Why Normal doesn’t want Wards

By: Diane Benjamin

The final amounts spent to win a Trustee seat on the Normal Town Council won’t be available until second quarter reporters are filed. The numbers below are through 3/31/23. There were another 4 days to campaign and expenses could have continued to come in even after the election.

Normal doesn’t want Wards because that would restrict campaigns to a section of Normal. Regardless of who they claim to be, the entire Council spends money and bills you just like democrats. That is why Stan Nord was hated by everyone who wanted their gravy train to continue even when it made no sense. #progress

If Normal had Wards the boundaries might lead to actual representation instead of elections where Trustees aren’t accountable to anyone. With turnout so low in local elections it’s much easier to wrangle enough far left mail in votes to win than it would be to actually campaign in each Ward. The 3 conservative candidates didn’t receive or spend anywhere near these two candidates.

Data is from: https://www.illinoissunshine.org/ Keep in mind other groups spent money to get the same people elected.

Every Trustee will now be earning $6800 a year, up from $4800. Their seats were bought for far more:

Kathleen Lorenz. The below shows spending of $28,600 and receipts of $24,159.

Andy Byars: The below shows spending of $18,466 and receipts of $26,609

Karyn Smith was dragged across the finish line because the lady Koos really wanted moved out of town. (Rachael Lund) She shows a union gave her $500 and she wrote herself a check for $246 of it.

Since Bloomington has Wards, candidates didn’t spend anywhere near these amounts.

14 thoughts on “Why Normal doesn’t want Wards

    1. And the Teacher’s Union made sure the 4 leftist progressive marxist democrats were elected. Now the Sexualization and Racialization of Children will continue. Homeschool or send your children to private school.

  1. You missed a few…
    Campaign Finance reports that Chris Koos and Scott Preston spent a lot this election even though neither were running. They both joined forces and endorsed Smith, Lorenz, and Byars so the money was obviously spent helping them.

    ~$15K – Chris Koos
    ~$12K – Scott Preston
    ~$9K – Koos’ Responsible Cities PAC.


  2. At-large elections are discriminatory and Chris Koos wants to continue to control who is discriminated against.

  3. Politicians lie. Good politicians find ways to lie indirectly. Dividing Normal into districts was, according to Kathleen Lorenz, a bad idea because students could get elected but would probably not fulfill their full terms, potentially leaving 2 seats appointed by and thus controlled by the mayor. Technically true, but leaving out that that’s much better than the current situation where all 6 are in the mayor’s pocket.
    Not to mention she’s never said anything against HB3337, which would allow for All Six seats to be appointed by the mayor…

    1. Karl,

      Kathleen has been entrusted by the voters as a “trustee.” Her statutory role is to over-see the use of all of the Town of Normal public resources. She knows full-well that taxpayer dollars and resources are fueling HB3337. Saying nothing to stop these expenditures of public resources is giving HB3337 the support it requires.

      Saying Kathleen has no liability is similar to saying that a police officer who turns a blind eye to ongoing illegal activity has no responsibility to stop it and shoulders no blame. Or a parent who witnesses the other parent abuse their child and does nothing to stop the abuse has no liability for turning a blind eye.

      1. Not saying she should not be held responsible – If I thought that, I wouldn’t have run for council. Just saying she’s good at ‘not technically lying’. “I love interacting with the voters” is probably true – but it sounds like she actually cares what they think rather than her very nicely telling them she considers them below her.

  4. Maybe the three conservative candidates should have spent more — and if they didn’t receive it, does that not speak to their viability (lack thereof) as candidates? This just reads like “our people lost so the entire system is to blame, not us” instead of the taking-of-responsibility that would require organized R’s and conservatives to get and fund better, winning candidates.

      1. True Diane, but there is definite merit to his(?) comment. Yes, there is definitely corruption within the system, but it is the system we have to work with until/unless we can change it.
        We need to be better organized, we need candidates that are better at fundraising, and we need to get people to donate. Recent election cycles have proven more than ever that ‘winning in the arena of ideas’ is nothing but just a small sliver of the more important ‘winning in the arena of votes’.

Leave a Reply