Careful note is to be taken of OP presidential candidate Gary Schwab’s for-the-record (but more than that, I think) correction in the Wed. Journal comment page, where yesterday’s item was linked.  He recalls that it was trustee candidate Glenn Brewer who said in a 3/13 forum that he “couldn’t tell if there was a problem with permits until he had more data” and wasn’t kidding when he said it — not presidential opponent David Pope.

This is interesting, in view of Brewer’s 3/19 observation, discussing Forest Park’s Madison Street, that this extremely successful half-mile stretch “has empty storefronts too” — a comment that advanced discussion not a whit and demonstrated unsettling unfamiliarity with the scene and subject. 

This prompts the question (does not beg it, as many say, misusing a useful phrase), what else doesn’t Brewer know and has not bothered to bone up on since his selection as VMA-endorsed candidate four months ago?  And: How much does he want an election-day victory and what does he think it takes for success as a trustee? 

He has the Wednesday Journal endorsement as providing “a much-needed African-American voice to the village board.”  Sounds racist to me.  Brewer has headed the regional housing center board and served on the Bellwood plan commission.  But what does he know about Oak Park.

Meanwhile, Reader A. in an email questions my interpretation of It Takes a Village clerk candidate Sharon Patchak-Layman’s emphasis on organizing “networks” of parents and others as political.  I “make it sound as though there is something underhanded in this,” she says, noting the traditional role of village clerks in finding and recruiting people for various commissions.

A. is right about that, and the reader can judge from what I report whether Patchak-L has more than that in mind. 

I have sat in on the “commission on commissions” meetings (Community Involvement Commission is the official name), by the way, and found it fascinating in part for its display of highly qualified citizen volunteers who come before it to be interviewed.  It’s the clerk’s commission, yes; she attends its meetings, and though I missed evidence of a prominent role by the clerk in recruiting volunteers, I happily concede it. 

However, the Patchak-Layman matter and her candidacy gets a kick in the rear in today’s Wednesday Journal in a letter from Carol Browder, who recalled her being censured a year ago by the high school board on which she serves, for “for violating her oath of office and that Board’s policies” — for “having a conflict of interest by “advocating” for a parent who has filed a complaint with the state against the school” in the Wed. Journal article she cites, of 1/29/08.

Adding insult, Patchak-Layman’s opponent in this race, Theresa Powell notes in another letter in today’s Journal that P-L takes a position on board activity — how often to enter executive session — that as clerk she would have no say about.

“The village clerk is not the party who determines when the board should meet in executive session. There simply is no need to politicize the clerk’s role.”  She adds, tellingly, “The clerk is charged with handling both public and confidential matters of the board in a professional and appropriate manner.  . . .  by statute, [the clerk] has authority over official village records and elections and administers the office that handles many of the licenses and permits issued by the village.”

I must add, being careful not to protest too much, that I beat Powell to it with my public allegation of political activity being planned inappropriately.  Nor was I aware of her letter, being not in contact with her campaign.