Who's in, who's out?

Surprise at JALC, the interim dean is named the real dean! Who woulda seen that coming? Now, how would a person from the career side of the house come to be named to lead the transfer area? Whose thumb was on THAT scale? The suspects are just to numerous to list... Sigh.

And down the road, turns out the SIU BOT had some hard questions for Pres. Poshard. So hard, in fact, that he tendered his retirement papers rather than face 'em.

Any loyal followers still here after Muddy Williamson's protracted summer hiatus? Anyone want to comment?

We've missed our ... favorite ... poster... she-or-he who is unable to actually end a sentence ... with a period ... No one has called any of us "idiots" for weeks now.

It's summer and things may be heating up!

It's summertime and the living is supposed to be easy, but we expect some BOT members will be going into overdrive when they think no one is watching.  Keep your eyes on the following:

1.  Discussion of the strategic plan is on the agenda for June 25.  We are hopeful it will be approved in its entirety but look out for ways that some trustees will try to continue to delay discussion or come up with creative ways to undermine it.   Rendleman, Brewer and Kilquist will try to hold on to what little power they have left and be looking for an "escape" clause on any implementation they don't like.

2.  Also on the agenda is planning for a board retreat.  Although Illinois Open Meeting Act permits boards to go into closed session for the purpose of "self-evaluations, practices and procedures of professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member," we question the board's ability to stick to this purpose.  Going back to 2008, retreats have been linked with special meetings and have been business as usual.  If the board is truly interested in self-evaluation, then have a retreat but keep the other business items off the agenda.   Don't use the "retreat/special meeting" title as an excuse to go off campus and have dinner first and then closed discussions.

Let's keep some things in mind from past retreats/special meetings:

It was in August 2008 when this happened:

Trustee Jake Rendleman expressed his feeling that the position of Director of Personnel should be looked at for possible advancement, due to the fact that the responsibilities of that office have grown considerably. Legal Counsel John Huffman agreed that the additional procedures and requirements established by the work of the Hiring Committee have increased the load of the Personnel Office, and added that the Director of Personnel has grown so much in this position…Trustee O'Keefe stated that he feelsthe office needs more people, and suggested this be looked into by the administration. Mr. Rendleman stressed that he feels the position of Director of Personnel should be elevated to Executive Director of Personnel.

It was suggested that this topic be continued in closed session.  (Of course!)

In June 2011, note these comments from the minutes:

Trustee Sanders commented that most boards are not as involved in the hiring process as the JALC Board.  He saidthat in talking with trustees across the nation, most boards just act on the recommendation brought to them, with the exception of hiring vice presidents and presidents.  After further discussion, Board Chair Mike Hopkins suggested that the Board should only address items in closed session that they have been previously informed of.  It was the consensus of the Board  that they would appreciate being aware of any items that will be brought up in closed session so they can be better prepared to discuss in a timely manner and make good decisions.  (But then Brewer and Kilquist couldn't use their intimidation tactics.)

And from September 2012:

Board Chair Mike Hopkins stated it was desirable to hold a closed session to discuss the appointment,employment, and compensation of specific individuals; and to meet with a representative of the Illinois Community College Trustees Association for thepurpose of self evaluation, practices and procedures.

Jim Snider and John O'Keefe moved and seconded that the special meeting/retreat of the John A. Logan

College Board of Trustees be declared in closed session.

Upon roll call, all members voted yes with the exception of Trustee John Sanders who voted no. (This is the only recent no vote against a closed session – wonder what was going on?)

3.  As the anonymous replier with the ellipsis fetish and hatred of faculty keeps reminding us, there are two dean positions open – Dean for Academic Affairs and Dean for Career & Technical Education.  As stated before, we are not privy to any inside info on these positions.  Our criticism of hiring has primarily focused on the hiring/promotion of BOT and administrators' children and friends.  So we can only speculate that there must be some favorite sons looking for advancement.  Perhaps it's Barry Hancock .  We've been pleased with Aunt Jackie Hancock's recent actions on the board, but we have to question if her vote could be bought on other issues with the promise of a new job for Barry.  And we shouldn't have to remind readers of this blog that Clay Brewer is the filter for all hiring. 

Stay tuned – the heat this summer could be one for the record books!

Help us out, Anonymous...

Clearly, Anonymous, you believe you have some inside knowledge about one or more current searches for positions at JAL. We wish you would clarify what you believe has happened or is happening. No one at Muddy Williamson is privy to this information, so we wish you would be specific.

 

This blog exists solely to shed light on unethical actions on the part of anyone employed by or elected to represent this taxpayer-funded institution in which we all have a stake as southern Illinoisans.

 

We never intended to be (and have never claimed to be) investigators, but we do seem to be attracting some attention. If you post your allegations directly rather than using some kind of cryptic innuendo, maybe they will be read by someone in a position to address the situation.

 

Hoping to hear from you.

Hiring is a Red Herring, Watch Closed Sessions

        During the accreditation review in 2005 (and a return visit in 2007), staff, NTPs and faculty made their views known about the unethical hiring practices of the BOT. In retaliation, the Board created and adopted a draconian hiring policy.  Anti-nepotism rules exist to prevent unfair hiring, promotion, and/or benefits such as salary increases. Faculty play only a minor role in the hiring process, and staff play no role at all, so preventing the college from hiring spouses or children—who would never supervise each other—is absurd.

                It is a strict policy, but as we've seen repeatedly, it is easily skirted, so as it applies to the board, it is meaningless.

                At this point, further talk about hiring and promotion is also meaningless. Clay Brewer has been granted unparalleled control of the entire process and nothing but further board action will change that—and who thinks THAT is likely to happen? Whether the college is hiring a dean or a maintenance worker, there are loopholes in the "policy" you can drive a truck through.

                The person who keeps trying to swing discussion on this blog to hiring, seeming to blame instructional administration for shady dealings in the current search for a dean of instruction, is trying to distract readers from the Next Big Thing, so no one will notice when discussion of the strategic plan takes place entirely within closed session.

                The strategic plan, approved repeatedly by the board during extensive planning and data collection stages, is tied directly to the college's continued accreditation. Without accreditation, the students don't get jobs, or transfer to universities. The "old guard" on the board seem more concerned with protecting their turf and willing to sacrifice accreditation to do so.

The current plan, compiled from mountains of data, is logical, global, and the components are interconnected. If all eyes are on the easily-manipulated hiring process, the strategic plan is likely to be dismantled in closed session, and therefore weakened, perhaps fatally.

It will be up to those board members who genuinely have the best interests of JALC at heart to protect its integrity by preserving it as ONE plan and voting to approve it, in open session.

 

Logan’s Rogue Board Members

Three rogue Board members are perhaps the most perplexing issue confronting John A. Logan College as it begins the process to gain another 10 years of accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).  The three rogue board members are Don Brewer, William Kilquist, & Jacob "Jake" Rendleman.  These three rogue Board members just don't seem to understand that their individual and collective behavior as Board members jeopardizes John A. Logan College's efforts to gain accreditation in 2017.

These three Board members don't seem to get that the institutional goals of providing a high quality affordable education and student success are more important than each of their own personal agendas to micromanage the day to day operations at the college in order to skew the hiring process.  It is difficult to understand the obtuseness of these three individuals since the HLC put the Board on notice for micromanaging and creating a climate of fear at the college during the last accreditation process in 2007!

In 2007 John A. Logan College was reaccredited for another 10 years, but the HLC Evaluation Team recommended that there be a Commission follow-up with respect to the Core Component 1d (The organization's governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission) and Core Component 1e (The organization upholds and protects its integrity).

The Evaluation Team found " that not all policies have been followed in a consistent manner….evidence where the blurring of boundaries between the procedural and operational duties of the College Administration and the policy making duties of the Board of Trustees …appear to have caused continuing tensions within the college community.  The inconsistent application of college policies and the Board of Trustees tendency to micromanage has created a climate of mistrust and fear."  The Evaluation Team also notes that Board of Trustees received low scores on a question dealing with the integrity and ethical and honest behavior of Board members. 

Further, the Evaluation Team recommended that John A. Logan College (1) implement a new strategic planning initiative, and (2) review its hiring practices to add more diversity to its search/screening committees. So, what does this have anything to do with the current business at the College?

At the May 2013 Board of Trustees' meeting it was the rogue Board members that stood in the way of adopting a new strategic plan, the type of plan that is needed for reaccreditation! 

Guess what? Brewer, Kilquist, and Rendleman were Logan Board members during the 2007 accreditation process!  Don Brewer, in fact, was the President of the Board at the time.  Again, in 2013 these same three rogue Board members forge on with their personal agendas resulting in a climate of mistrust and fear at John A. Logan College!  

Fab 4: It’s Time for “The Nuclear Option”

While we at Muddy Williamson disagree with many of our president's recent actions, we heartily applaud Obama's decision to launch three judicial nominees at the Senate (dubbed "the nuclear option"). He said the ridiculous actions of Senate Repubs in postponing judicial appointments has moved far beyond "principled opposition and into political obstructionism."

How is this related to the JALC board? Easy. The recent decision to postpone discussion of the Strategic Plan until the June 25 meeting. Delay, delay, delay till no one is looking, then dismantle it, discarding the parts some members of the board will find disagreeable, specifically the ones dealing with hiring and promotion, and other ethical issues, and/or designed to improve morale by increasing participation.

Patient readers may have read the plan, or waded through graph after graph of survey results. In a nutshell, for the less-patient, here are some of the more striking findings:

·         Asked to rate JALC's effectivenesss in the area of "fair & ethical hiring practices," 54% of full-time faculty and department chairs, 59% of full-time staff, and 63% of non-teaching professionals rated the college "ineffective" or "very ineffective."

·         Asked to respond to the statement "I am a part of the decision-making process at JALC," only 20% of the full-time faculty, 29% of the non-teaching professional staff, and 9% of the staff selected "agree" or "strongly agree." NINE percent.

·         Specifically addressing problems with the board itself, in response to the statement "the BOT displays behavior that reflects integrity and is ethical and honest," the survey results are displayed along with results from 2005 and 2009 (when the accreditation report itself reflected concerns about morale and required a rare follow-up visit). In 2012 66% of faculty, 67% of non-teaching professionals, and 74% of the staff responded with "neutral" (fear of recrimination) or "disagree/strongly disagree." These results were consistent with the 2005 results.

So, to Ms. Hancock (who deserves HUGE recognition for her role in eliminating the buyout clause from Dreith's contract at the April meeting), Mr. Sanders, Mr. Hopkins & Ms. Graff, time to stand up to shadowy back-room dealing, time to bring board actions out into the sunshine, time to exercise your nuclear option.

At the June 25 meeting, move immediately to adopt the entire Strategic Plan. It is comprehensive.  Brewer or Kilquist will probably try to require that each individual part get separate board approval. This will only allow the board members bent on protecting their own turf and/or offspring to defeat those programs they don't like. Make those board members state, in open session, WHY they want to dismantle the plan.

The Strategic Plan can function as effectively as the strategic financial plan, which has protected most College operations despite the state funding crisis. But only if it is adopted in its entirety.

Go nuclear.

Really, Southern Illinoisan?

OK, today's article is supposedly about this plan that a consultant created. Why was half the article given to Jake Rendleman saying he wants to wait to talk about it until "later" (when no ones paying attention, in other words)? 

Do board members not prepare at all for meetings? Most of the plan has been on the schools website for weeks. Apparently most of the board didnt' read the presidents contract when they hired him, or even read it to prepare for a meeting when it was on the published agenda. No, they prefer to talk to each other (illegally) outside of the public eye, and (excessively, according to a recent post) in executive session, where deals are cut and favors granted.

So now Jake Rendleman hasn't bother to read this plan, so prefers to wait. No... read it, do your homework like all the students at the college, get up to speed. Or just ask your board colleagues what they want you to do.

And why is the newspaper consulting Jake about this anyway? If he hasn't even bothered to read the plan, why was his opinion included in the article at all, much less given so much space? Poor journalism.

Just keeps making this board look ridiculous and disfunctional.

Use, Misuse, and Abuse of Executive Sessions?

We hope that new board members Graff and Kilquist are (or will soon be) in compliance with Illinois law that requires all elected and appointed members of a public body (such as a community college board of trustees) take the Attorney General's electronic Open Meetings Act training within 90 days and provide the public body with a certificate of completion of the training.

A review of board minutes from 2012 and 2013 (14 meetings not including the one for presidential interviews and two retreats) shows that more time was spent in executive session than in regular meeting in all but five meetings – and even those five averaged almost an hour each in executive session.  In most cases, the Board comes out of executive session and approves all recommended hires with little else done in the open meeting. 

It's hard to believe that if the hiring process is really working (as some board members claim) there is any need for lengthy executive sessions.  For example, in May 2012, the regular meeting lasted for about 45 minutes and the executive session was over three hours long.  When the Board reconvened, there were only 15 personnel items approved.  What was discussed for over three hours?

Like we saw in the April 2013 meeting, Brewer tried to postpone the discussion on the "no cause" clause in Dreith's contract to executive session.

In all the 2012 and 2013 minutes, the board has gone into closed session "to discuss the appointment, employment, and compensation of specific individuals and pending litigation."  Other times this phrase has included the "discussion of collective bargaining or purchase of real property."  All of these are appropriate reasons to go to executive session – assuming that is what is being discussed.

Is the executive session being abused?  It's certainly something to keep an eye on!

Accreditation: Changes Comin'

How does a community college stay in business? By turning out trained, employable workers and transferring students with a solid academic foundation.  To guarantee that, colleges have to earn accreditation, in the case of JALC by a body called the Higher Learning Commission, or HLC.

Until recently, this accreditation process was a monster pain in the ass which took place once every ten years. Huge piles of data were hastily assembled, lightly sifted, and shoved into binders for the campus visitors, administrators from other community colleges. They spent a day or two on campus, talked to a handful of (happy, carefully-screened) employees, and waved the magic accreditation wand.

Well, except for in 2007, shortly after Mees "retired" to start collecting a pension, and immediately returned to work, to collect a paycheck on top. Right, we USED to call that "double-dipping" and it was frowned on. The 2007 report also took place just after the shifty hiring and hasty undeserved promotion of The Sons, both actual promotions and attempted ones. The results of the employee survey were just too shocking to ignore,  which is why there is a "monitoring follow-up get-your-act-together" set of documents from 2009.

You can see all these documents (something that has only been possible since the 2007 visit) by clicking Acreditation at the bottom of the JALC page. They spell out lack of trust in board ethics, lack of communication and transparency, lack of integrity, and terrible morale across every campus group. Same old, same old…

But the HLC has revamped the entire system. Reporting all that data will now happen every other year, followed by a three-day visit to campus to confirm the data.

Lofty goals are spelled out on the college page, at the bottom, in the "Accreditation" link. Click the "John A Logan Acredition" then go to the FAQ. We're thinking this may spell trouble for the college's internal-research guy, who we understand can't write basic programs or otherwise collect meaningful information.

On the other hand, the process COULD mean actual planning will take place, addressing the institutionalized problems noted in the 2007 report, the 2009 "monitoring" follow-up report (erroneously and prematurely saying that everything was all better now), and what we hear is reflected in the latest survey results… stay tuned.

Looking forward

We at Muddy Williamson told you we’d be shifting gears a bit, now that the election is over.  We’re setting out to explore some of the more important issues facing the College and the Board of Trustees. 

 

As we examine the agencies that regulate Board actions, we’ll be looking at things like closed session minutes, the Open Meetings Act, the new community college accreditation process and how well JALC is meeting the requirements of these processes, mandates and state statutes.  And, of course, we’ll still be talking about old favorites like hiring improprieties!

 

We hope you’ll share your knowledge and views.  What else should we look into on behalf of faculty, staff, students, voters and taxpayers of the John A. Logan College community college district? 

 

Just to give you something to chew on, here’s a link to the Southern Illinoisan article on the last Board meeting. 

 

 

 

 

Kudos to the new board

          
Looks like some interesting things happened at the JALC board meeting last night according to today's Southern Illinoisan.  First Kilquist tried to postpone the vote on eliminating the clause in President Drieth's contract that would have allowed the board to get rid of him without cause at any time with a six-month buyout.  Then Brewer asked to have it discussed in executive session.  Jackie Hancock reminded them of the motion on the floor and the vote was taken with Brewer and Kilquist voting no and Rendleman voting yes "with some reservations."

So what does this mean?  First, the shenanigans of the past didn't work – postponing votes until Attorney Huffman weighs in and trying to move public agenda items to executive session where Brewer can operate in secret.  Second, Hancock, Sanders, and Hopkins all spoke up as they understood the original intent of the clause in Dreith's contract.  Third, Rendleman was ….just being Rendleman.  He saw the way the votes were going and tried to play it both ways.  Fourth, this vote highlights why the elimination of O'Keefe was so important.   And finally, it makes the Board accountable both fiscally and ethically.  Yes, there may be times when a president should be removed but ONLY with cause and due process.  Some board members can't just use taxpayer money for buyouts as a way to advance their personal agendas as we've seen in the past.

As board member Sanders said, this was a "prudent" decision and hopefully revealing of some new dynamics among the board members.  And kudos to reporter Stephen Rickerl for his excellent coverage on this!

It's All About the Votes!

Twas the night before the Board meeting

and all through the College,

the rats were still scrambling

not looking for knowledge.

 

That light that now shines

on their plots of the past

continues to show

the problems are vast.

 

We hope to our wondering

ears we might hear,

the voices of others

no longer in fear.

 

More rapid than eagles

this blog got some fame

and whistled and shouted

and called out the names.

 

Too bad for the threesome

O'Keefe is now gone.

It's time for the others

to right all the wrongs.

 

On Hancock! On Sanders! On Hopkins! On Graff!

Just your four votes now make more than half.

And we hope you use them wisely.

 

 

Agenda items for April 29

An alert reader has pointed out that the Board item to discuss individual volunteers seems to have been taken off the April 29 agenda.  However, as the commenter also pointed out, two other items of interest are up for discussion:

 

·         Destruction of verbatim recordings of closed sessions and

 

·         Adjustment of the President’s contract

 

Also, the Board will consider a recommendation that the minutes of certain closed sessions be made available for public inspection.  The Board legal counsel will recommend specific dates to be made available. 

 

Will the Board be going after some volunteers?

A reply on April 22 to an older post has raised some interesting questions.  Here's a repost of that 4/22 reply and the policy it refers to so blog readers (now over 10,000 hits!) don't have to go searching for it in the comments to older posts.

Here's the comment:

Policy #5610 which was discussed in January and passed by the board in February gives the board of trustees the power of acceptance or non acceptance of all volunteers at the college. All departments including the athletic department had to submit a list of all volunteers for the board to act on. This action should be discussed at the April 29th board meeting. There are several people who volunteer their time without any compensation at all for the school in alot of departments. Wonder what dept. will come under fire the most due to this new policy? Can anyone get that policy on this blog so we can all read it and understand it prior to board action. It is an old policy which really was not enforced but when volunteers had to sign papers prior to this next board meeting it looks like the board will act on individuals on the 29th. Isn't that when new board members take office? Quite interesting to the entire staff and faculty.

And here's the policy – interesting that it looks like it was just adopted in February as the campaigning was in full swing!  Wonder who the target is?

Volunteer Staff 5610

---

John A. Logan College is authorized to recruit and utilize people who desire to provide voluntary service to College departments, programs, and activities. The executive director of human resources shall be responsible for administering the volunteer staff employment program. Volunteers shall be approved individually by the Board of Trustees. Volunteer staff shall receive no remuneration. However, with prior approval from the area vice-president, a volunteer staff member may receive reimbursement for authorized meal expenses, mileage expenses, and overnight accommodations in accordance with College policy.

Adopted: February 26, 2013

Wonder if the Illinois Community College Trustees Association lists this as a duty of Board members?  Brewer, Rendleman, and Kilquist must stay up late plotting new ways to micromanage and retaliate (and reading this blog, of course!)

Don Brewer Calling

It goes something like this.  The phone rings and it's Don Brewer.  He may ask how you are doing, but quickly will tell you he's not happy with something you've recently done.  And then he says, "Don't forget how you got your job in the first place."

Has this happened to you or someone you know?   

We're guessing that some of you reading this have had personal experience with a call from the Don.  If you'd like, all you have to do is enter "yes" in the comment field, select profile as "anonymous," type in the numbers and the letters you see to prove you're not a robot, and then post.  You can even preview before submitting.  

And if you don't want to respond, that's ok too.  It's understandable to be a bit paranoid when the master of intimidation has your phone number.

How does it not bother them?

Mr VanHorn said something during the campaign about how the board members who sneaked their sons in as parttime hires then promoted them way past their paygrade were actually not doing those sons any favors.

 

I wonder how those men see themselves? Does it really never occur to them that they couldn't compete in the real marketplace, just on their own skills? ARe they just so comfortable, or confident, or is it that they just don't care and as long as the big ol paychecks roll in, they have no problem knowing that they've never been in a fair competition and may not even deserve all that money?

 

I wonder... Self esteem comes from knowing that you succeeded on your own talents and merits, and those men can never know whether thats true, as long as they stay under daddy's umbrella. Kinda sad. For them, and for the college.

Logan Board Election Wrapup

Although some might view the results as only a partial victory for those advocating change on the JALC board, there is definitely more positive than negative with the election of Cheryl Graff and Bill Kilquist.

 

First, Graff won by a substantial margin – 1,200 votes.  Whether is was ballot position, the only female candidate, or a strong grass roots campaign coupled with Jackson County Democrat support, she proved her electability.  This is particularly important when many Jackson County Democrats including Kilquist and Brewer were actively working against Graff in this election.

 

Granted, Kilquist still has name recognition and Democratic support in the College district.  There are also, unfortunately, still those who either ignored his obvious ethical lapses as a board member and later as an employee of the college, or simply weren't aware of them. But now he will be back in the public eye, he's not the sheriff anymore, and he will be exposed and held accountable for a change!

 

Second, John O'Keefe was soundly defeated.  Voters were fed up enough to not buy the Williamson County descriptions of "he's such a good guy" and instead saw him as a blatant example of nepotism at work at the college.  O'Keefe perhaps wasn't as blunt and intimidating as a Brewer, Rendleman, or Kilquist, but equally influential and ultimately destructive to the College.

 

Third, the willingness of Mike Vanhorn and Herb Russell to open themselves to public scrutiny to highlight the problems of the JALC board emboldens others and made this election about real choices.  There will be attempts at retaliation and intimidation by Brewer and crew, but Graff, Hancock, Hopkins, and Sanders MUST call it what it is and respond forcefully and with transparency. 

Fourth, the calling out of Brewer, Rendleman and Kilquist reported on this blog is only the beginning.  In the next election, there will be no need to go back and recount the past egregious actions – they will continue to be documented here and in other public arenas.  It will be interesting (and probably even amusing at times) to see the scrambling that will be taking place by these three. 

Rendleman committed a grave error in judgment with his ad and Kilquist is already too full of swagger to not mess up.  Wednesday's Southern quotes him as saying it's been a long campaign and he looks forward to taking a little time to take it all in.  He has no idea how long the next six years are going to be as his actions on the board will be scrutinized. 

Thanks for taking a stand!

We at Muddy Williamson would like to thank all those who stopped by this blog since late February, to read, to make comments and to give suggestions.  This is what democracy is about:  freedom of expression and elections. 

We'll be analyzing what comes next for the community after last night's election, in the next couple of days and we do intend to keep this blog up and running.  We live in interesting times and they may become more so.  But tonight, let's look at a couple of candidates who have never been on the Board and did not win last night:  Russell Williams and Mike Vanhorn.  Some of us here had never heard of either of them before the campaign got under way.  To our delight, each of them found this blog and left several comments. 

Mike Vanhorn framed this campaign.  He single handedly placed the issue of nepotism center stage in the election.  His emails, his performance at the candidate forum and his quotes in the Southern Illinoisan were all focused on this issue.  All the other candidates were forced to speak about hiring practices, transparency (or lack there of) and nepotism.  Surely this was not what they anticipated when they entered the race.  However, even if he did not win a seat, Vanhorn will have a legacy on the Board.  That legacy is the public consciousness of Logan Board hiring practices and past inclination to operate in the dark.  At the candidate forum, Vanhorn said voters should pick any two of four:  Graff, Snider, Williams or Vanhorn.  Too many decent people may have been his downfall.  We could only elect two.  We're glad he ran anyway.  Thank you Mike Vanhorn!

Some of us were skeptical of Russell Williams at the beginning of the race, doubtful he'd grasped the issues or was tough enough.  He won us all over.  Whether by inclination or keen political instincts, he picked up on the themes Vanhorn had also expressed and made a campaign of it.  He was articulate, poised and showed he could express a sense of outrage.    He also was a victim of musical chairs:  too few seats for too many candidates.  Our thanks to Russell Williams as well, for giving folks someone to vote for, rather than the lesser of evils. 

Final results

Cheryl Graff and Bill Kilquist each return to the John A. Logan Board of Trustees.  Each has served in the past but neither were currently on the Board.  The two incumbents running, Jim Snider and John O'Keefe, each were defeated. 

We'll have more to say about the election, the results and the future, here at Muddy Williamson as the week progresses. For now, congratulations to the winners and 'Good night!'.

	votes	% of vote
Cheryl Graff	6666	25%
Chuck Hamilton	1848	7%
BillKilquist	5147	19%
John O'Keefe	3937	15%
Jim Snider	4130	15%
Mike Vanhorn	2617	10%
Russell Williams	2806	10%
total votes counted	27151	100%

Williamson County is in

	votes	% of vote
Cheryl Graff	6245	24%
Chuck Hamilton	1767	7%
BillKilquist	4749	18%
John O'Keefe	3815	15%
Jim Snider	4014	16%
Mike Vanhorn	2502	10%
Russell Williams	2671	10%
total votes counted	25763
% counted	98%