I’m one of the truly lucky ones. It was at the end of my junior year in high school when I decided I wanted to be a court reporter. Here I am now, decades later, having made a career of it. How many people are fortunate enough to be in a similar position: deciding at that age what work path to pursue, following through with it, evolving in the field, and still loving the work 30+ years later? I’m privileged to have a front row seat every day as I see justice at work.
As I listen carefully while making a verbatim record of what’s said in the courtroom, I always put myself in the role of the judge or jury. I listen to the facts, identify the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those facts, and arrive at my own decision. It’s through that lens that I navigate life. It’s through that lens that I urge all Mahomet-Seymour School District voters to approach our school board election.
The statement “justice is blind” alludes to the iconic statue of Lady Justice wearing blindfolds. The idea behind it is that, when seeking justice in a court of law, the decision-making process should be impartial and objective.
With that in mind, I encourage everyone to put on your blindfolds. Disregard any previous relationships – business, friendship, negative, or otherwise – and LISTEN to what each candidate says (resource links below). Be smart. Disregard the fluff. Apply weight to substance over form.
The local consolidated elections historically have low voter turnout. I find this both interesting and sad because these elections – especially our school board election – affect our everyday lives far more than national and state elections. Our school board election is one in which every vote counts. I’ve heard people not vote in presidential years, saying: My vote doesn’t matter; Illinois will go blue because of Chicago. But understand this: That is NOT the case when it comes to voting for who will represent the citizens of the Mahomet-Seymour School District on its Board of Education.
And, by the way, “blue,” “red,” or any partisan symbol – indeed, partisan politics – have absolutely nothing to do with school board elections. It is totally non-partisan. At least, it should be; that is the intent. Rather than various political parties, this election is about three open positions on the board in two categories: two Mahomet Township positions with four candidates from which to choose and two candidates vying for the other position, these two residing in one of the other townships outside the Township of Mahomet but within the Mahomet-Seymour School District. Regardless of personal residence, you will vote in both categories.
I’ve gone through this weighing process – listened to the candidates, looked at the facts, and deliberated on which candidates presented the best case – and my verdict is in: PATRICK MacKAY has my vote for the out-of-township position on the Board; and REBECCA RICHARDSON and LAURA EDEN-LANG have my votes for the two in township positions.
To those who have not already decided how their votes will be cast and to those who are leaning one way but whose minds are still open, I’ll share with you some tools to help you decide. In a jury trial, prior to deliberations, the judge “instructs” the jury. These instructions are so important that prior to sitting on a jury each juror takes an oath that they will follow the law (the instructions of the Court).
In a simple case, it’s typical for jurors to receive a packet containing 30 instructions; for complex cases, it could be twice that and occasionally far more. The first page of every trial’s instructions, regardless of subject matter or complexity, contains the directive to not “let sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion influence you.”
Relating to our election all apply, but I particularly think of sympathy. I’ve reported many civil trials where, at the end of the case, it’s hard. The attorneys have worked so hard and invested so much for their clients. The parties on both sides have a huge stake in the case. And all of them are very nice people, people who I find interesting and would like to know better. But someone has to “lose,” and I feel sad for them and am thankful that I’m not a juror charged with making a tough decision that will adversely affect half of these nice people.
Analogous to that is the out-of-township race. Personally, I’d never heard of either Patrick MacKay or Justin Lamb prior to the election; but obviously, Justin is the better-known candidate as he’s an owner of a local thriving business, and he has an impeccable reputation. Patrick has young children, so he’s not as well known as residents whose children are older and have progressed through the different schools. Both Patrick and Justin seem like really good guys. But one of them has to lose, and that’s sad – especially if you’ve known one of them, have done business with one of them, and/or have supported his candidacy (maybe even with a sign in your yard).
Casting a vote, like the jury’s discussions while deliberating, is private. When you walk out of the polling place, no one knows how you voted. When you’re discharged from a jury, no one knows the individual comments/opinions of jurors. Only the verdict is known. So while you may struggle with knowing and liking one candidate but objectively believing the other is the better candidate, you are free to vote your conscience in the privacy of the poll booth and exit to the absence of any public shaming. These contested elections are tough because, again, these elections are close to home and you already know the candidates, or at least know you could easily run into them at the store or a ball game and would prefer avoiding uncomfortable situations. But, again, these elections affect our children, our home values, and our stature in the surrounding communities and state. Your vote is your personal decision, cast in private, and it may or may not reflect any direct or implied public declarations of candidate support.
To assist in your decision-making process for this race and to help you hone in on some differences, visit MacKay’s Facebook page (link provided below) where he’s put together side-by-side positions on issues addressed in the Chamber of Commerce forum. This is the most effective campaigning tool I’ve seen in a consolidated election, and it’s quite enlightening. Remember, substance over form, which I’ll translate here as qualifications and ideas over-popularity. This isn’t a middle school student council election. The stakes are much higher for all current and future residents, property owners, and business owners.
There are a whole list of factors a judge will give jurors in deciding how believable witnesses are. I suggest these same factors be applied in evaluating both the candidates and their “witnesses.” A witness in court is one who testifies under oath and offers facts so that the jury has a full picture of the case. For our purposes, I’m going to equate “testifying under oath” with publicly putting oneself out there and providing endorsements for candidates (or, in some cases, opposition for candidates).
None of us writing commentaries or providing video endorsements are under oath; but, again, for those of us doing so, getting way out of our comfort zone and providing our “argument” on a public platform, it can be considered a figurative form of being under oath. And there are plenty of “witnesses” for all candidates, and what all of them say should be considered. Voters will undoubtedly come across “witness testimony” of lesser value: the hearsay posts/comments of those sharing the endorsements on social media.
When deciding the credibility of any witness and how much weight to give to each person’s testimony (endorsements), some factors a jury is instructed to consider include: “the intelligence of the witness; the witness’s ability and opportunity to know the things the witness testified about; the witness’s demeanor; whether the witness had any bias, prejudice, or other reason to lie or slant the testimony; the truthfulness and accuracy of the witness’s testimony in light of the other evidence presented; and any consistent/inconsistent statements or conduct by the witness.”
In criminal cases with a cooperating witness (commonly referred to as a “snitch”), those same factors pertain when evaluating the snitch’s testimony; but with regard to that testimony, the judge gives an additional instruction: “Give it whatever weight you believe is appropriate, keeping in mind that you must consider that testimony with caution and great care.” This additional instruction is appropriate relating to social media comments, both from original postings and comments made following formal editorials.
The witness evaluation instructions alone, when applied completely and objectively in conjunction with the resources provided below, contain enough information to “deliberate” and arrive at a “verdict” (the candidates for whom you’ll vote). But while I’m “under oath” (way outside my comfort zone and “testifying” on a public platform), a few other instructions bear mentioning.
Jurors are instructed not to decide the case based on the amount of evidence presented or which side presented it; rather, what’s important is how much weight to give the evidence. If you added up all the written and video endorsements, I honestly have no idea the number each candidate received; but when evaluating the content of each, not only is it again substance over form, it’s quality over quantity. There is a difference between (1) someone “testifying” on a short video that they’ve known someone for years, attended church together, volunteered at school functions together, and concluding with this candidate would be a good board member and (2) a fact-filled commentary. That’s not to say the former is invalid; indeed, those type of endorsements can be effective, particularly when the endorser is a well-respected community member. What I’m saying is this: There’s a difference between a short character reference and a well reasoned, well-sourced recommendation, and that difference should be considered when applying the weight on the proverbial scales of justice.
That last instruction regarding amounts of evidence from each side could be applied differently in conjunction with a previous commentary written by Monte Cherry (link provided below). I mention this as another example of substance over form and quality over quantity. There are far more signs up for the slate candidates than the independent candidates. To clarify, I’m using “slate” to refer to Lamb, McComb, and McMurry and “independent candidates” to refer to MacKay, Lang, and Richardson. I use both terms – slate and independent – in the generic, the definition for slate being “a group of candidates that run in multi-seat or multi-position elections on a common platform” and independent as not running on a common platform. I’ve seen on social media an argument that the independents are running together, too, so what’s the difference? Well, the difference is this: The independents did not work together on a campaign strategy whereby they branded themselves with signage, mailers, and social media memes/profile pictures; campaign together to the point of seeking a group endorsement from a political party; post identical information on social media; and even vote together as if they are a family. What’s important to remember is that the words slate and independent in this election have nothing to do with partisan politics. As mentioned previously, this is a non-partisan election, notwithstanding the fact that one political party has endorsed the slate.
While I’ll refrain from sharing my take on the “special interests” aspect of Mr. Cherry’s editorial, I do want to offer some more “testimony” about money that speaks volumes for the character and integrity of the candidates I support. Once I’d heard from all the candidates (and, again, links to the forums are below) and decided those for whom I would vote, I emailed MacKay, Richardson, and Lang. I thanked them for running and communicated that I’d like to make a campaign donation, acknowledging that the money it would take for signs alone is a lot to ask from a volunteer servant on top of the huge amount of time and energy a campaign would take and, if successful, a four-year term on the board. I asked where to send a check or how to make an online payment. All three candidates – MacKay, Richardson, and Lang – thanked me but declined the offer as follows:
Lang: “That is extremely kind of you but not necessary. I do need help getting postcards out and would accept help with that.”
MacKay: “Thank you for your offer but I will decline your monetary offer. Instead, would you consider putting up a sign or organizing a Zoom with your friends?”
Richardson: “I appreciate your offer, but I decided to self-fund so I can truly remain independent and not feel beholden to any one person more than another.”
In the spirit of full disclosure, I did contribute time and money to each of the independents’ campaigns by writing lots of postcards and purchasing the stamps for all I wrote. (Yes, those of you receiving postcards from a mysterious “Lisa,” it was me!)
I previously covered the out-of-township race, which is truly MacKay v. Lamb. Now I’ll address the Mahomet Township race. Although I’ve categorized the candidates in terms of “slate” and “independents,” the reality of this race is simply four candidates vying for two spots, not slate candidates v. independent candidates. You could vote for both independents, both slates, or one of each. E.g., if you vote for Sunny, you don’t have to vote for Max.
What’s different about the in-township race is that there is one incumbent: Max McComb. Of course, we use the same factors in evaluating Max as all other candidates to help us evaluate whether to vote for him. But we have one more valuable tool to help us decide whether to vote for Max: his past performance.
If you’ve followed Max’s campaign FB page, he makes some pretty impressive assertions of all he’s done, both generally as a community member and specifically as a school board member. Unlike a new candidate making a case for what they will do based on what they have to offer, an incumbent is in the unique position to make a case for not only what they have to offer but also based on what they have done. It’s a shoo-in for the incumbent who has been effective; it’s a detriment for the incumbent who has not.
If all you do is listen to Max and his supporters, of course, you’d vote for him. However, like a juror in a trial, the job of a voter is to verify that the facts support all the stated accomplishments, listen to any contrary evidence/testimony, examine all related data, and either accept or reject McComb.
Frankly, there’s a mountain of facts to support the proposition that Max McComb has not been the stellar school board member he claims. Gloria Cherry has already taken the time to research and write an editorial about a whole host of topics in which she supplies supporting data (link provided below); and anyone truly wishing to be fair – Max supporters included – must consider this information with an open mind.
As only one of seven board members, each with the same voting power, can the past 14 years of the district’s financial deficits, lack of space, shortsightedness in planning, and drops in various rankings be blamed on Max alone? Probably not. However, he is the only candidate who’s been on the board making decisions for the past 14 years, with the last six years being the president tasked with guiding the direction of the school district.
Interesting to note, Max himself believes he is responsible, as noted on his “Get to Know Me!! – part 3” post on his Facebook campaign page where he says, “If you moved here since 2007 and the reason you moved to this community [is] for the schools, I am a big part of the reason you are here!”
In a trial when one side has weak evidence, they’ll often make what’s called a “red herring” argument by introducing something totally irrelevant in order to distract and lead the jury to a false conclusion. Max and his supporters rely on this technique repeatedly. Case in point: Much has been said about the current board and its divisiveness. In fact, McComb says any existing problems “have only been around the last two years since the change in the makeup of the board.” Examples of red herrings are pointing the finger at other sitting board members or introducing catchy new phrases and then falsely attributing them to their opponents. None of the independent candidates (nor, to my knowledge, any of their supporters) have ever engaged in a narrative that our district is broken or that it needs to be radically changed.
A bit off topic, but it needs to be said: Meghan Hennesy, Colleen Schultz, and Ken Keefe have nothing to do with this election. You won’t see their names on the ballot. Moreover, they’re not on trial, and I wish people would stop acting like they are. The difference in the last two years following the election of 2019 is that Hennesy, Schultz, and Keefe are performing the duties for which they took an oath. They are doing what the people who voted for them – myself included – expect. The reason that things don’t always proceed smoothly on the board since 2019 is because these three board members are holding the others accountable to do the right thing; and prior to the 2019 election, there was little accountability or order. Board policies, laws governing public boards, and the School Code were oftentimes completely disregarded – with Max in charge.
Instead of accepting as truth how horrible and disruptive the three newer board members are as portrayed by Max and his supporters, take the time to listen to some of the recorded meetings. What you’re going to find is that the new members are trying to redirect the course of the board onto a path of policy/lawful compliance. Occasionally, they’re politely voicing frustration at not being provided the requested information to which they are entitled. When you review recorded meetings, listen to the board members who are disrespectful, raise their voice, interrupt, and act defensively. Listen to the board members who are passive-aggressive in their attempts to silence certain board members (and, thus, the citizens who voted for them). You’ll find it’s not Hennesy, Schultz, or Keefe demonstrating this behavior.
Don’t be distracted with red herrings.
If you agree with me that it’s important that each sworn board member act with the best interests of all stakeholders in the school district, including upholding his oath to follow the policies of the board and all laws governing public boards, critically examine what Incumbent McComb has done for the last 14 years.
Having spoken briefly about Justin Lamb, I’ll likewise say a few things about Sunny McMurry. While her credentials and presentations are impressive, I question her judgment in attaching herself to Max. With her qualifications, she would have been a far stronger candidate – and one I would have seriously considered – had she stood alone. Also, I can’t help but revisit Rebecca Richardson’s words to me about not wanting to accept money and remaining truly independent, not beholden to anyone. Who knows how much of the thousands of dollars invested in the slate’s campaign came from Sunny versus how much funding came from others on her behalf? And how will she repay that?
I urge you to vote for MacKAY, RICHARDSON, and LANG – not because I say so but, rather, because you have taken the time to listen/read what each candidate has to say without regard to who said it (in other words, with your blindfolds on); you’ve
thoroughly examined all “testimony” and supporting facts/data; and you have arrived at the same objective decision about who will best represent all stakeholders within Mahomet-Seymour School District #3.
-Lisa Cosimini
______________________
RESOURCES:
Mahomet Chamber of Commerce School Board Forum (February 25, 2021)
**TRANSCRIPT of Mahomet Chamber of Commerce School Board Forum (February 25, 2021), including FACT-CHECKING and supplementary data
https://mahometdaily.com/mahomet-chamber-school-board-forum-transcript-and-additional information/?
fbclid=IwAR3VCtTUrilM4DdqYUgtdpngCaELQudm7emv3loNbjfBMb7m0Wq7icahC_k
Mahomet Public Library School Board Forum (March 7, 2021)
**TRANSCRIPT of Mahomet Public Library School Board Forum (March 7, 2021), including FACT CHECKING and supplementary data
https://mahometdaily.com/mahomet-public-library-school-board-forum-transcript-and-additional information/?fbclid=IwAR30UbAiswdZcxyMGcWI4AYz1s88_wC3fosaIWp9ITVaqvA5XawjsB 9IW0
**NOTE: The transcripts are particularly helpful as you can read much quicker than watching the videos. More importantly, the additional data/fact-checking is critical in evaluating what the candidates say and the accuracy thereof. Again, I caution: Look for the SUBSTANCE, not the FORM. You’ll see this caveat at the beginning of each transcript: “While accurate in content, the transcription may not be grammatically correct and may include typos.”
While I am a professional court reporter, I did NOT transcribe this and had absolutely nothing to do with it. But I can tell you from years of experience that speakers often have no idea how they sound and are surprised when their spoken words are converted to printed words. As you’re reading the transcript, if at any time someone in the transcript sounds incoherent, don’t make the assumption that the transcript is somehow biased or inaccurate. Take the time to fact-check for yourself and watch that portion of the forum (link provided above).
MacKay Campaign Facebook Page (showing side-by-side responses at the Chamber forum) https://www.facebook.com/PatrickMacKay4MSSB
Letter to Editor (Monte Cherry)
https://mahometdaily.com/letter-to-the-editor-signs-signs-everywhere-a-sign/?fbclid=IwAR36Oc-E aIsado3dXppDo7by1pN7qVqWPI224Ob63bb255IMzmk3RPxhO0
Letter to the Editor (Gloria Cherry)
https://mahometdaily.com/letter-to-the-editor-a-look-at-mccombs-tenure-on-the-mahomet-seymour school-board/?fbclid=IwAR3o5b4B8mMvpwF3g4pewoAAkt3u35yenI64iAZn5cl3ihB_P1n6H5dcGv
