↓ Archives ↓

Category → The Issues

Conservative Host Mike Gallagher Endorses Ives On National Program

For Immediate Release

Conservative Host Mike Gallagher Endorses Ives On National Program
“[Electing] Jeanne Ives is absolutely necessary in the State of Illinois.”

January 9, 2018 – This morning, State Representative Jeanne Ives, a conservative reform candidate for Governor, was interviewed and endorsed by radio talk show host Mike Gallagher on his national program. Gallagher expressed his support for Ives saying, “[Electing] Jeanne Ives is absolutely necessary in the State of Illinois.”

On the program, Ives told Gallagher, “[Rauner] completely betrayed our party… I went to West Point. The honor code is, ‘A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.’ A really important part of that is you don’t ‘tolerate those who do.’ So, when Governor Rauner lied to us [about HB 40] and continued crony capitalist bailouts, I had to stand up. That’s what I’ve been trained to do. And that’s what I’ve been doing for 5 years in Springfield.”

Listen to the full interview here.

Tomorrow, nearly 200 supporters will be in attendance at a fundraiser featuring Gallagher that will benefit Ives bid for Governor.

Where: Westin Lombard, 70 Yorktown Shopping Center, Lombard, Illlinois
When: January 10, 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

For more information or to book Jeanne Ives, contact Kathleen Murphy 630-329-4680 or kathleenemurphy26@gmail.com.

Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI.”

Byron York: What the Trump dossier criminal referral means
by Byron York | Jan 6, 2018, 6:33 AM

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa (pictured right), and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote a Thursday letter to the Justice Department about Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier. Here’s what seems to be going on. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa (pictured right), and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote a Thursday letter to the Justice Department about Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier. Here’s what seems to be going on. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Sign up for In Our Opinion commentary

There’s been a lot of confusion about the decision by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and crime subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham to refer Christopher Steele, author of the Trump dossier, to the Justice Department for a possible criminal investigation.

The two senators sent a brief letter Thursday to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and FBI director Christopher Wray. The letter, which was unclassified and released to the public Friday, was a cover letter for what Grassley and Graham called a “classified memorandum related to certain communications between Christopher Steele and multiple U.S. news outlets regarding the so-called ‘Trump dossier’ that Mr. Steele compiled on behalf of Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and also provided to the FBI.”

Entrepreneur Elevator Pitch Ep12: Glamping, Stress Relievers, Burgers and More!
Watch Full Screen
Grassley and Graham said that, on the basis of the classified information laid out in the memo, “we are respectfully referring Mr. Steele to you for investigation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, for statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier.” (18 U.S.C. 1001 is the same federal false statements law that special counsel Robert Mueller has used to charge Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos in the Trump-Russia investigation.)

That’s all Grassley and Graham said, or at least all they said that was released to the public. The classified memo, of course, was not released at all.

It was all very confusing. What did the letter mean? Were Grassley and Graham alleging that Steele lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee? To some other congressional committee? To other investigators? If so, to whom?

The move met with skepticism in a number of circles. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called it an “effort to deflect attention” from the Trump-Russia probe. A former prosecutor called it “nonsense” in an interview with the Washington Post. A law professor speculated that it was “baseless.”

At the same time, few outside the committee seemed to understand what the letter meant. So, here is what appears to be going on:

Steele has not talked to any of the three congressional committees investigating the Trump-Russia affair – the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the House Intelligence Committee. Steele did not make false statements to them because he has not made any statements to them.

Steele has, reportedly, talked to Mueller’s prosecutors, but it seems highly unlikely Grassley and Graham are suggesting Steele lied to Mueller because it is highly unlikely – actually, beyond highly unlikely – that the Mueller office would have shared any of Steele’s answers with the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, what were Grassley and Graham referring to in their letter? What are the “statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made” that Grassley and Graham believe might be false?

The answer is that Steele talked – and talked a lot – to the FBI. Remember that when he began to compile the dossier in the summer of 2016, Steele reportedly concluded the sensational information he had picked up – allegations of election collusion and Trump sexual escapades in Russia – was so important that he had to take it to the FBI. Steele told the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones that he first took the material to the FBI “near the start of July.”

That began a series of communications between Steele and the bureau in which Steele made certain representations to the FBI about his work. It is a crime to make false statements to the FBI – doesn’t have to be under oath, doesn’t have to be in a formal interview or interrogation setting, it’s simply a criminal act to knowingly make a false statement to the FBI.

As a result of their talks, Steele and the FBI reached a tentative agreement whereby the FBI would pay Steele to continue the anti-Trump work.

All the while, Steele was also working for the opposition research firm Fusion GPS – his dossier was the result of a Fusion anti-Trump project funded by the Clinton campaign. As part of that, Steele briefed reporters on what he had found. In a London court case, Steele’s lawyers said that in September 2016, Fusion GPS directed Steele to brief reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the New Yorker, Yahoo News, and, later, Mother Jones. Steele did each briefing individually.

One serious question is whether Steele told the FBI that he was telling reporters the same information – those explosive allegations about Trump and Trump associates – that he was bringing to bureau investigators. If the FBI knew that, would they have agreed to an arrangement to make Steele a paid FBI operative investigating the Trump-Russia affair? That would have been a most unorthodox arrangement, with Steele disseminating his allegations to the FBI and the press simultaneously.

That is not exactly how the FBI operates. So now the question is: When Steele was discussing working for the FBI, did he fully inform the FBI of what his work for the Clinton campaign involved, in particular his briefing the press on the findings he would be reporting to the FBI? To use Grassley’s and Graham’s words, were the “statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier” accurate?

One way to find that out is to compare what Steele told the London court with what Steele told the FBI. Some of the London court testimony is public. As for what Steele told the FBI, the Senate Judiciary Committee has examined a lot of dossier-related material from the FBI under an agreement that allows the committee to view materials the bureau has originally produced to the House Intelligence Committee.

It appears that Grassley and Graham are pursuing inconsistencies between what Steele told the FBI and what Steele told the London court. If they conflict, which is true? If what Steele told the FBI was untrue, that’s a problem.

Ultimately, the Steele-FBI deal fell through, for reasons that have never been publicly disclosed.

But there has been much speculation that the FBI used information from the uncorroborated dossier to seek court permission to spy on Americans in the Trump-Russia investigation. That would be a big deal, and it is an issue House and Senate Republicans are determined to sort out.

“I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation,” Grassley said in a statement Friday. “But, as I would with any credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review. Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI.”

“Maybe there is some innocent explanation for the inconsistencies we have seen,” Grassley continued, “but it seems unlikely.”

George Papadopoulos Fusion GPS House Intelligence Committee Christopher Wray Robert Mueller Rod Rosenstein Mike Flynn Senate Intelligence Committee Justice Department Chuck Grassley Donald Trump Dianne Feinstein Lindsey Graham FBI Senate Judiciary Committee Byron York Congress White House Opinion Beltway Confidential

Balich wants to look at potentially anti-business policies through economic viewpoint

Balich wants to look at potentially anti-business policies through economic viewpoint
by Steve Balich on July 24, 2017

Economic development committee wants to review county policies
Members want to look at potentially anti-business policies through economic viewpoint
July 19, 2017

JOLIET – Part of the mission statement of the Will County Board’s Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee is to make sure policies are business friendly and work toward economic growth.

But concerns about regulations that could be harmful to business growth continue to grow among some county officials.

Will County Center for Economic Development President and CEO John Greuling said oftentimes, prospective and existing businesses will run into delays with regulations and permits.

Committee member Steve Balich, R-Homer Glen, said he wanted to reconsider every part of the county’s building code two years ago, but the county’s land use department didn’t want to. Recently, he wanted to go over every part of the zoning code, but it was voted against.

“It’s basically a hindrance to business,” Balich said. “We as a county say we want business to come and we want to promote business, but we change our rules so it’s harder for you to operate.”

Balich pointed to one in-home business case in New Lenox Township that might have sparked potential changes to the county’s rules on in-home businesses, calling the land use department a bureaucracy that “just wants to expand and grow.”

“Their job, in their mind, is to make more rules and regulations and make it so they have more work to do,” Balich said. “Our job is to say no – we want businesses to come here and we want people to thrive.”

Committee Chairman Chuck Maher, R-Naperville, said committee members should bring any policies they encounter in other committees and see as negative to business to this ad-hoc committee. Greuling and others could do the same, and have the policies reviewed from an economic development standpoint.

“We can bring it in and have a discussion, not from a land use view, but from an economic development view,” Maher said.

Balich said he and other county board members have to be careful they aren’t “screwing” businesses, and that a law shouldn’t be made for one person or 10, it should be made for the entire county.

Regulations should match the desired goal of economic growth but often don’t

53:10 minutes pertains to Homer Glen Near the end pertains to Economic Development in General

Why you should vote for Fricilone & Balich

me and Mike at opening of recorder of deeds & cororner office Jan 20 2015
Name: Stephen J. Balich

Age: Not provided

Town: Orland Park (mailing address)

Occupation: N/A

Affiliation: Republican

Elected Political Experience: December 2012-present Will County Board Member, District 7; previously served as Homer Township Trustee

Why are you running for a seat in the 7th District?

My name is Steve Balich. I am running for re-election to the Will County Board, representing Homer Glen, City of Lockport, Unincorporated Homer Township and New Lenox, north of Interstate 80. Www.electbalich.com provides information about what I have done. Making a difference in people’s lives by being a person of action, not just words, is important. Being available to help people both in District 7 and in Will County is also important. (815) 557-7196. Less taxes, smaller government and less regulations are my guiding principles. I want to continue to be a public servant making life better for people in Will County.

What makes you the best candidate for this position?

I have been able to move issues with no support forward, eventually passing: stopping aerial photos from being used to initiate building code violations and people getting their money back for towing, storage and administrative fees if they are not guilty in court. Being against tax increases, I spoke and voted against raises for elected officials. I do not take the pension and spoke against any county board member taking it. Going to most all the meetings, which I do, is an important part of the position, because that’s where opportunities to make changes begin. Being not only available to citizens but being active in the community is necessary to understand the issues. I am not afraid to stand with a resident that is getting nowhere in a dispute with local government. I believe everyone deserves respect, and it is my job to help to the best of my ability.

What are the Top 3 issues you see facing the district, and what would you do to solve them?

County issues are overshadowed by how to fund them. Every board member needs to spend taxpayer money as if it was their own, and vote with the understanding of the consequence of that vote. Raising property taxes is something I can’t vote for, unless there is an extremely powerful argument. Even then, I would demand to ask the people with a referendum.

The court house, sheriff facility and health department are going to be built without raising taxes. Republicans took control of the board and said “no” to the Public Safety Tax proposed by the Democrats. These buildings are in distress should have been replaced long ago.

Jobs are so important. Building trade unions and non-union positions need government to follow the law, standing against illegal immigrants taking their work. Bringing unvetted refugees to Will County is a bad idea, overloading the system.

Public safety will continue to be a huge issue. We need to support our police, who must deal with media-driven disdain for police. Heroin is a problem we are addressing with education. However, creating a positive environment, where addicts can get a good job and even raise a family, should be a goal. Putting people in jail is very costly. The county is currently trying to find innovative ways to reduce the population. I serve on the judicial, legislative, land use, economic development, forest preserve operations and forest preserve finance committees, with the understanding government is there for the people, not the people as servants to the government.

Name: Mike Fricilone

Age: 62

Town: Homer Glen

Occupation: Director of Sales

Affiliation: Republican

Elected Political Experience: December 2012-present, Will County Board

Why are you running for re-election in 7th District?

I believe a lot has been accomplished in the past four years, and I want to continue the progress we have made. We have started several projects that I would like to see through. The public safety complex and the county courthouse are two projects that I want to make sure do not exceed their budget and do not increase our tax burden.

I also want to make sure that the road projects in District 7 receive top priority.

What makes you the best candidate for this position?

As a businessman, I bring a different approach to how government should be run. I am not a career politician. I am here to make sure we run an efficient operation that provides the best services to the community for the least tax dollars. In a business, you are always working to provide the best product at the lowest cost. Why can’t government do the same?

In the last two years, we have found a way to upgrade the Sheriff’s [Office] vehicles and start two new buildings all while lowering the tax rate. That’s efficient government.

What are the Top 3 issues you see facing the district, and what would you do to the solve them?

Roads are No. 1. With the increased traffic flow on I-355 our arterial roads can no longer handle the volume.

The expansion of 159th street, 143rd street and improvements on 135th street are key to providing for current and future needs. While all these projects are under construction or still in the planning stages I will continue to make these top priority at the County.

Taxes – As Chairman of the Finance Committee I have worked with all County Board members to reduce our tax rate each of the last two years. I will continue to make our County efficient offering great services while reducing your tax burden.

While the heroin epidemic has not been as noticeable in District 7, it is a problem in Will County and that affects us all. I will continue to look for grant monies to fund new programs and bolster the programs we are currently running, with the end goal of eliminating this problem.

A healthy community, better roads and lower cost to the taxpayer is my ultimate me and Mike at opening of recorder of deeds & cororner office Jan 20 2015

Balich: County buildings won’t be ‘soft target’ if Will County Board members carry firearms

Balich: County buildings won’t be ‘soft target’ if Will County Board members carry firearms
County committee to discuss concealed carry

Published: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 10:24 p.m. CDT
Wight Engineering event 402

By MIKE MALLORY – mmallory@shawmedia.com
JOLIET – A Will County Board member said Tuesday that he has support from Republican and Democratic board members for his proposed resolution that would allow board members to carry concealed firearms in county buildings.

Steve Balich, R-Homer Glen, on June 14 introduced to the board’s Legislative and Policy Committee a rough draft of a resolution he wrote prior to the June 12 Orlando nightclub shooting. Board members are not allowed to carry firearms in county buildings. Balich expects a formal discussion to take place Tuesday when the committee meets.

Balich believes allowing board members who have a valid Firearm Owners Identification card to carry concealed firearms would have significant benefits.

It would keep county buildings from being viewed as a “soft target” – one where would-be offenders only have to be concerned with a handful of armed law enforcement officers. Balich said a potentially armed board, composed of 26 people, would lower or eliminate the loss of life and improve safety in the county’s public buildings.

He’s not saying each member should carry, but rather they should be able to if they so choose. He said an intruder wouldn’t know who was carrying.

“If 26 people are able to carry, that’s a big deterrent to a mass shooting,” Balich said.

Balich said the move also would save the county money, especially when a new 11-story courthouse is built and more security officers are required.

He referenced Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/21-6, which says anyone who carries or stores weapons in buildings or on land supported by public funds commits a Class A misdemeanor if they do so without prior written permission from the property’s chief security officer.

Balich said he interprets this to mean that a resolution is not necessary, and a chief security officer would have a “hard time” trying to give a reasonable denial to a properly licensed gun owner.

Balich said he sent the statute and similar laws from other governmental bodies to Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe for review. A message left Tuesday with Tatroe was not immediately returned.

Balich said he’s received support when talking to board members from both political parties. He said opinions on the Second Amendment are personal choices.

“National TV likes to blow it up, but it’s not a Republican-Democrat thing,” Balich said. “It’s more of a personal thing. It’s about whether you believe people should have a right to defend themselves.”

He expects a vote on the matter will not be tied to party allegiances.

Balich Fundraiser June 2, 2016

Balich Resolution to allow Will County Board members to Carry concealed weapons in County Buildings


This is the Resolution Presented June 16th 2016 at the Legislative Committee

Where as: There are terrorist attacks happening by the week, County Board/Forest Preserve elected officials are taking votes on issues;
Where as: Some armed security should be present, but it’s unfair to the taxpayer, to pay for sufficient armed security officers at meetings while numerous Will County Board Members/Commissioners have the proper license to carry concealed;
Where as: It’s not the licensed, law-abiding, trusted elected County Board Member/Commissioner we need to worry about;
Where as: An exception to Illinois’ weapons ban was carved out for elected or appointed municipal officials in 1872, enabling elected officials to carry firearms, make arrests, interview suspects, and even hold them in custody.
Where as: Public Act 90-0540 and (65 ILCS 5/3.1-15-25) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1-15-25)
Sec. 3.1-15-25 allow for An Conservator of Peace Designation;
Where as: (60 ILCS 1/100-10) allows for a Township Enforcement Officer appointed by the Township;
Where as: Allowing Elected Will County Board Members/ Forest Preserve Commissioners with current concealed carry permits the ability to help in securing the safety of everyone at no cost to the taxpayer;
Therefore: We Do Resolve: Properly licensed Will County Board Members/Forest Preserve Commissioners should be allowed to exercise their right to carry concealed firearms in the County /Froest Preserve properties either by Resolution or Ordinance.

The following are statutes used in the Resolution

‘Conservator of the peace’
The Conservator of the Peace title is still used in the USA. For example, in Virginia, Special Conservators of the Peace have all the powers of a peace officer or law enforcement and are authorized to perform arrests, carry firearms as part of their duties, direct traffic, use a police logo on their uniform and utilize police style lights on their vehicles. They operate on public property such as court houses, parks and open spaces, housing developments, etc
The Illinois’ weapons ban was carved out for elected or appointed municipal officials in 1872, enabling them to carry firearms, make arrests and interview suspects, and even hold them in custody.
While state law does not offer an exact definition of the term, it generally refers to an official whose primary employment is not as a police officer.
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-15-25) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1-15-25)
Sec. 3.1-15-25. Conservators of the peace; service of
(a) After receiving a certificate attesting to the
successful completion of a training course administered by
the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, the
mayor, aldermen, president, trustees, marshal, deputy
marshals, and policemen in municipalities shall be
conservators of the peace. Those persons and others
authorized by ordinance shall have power (i) to arrest or
cause to be arrested, with or without process, all persons
who break the peace or are found violating any municipal
ordinance or any criminal law of the State, (ii) to commit
arrested persons for examination, (iii) if necessary, to
detain arrested persons in custody over night or Sunday in
any safe place or until they can be brought before the proper
court, and (iv) to exercise all other powers as conservators
of the peace prescribed by the corporate authorities.
(b) All warrants for the violation of municipal
ordinances or the State criminal law, directed to any person,
may be served and executed within the limits of a
municipality by any policeman or marshal of the municipality.
For that purpose, policemen and marshals have all the common
law and statutory powers of sheriffs.
(Source: P.A. 87-1119.)

Public Act 90-0540
(70 ILCS 1205/4-7) (from Ch. 105, par. 4-7)
Sec. 4-7. Employees; police force. The board of any
park district may employ engineers, attorneys, clerks and
other employees, including a police force, as may be
required, and may define and prescribe their respective
duties and compensation. After receiving a certificate
attesting to the successful completion of a training course
administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training
Standards Board, the members of the board and all police
officers appointed by the board shall be conservators of the
peace within and upon the parks, boulevards, driveways, and
property controlled by that park district, and shall have
power to make arrests subject to the provisions of the Park
District Police Act. The exercise of such authority shall not
permit the possession or use of firearms by members of the
board. (Members of the Board must have the certificate to Carry)
(Source: P.A. 89-458, eff. 5-24-96.)

Township constable/Enforcement Officer is an appointed position
(60 ILCS 1/100-10)
Sec. 100-10. Township enforcement officer.
(a) The township board may appoint one or more township enforcement officers to serve for a term of one year and may remove an officer with or without cause. Every person appointed to the office of township enforcement officer, before entering on the duties of the office and within 10 days after being notified of the appointment, shall cause to be filed in the office of the township clerk a notice signifying his or her acceptance of the office. A neglect to cause the notice to be filed shall be deemed a refusal to serve.
(b) The sheriff of the county in which the township is situated may disapprove any such appointment within 30 days after the notice is filed. The disapproval precludes that person from serving as a township enforcement officer, and the township board may appoint another person to that position subject to approval by the sheriff.
(c) Every person appointed to the office of township enforcement officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall execute, with sufficient sureties to be approved by the supervisor or clerk of the township, an instrument in writing by which the township enforcement officer and his or her sureties shall jointly and severally agree to pay to each and every person who may be entitled thereto all sums of money as the township enforcement officer may become liable to pay on account of any neglect or default of the township enforcement officer or on account of any misfeasance of the township enforcement officer in the discharge of, or failure to faithfully perform, any of the duties of the office.
(d) The township enforcement officers shall have the same power and authority within the township as a deputy sheriff but only for the purpose of enforcing township ordinances. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, township enforcement officers are authorized to enforce county ordinances within areas of a county located within the township pursuant to intergovernmental agreements between the respective county and township to the extent authorized by the agreement. The township enforcement officer shall not carry firearms and will not be required to comply with the Peace Officer and Probation Officer Firearm Training Act. The officer shall attend law enforcement training classes conducted by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board. The township board shall appropriate all necessary monies for the training.
(d-5) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, in all actions for the violation of any township ordinance, township enforcement officers shall be authorized to issue and to serve upon any person who the township enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of a violation of a township ordinance a notice of violation that shall constitute a summons and complaint. A copy of such notice of violation shall be forwarded to the circuit court having jurisdiction over the township where the violation is alleged to have been committed. Every person who has been issued a summons shall appear for trial, and the action shall be prosecuted in the corporate name of the township. Enforcement of county ordinances shall be in accordance with procedures adopted by the county and any applicable State law.
(2) In all actions for violation of any township ordinance when the fine would not be in excess of $500 and no jail term could be imposed, service of summons may be made by the township clerk by certified mail, return receipt requested, whether service is to be within or without the State.
(e) The township enforcement officers shall carry identification documents provided by the township board identifying him or her as a township enforcement officer. The officers shall notify the township clerk of any violations of township ordinances.
(f) Nothing in this Code precludes a county auxiliary deputy or deputy sheriff, or a municipal policeman or auxiliary police officer from serving as a township enforcement officer during off-duty hours.
(g) The township board may provide compensation for the township enforcement officer on either a per diem or a salary basis.

Balich: Will County Board members should be allowed to carry guns

Balich: Will County Board members should be allowed to carry guns
Susan DeMar LaffertyContact ReporterDaily Southtown
1-14-2014 Me at Governors Forum 2
A week before the Orlando massacre, Will County Board member Steve Balich, R-Homer Township, crafted a proposed resolution that would allow him and his fellow licensed board members to carry concealed weapons into county buildings, where they are currently prohibited from doing so.

From an economic standpoint, it would save the county money, he said, and from a safety perspective, it might deter incidents like what happened in Orlando from happening in Will County, he said.

Balich brought up his proposed resolution at the end of Tuesday’s legislative committee meeting, and he hopes it will be discussed at next month’s committee meeting. His resolution said that it would be “unfair to the taxpayer to pay for sufficient armed security officers at meetings” when a number of board members are licensed to carry guns.

Those elected officials who are properly licensed should be allowed to carry concealed firearms into county and forest preserve properties, the proposed resolution said.

“People trusted me enough to vote for me,” Balich said.

While a potential shooter could easily spot a uniformed officer, he would not know which board members were packing a gun, he said.

Offenders usually seek out places like the Orlando nightclub, where “no one has a weapon to fire back,” Balich said.

His idea goes back several months, when county officials first discussed how to enhance security measures, he said.

Balich also cited state laws that allow a mayor, aldermen, trustees and police to act as “conservators of the peace,” with powers to arrest people who violate municipal ordinances after completing a law enforcement training course. However, they do not specifically mention allowing those officials to carry weapons.

Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe said that, as of now, the state prohibits firearms in county buildings, but said she would research the proposal.

Balich’s suggestion did not sit well with all committee members.

Democratic leader Herbert Brooks Jr., D-Joliet, said, “This was not the time nor the place” to discuss such a proposal.

“We need a time of mourning,” he said. “We need a time of healing.

“These 49 victims have not even been buried yet,” he said, referring to the shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Sunday morning. “After what just happened (in Orlando), I did not want to hear about guns. I was not prepared for that. We can talk about politics later on.”

Brooks added that he did not believe county board members should be allowed to carry guns into county buildings.


The Balich Fundraiser June 2, 2016 at Mullets

Balich Fund Raiser 6 2 2016