his web page, Steve has enough respect for his fellow citizens to explain his position on every issue before the counsel. As For Nancy making negative comments about Steve, never happened, the fact is she has great respect for him.

Sorry Lee, but I've never found Steve Mandel to be a negative nelly in any sense of the word. Sure, he may differ in opinion from others on the Council or in the Community - but that's DEMOCRACY my friend. Not everyone's opinion is going to align with everyone else's - and in my opinion, that's a GOOD thing.

Joe - Absolutely! You are a reflection of the company you keep. Terri does not seem to grasp that at all. Belsky is a foul-mouthed, rage-filled guy with anger issues. She "didn't hear it"??? Someone has serious lack of attention and listening skills. His accusations are delusional and ridiculous. Every voter I encounter says " I will not vote for the negative campaigners" and they are appropriately turned off by Terri's minions/diatribe writers. Nancy is a well known, level, thoughtful, kind, open leader with STERLING integrity. They are SO OBVIOUSLY trying to paint her as some kind of other person. Hey, good luck with that. Facts are facts. I pray the voters of this town Reject your mean-spirited mudslinging and choose the intelligent, honest, inclusive leadership of Nancy Rotering

Frank... yet again, please read the full article. "Olian attended the dinner, but said she didn’t hear Belsky call Rotering a name since she was not in the room at the time." If anyone can be in one room and hear someone else say something in another room down the hall, more power to them. But I find it hard to believe anyone short of a bionic ear could do that. Also, who is the "they" you refer to? As you say, "facts are facts" - do you have any evidence from your comment just below that Belsky "put his favorite pet Terri up to run in his place"? Do you have any evidence that they, in fact, are "thick as thieves"? They often vote differently, and hold different viewpoints on several key issues in the city. By your logic, Terri, Nancy, Steve, and Mike could all be "thick as thieves" because they've voted the same on some of the omnibus items on last Monday's agenda. I also didn't see anyone mention that Nancy speaks poorly of Steve Mandel behind his back. "Get the facts", as you say. Please do. If anything I've mentioned in any of my comments is wrong, and I'm proven wrong with evidence (not hate speech), I consistently correct myself, as should any good reader or writer.

Hi Frank -

I've mostly stayed out of this because obviously opinions vary. However, as you point out, facts do not. When I reported on the coffee I attended with Rotering, I indicated that she had at times made statements that did not align with her actions or voting record. The column itself documents one related to the recent change in the Highland Park dog licensing ordinance.
http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/what-i-learned-from-having-coffee-with-my-candidates
I have two other examples that I haven't published, including one where I gave Rotering an opportunity to fact check but never received a response (weeks later). It is a testimonial to the strength of the Patch editorial team that we are being extremely judicious about writing only facts, even in an opinion column such as mine.
Regarding negative campaigns, I've been subjected to "whisper" topics throughout this campaign, and even seen Rotering's campaign staff actively promote negative (and, as it turns out, factually inaccurate) content via Facebook and Twitter (e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/alyssaknobel/status/40397534421725185 ). I do not see the same coming from the Olian campaign.

and...the Tweet I linked to above just 45 minutes ago seems to have been deleted. It was a link to a factually inaccurate citizen contribution to Triblocal Highland Park. I've got screen shots of that same link promoted by the same person on Facebook.

and as one final follow-up, I've learned this afternoon that Nancy's campaign staff has blocked me and others from being able to see their Facebook information, including their postings on Nancy's "all information is public" candidate page.

So much for no negative campaigning.

Lee Rosenberg
2:20pm on Wednesday, March 2, 2011
You must be delusional. First of all Belsky dropped the F Bomb not Teri and second of all she made the comment that it was un called for. If you think people are going to vote for Nancy because of Belsky's F bomb, your a very very confused person

It all comes down to this, the little boys are not going to slip there flunkeys into positions of responsibility any more, period end of story.

Lee you are the delusional one. "If that guy supports Terri, then maybe I should rethink this..." is what I heard (in various versions) no less than 30 times today! Terri and Belsky are thick as thieves and everyone knows that he put out a letter for support and was told by even close advisors that he could NEVER beat Nancy so he put his favorite pet Terri up to run in his place. Get a clue. Get the facts. And btw, Nancy has nothing but respect for Steve Mandel, and never speaks ill of him "privately" or otherwise! You are grossly misinformed. As if I had to write that for the readers to understand it!

I am Charlie Sheen or......______ ________.

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it!

Steve, I know you weren't at the coffee I was at, so I simply refer back to the quote "Why do we need an affidavit?" as the rhetoric. It wasn't a point of the burden on notarizing, rather on the burden of the affidavit. Whether I agree or not if that is a burden, the point is, it is something y'all voted for, so to criticize it rhetorically now seems puzzling. Thanks for the details.

Steve: First of all you are a councilman and should stay out of this but of course as usual you have to get your two cents in so as long long as you decided to join in I have a question for you.If Nancy, for some unknown reson gets elected, will you and her make an effort to get rid of Dave Limardi. After all isn't that your whole reason for backing Nancy who by the way has made it very clear that she doesnt like you and is only using you to tru to get elected. The word is out that you want to get rid of the strong city manager and bring in a weak one that you think you can control becasue Dave Limardi, thank goodness, will not take your BS come up with

Didn't you just tell Steve through your comment above that he "should stay out of this but of course as usual you have to get your two cents in"?

So you don't want him to talk, but you're upset about him not answering? Wow. Just Wow.

Yes Lee, I am running for D113 School Board. I am opposed to the current $133 million referendum because it's not well-thought out, it's too expensive (about $201 million with interest figured in), and despite all the money that the District wants to spend, we still haven't been told precisely how the funding will affect the education of the students, or why despite the fact that we give District 113 millions per year toward the Operations/Maintenance fund that they still haven't adequately addressed their maintenance and repair needs. Instead, the focus appears to be on expensive competitive athletics.

The District proposes upgrading and installing technology so the students can get a "21st Century Education" - but they haven't defined what a "21st Century Education" is and the role that technology will play. No one's told us what the proposed expensive technology will be used for or now it will enhance the curriculum.

To be clear - I AM wholeheartedly in favor of a quality education, but I want to do so without overburdening the taxpayers.

Thank you Lee.

Just as an aside - for several years now I've been promoting the concept of intergovernmental cooperation to the City Council, both D112 and D113 School Boards, and the Park District in areas where it makes sense (e.g.:it wouldn't make sense for the City to try and dictate curriculum).

With the economy being what it is, some have started to listen - it's my understanding that the City has started exploring regional partnerships with other municipalities to lower costs by increasing the economies of scale when they purchase things like road salt and tar.

I also believe that the Park District and D112 have begun exploring similar partnerships.

And D113 has some purchasing consortiums which they buy paper and other items from.

These are all starting points, but I believe they all have a lot more work to do, and that by sitting down and figuring out the overlap - the Boards of these taxing bodies can gain efficiencies, and cost savings which could ultimately translate to a less onerous tax burden for all of us.

If I'm elected to the D113 School Board - this is one of the issues that I will push to address.

Visit my campaign website for more information:

http://www.davidgreenberg.org