Our meeting with Noland

E-mail sent by Doug Heaton to State Senator Mike Noland on January 27, 2007:

Dear Senator Noland:

DRAFT OF COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MEETING January 26, 2008
Would you care to comment or make corrections prior to publication?

I suppose that our meeting with Senator Noland was a bit of a disappointment to me. It began innocently enough with a statement by Noland that he wanted to see what we wanted to discuss and he would make comments at the end.

We began by bringing out some of the comment cards and petition sheets. We had found that elected officials from the city (three in all) were very impressed to read a sampling of them. They could tell that these people were concerned, but level-headed constituents.

Dave White handed him two large stacks with the comment, “I don’t expect for you to read them all but you might like to take a look at some of them to get a feel for the passion people have on this issue.”

Noland thumbed through the stack but didn’t take much time to read them.

I believe I launched into the next phase of the presentation too quickly. It was mostly background information I thought we could all agree on. The Pew Hispanic Center selected data on how many illegal aliens, their characteristics, and an interesting analysis of voting patterns.

Somewhere in the middle of that presentation, Noland said he thought it was important to interrupt and make comments. Fine with me.

His comments wound their way through the issue of low Hispanic voter turn-out… to wanting some sort of verification of the 3,000 people AFLA claims to have… to his personal experience regarding illegal aliens without licenses and how they clog the Elgin courts and cost us all money.

Dave White asked him some pointed questions about upholding the law first before making exceptions for illegal aliens, only to be told by Noland that immigration violations are only civil in nature. I challenged that statement based on a report by the Congressional Research Service which I could not cite and did not have with me. I offered to research it and get him a copy but Noland moved on without comment or answer.

Gini brought up the issue of getting a license then canceling the insurance policy. I reminded Noland of previous correspondence from me about the lack of enforcement at the SOS regarding insurance and plate renewal.

I retrieved our 200 page book on state initiatives and placed it on his desk. I opened it to a section about driving certificates and proceeded to tell him that Oklahoma had passed legislation regarding on-line access to valid car insurance policies.

Gini then talked about her personal experiences with two car accidents involving uninsured motorists.

After a few more minutes of Noland explaining his position on driving certificates and warning us to keep LULAC and his wife out of comments regarding his position, Dave White collected the petitions and comment cards and left the meeting in disgust.

Gini and I remained in hopes of presenting the book to him.

Noland went back to his original request that he be given some of the AFLA petitions and cards so he could extract a sample of 300 or so, make sure they were registered voters, and make calls to perhaps 100 of them to make sure they understood what they were asking and how much it costs.

I explained that these petitions and cards were specific to the city issues and were never presented to the city council. Nor were they “referendum quality”. I also explained that I don’t have permission to share their information with him.

I offered to have these people contact his office directly if they so chose. He was firm in wanting our original data. I told him that I did not have the authority to promise that.

As for accepting our book of state initiatives, he refused until such time as he received the AFLA supporter list. At one point he agreed to accept it if I could get that list by Monday.

Gini went back to her notes to attempt to salvage something from our meeting. She said she heard him say during the discussion:
He is in favor of driving certificates for illegals
He opposes amnesty
He believes the federal government should enforce the immigration laws
He believes that one day we will build a fence once we are willing to pay for it, suggesting that the funding was an issue with the people.
(Parenthetically, this is politician view. The withdrawal of funding this year and last was due to quiet political maneuvering at the end of the year, not some public outcry, protest, or contact blitz. The people wanted it and were expecting it. No protests were lodged about the costs during the budget approval process. It is another example of politicians doing what they want rather than carrying out what they voted to do.)

That discussion went through several twists and turns with him feeling he’d given a definitive answer and us feeling confused.

I left the meeting wondering if all the groups he entertains are subjected to the same scrutiny of supporter lists (let him pick a 10% sample, check voter registration records, and call 100 people to talk through the issue).

I’ve been in such meetings before. This is the most adversarial I have ever attended. Typically, we would present our information, the elected official would discuss his past voting record, and the request would be left with them for study without comment or promise. I would characterize this meeting with Noland as akin to approaching the altar of the Wizard of Oz.

Now, about direct answers to questions, Noland warned us not to draw conclusions about his position simply because his wife is the LULAC chapter president. And he repeated what he had said before…something like, “Don’t assume that I share my wife’s views on this issue.” Parsing of words is commonplace in his profession as a politician. Excuse me if I continue to wonder why he didn’t say, “My wife and I disagree as to what should be done about illegal aliens.”

Here in Illinois we are a tad sensitive about the perceived incestuous relationship between state government and the Latino activist group, ICIRR. Forgive us for being suspicious of close associations and the potential for conflict of interest. Of course, the only way to eliminate all appearance of evil would be for her to resign her position.

Noland made the comment that he works for the voters, that he was hired by the people to do this job. He is the second politician in as many months to make that statement to me. That one is really hard to swallow from any politician these days, and Noland is no exception.

Follow the money. (A note here: Noland is not a special case here. They all seem to have this problem to one degree or another.)

Here are Noland’s main contributors:
He raised $627,000 in his 2006 campaign.
70% came from one source, the Illinois Democratic Party
18% came from labor unions
4% came from a pro-abortion group

Only $20,000 out of $627,000 even came from zip codes in the 22nd district.
Individuals (the people who “hired” him) only contributed $9,775.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?si=200614&c=417361
Verified against state records at: http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/D2Semi.aspx?id=335469

Based on what we all saw in Springfield last year, we are simply not buying any politician’s quaint “I work for you” speeches. And when constituents have to jump through hoops to get a state senator to even agree to review our recommendations we have even less regard for that statement.

In the end I left no documents behind. The book was costly to produce and would be put to better use by an elected official who actually wants some background on the matter.

Sincerely,
Doug Heaton

On January 27th, Noland wrote back about my report, saying:
“Be sure to publish this as well: Though disappointed, I’m not surprised. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in calling for our meeting. I should have known you would take what conversation we had and twist it to suit your needs. You should be ashamed. Publish this as you chose but I am not going to engage in a tit for tat rehash of our conversation. You are welcome to leave any information you wish for me at my office to review and I will look at it.”

Also on January 27th, I responded back to Noland, saying:
Feel free to take any "spin" out of my message, Senator.
Doug Heaton

I did not receive a response from him. I did see him at my polling place on election day (he was a poll watcher) and he said he’d be glad to take a look at any information I wanted to send him. My opinion is that if I wanted to give a copy of our $20 book to LULAC or SOAP, I would do so. I originally offered it because he is MY state senator, but the resources are better spent on those who are willing readers.
Doug