patrickmurfin

In one week the 2009 General Assembly:  A Meeting of Congregations will convene in Salt Lake City.  Around the country Unitarian Universalists are excited, getting ready to go and deciding what to pack.  Those looking for wardrobe advice or a guide to fine dining—or on how the @$*&! can I get a drink in a Mormon town—will have to go elsewhere.  This post is about something completely different—girding the loins to face a UUA Presidential Campaign in full roar.

It has been eight years since the last contested Presidential election.  Only grizzled GA Junkies, long serving ministers, staff and perennial vendors have experienced this hoopla before.  The vast majority of delegates—maybe even you—will be experiencing it for the first time.

I’m too poor to make it to Salt Lake this year.  I have cast my absentee ballot already.  But I was in Cleveland eight years ago when the Rev. William Sinkford defeated the Rev. Dianne Miller in a close and hard fought election.  I remember it well and think I owe those of you who are going to experience the whole thing for the first time.  So here goes.

First, a disclaimer:  I am a supporter of the Rev. Peter Morales and have served on his Web Communications Team.  This blog entry, however is entirely my own responsibility and was prepared completely without consultation with anyone involved in the campaign.  Second, a pledge:  While I might not be able to temper my enthusiasms in every instance, I will try to keep my remarks useful to everyone, including supporters of the Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and the many of you who are still uncommitted or ambivalent.

Of course the Presidential election will not be the only issue in front of the GA.  The adoption of a Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking is still a matter of controversy between advocates of firm pacifism and those of a Just War approach with self-declared UU conservatives wringing their hands in the corner over any statement at all.  The Commission on Appraisal’s proposed revision to the Principles and Purposes has quietly stirred up opposition in the ranks on account of clunky wordsmithing and a feeling in the Pews to leave well enough alone.  The always high energy Youth Caucus is apt to be restive because their continental organization, Young Religious Unitarian Universalists (YRUU) was smothered in its sleep by the UUA Board with no replacement in sight.  Bereft members of former UUA Affiliate organizations may likewise be more than a tad unhappy.  The future of General Assemblies themselves may be in question as the current Board seems to be supportive of “reforming” or replacing GAs with governance-only meetings and regional assemblies.  In the background the adoption of Policy Governance, the continuing drive to Congregational Polity Fundamentalism (my admittedly pejorative term), and the strains of the Budget caused by the economic crisis will all be on delegate’s minds.  And many of these issues will influence and be influenced by the Presidential race as supporters of both candidates try to stake out turf.

But the election is going to grab your immediate attention as a delegate.  You won’t be able to ignore it.

Anyone under the delusion that this is a solemn process like the election of a Pope or a respectful act of discernment is in for a big shock.  The election of a UUA President is politics with all that entails.  As you will discover upon arriving in Salt Lake.

If you fly in, you may be astonished to find your plane greeted by button wearing, literature toting, wildly enthusiastic volunteers from both campaigns.  They will “greet you” and try do determine if you are yet committed to a candidate or bound by instructions from you home congregation.  If your answer is “no” to both questions or you seem “soft” in any way in your support of a candidate you will soon be the center of a great deal of attention.

If you arrive by car, get off a Greyhound, or fling your bindle from the side-door Pullman car before leaping from the train, you will find similar greetings at your hotel and when you enter the Convention Center.  In fact, for the next few days candidate volunteers will be at the top of every escalator, lurking outside plenary sessions, be all over the vendor area despite being asked repeatedly to confine themselves to each campaign’s lavishly appointed multi-media booths, and will swarm around evening social events.  And each and every one of those volunteers really wants to talk to you!  

You probably will find campaign materials and invitations to events left under the door of your hotel room, just in case you have somehow eluded other contact.  You will undoubtedly be invited to at least one candidate reception in a hotel suite or well appointed meeting room.  If you belong to a significant organization, whether or not it is still an official affiliate, you may find the candidates or leading surrogates at your organization’s annual meeting.  Or you may be invited to special receptions and events targeting your interests.  

If you are still truly uncommitted and if you are identified as potentially influential among like delegates, you may be astonished to receive direct attention from some folks with very big names in the UU universe.  How flattering it is for the delegates from the UU Fellowship of East Podunk-Over-the-Hill to find they are found fascinating by a big name minister from a prestige congregation, someone whose name is regularly in the UUWorld, or whose book you have maybe read in an adult RE class.   UU heavyweights will ache to have a meal with you and tell you all about the sterling qualities of their favored candidate.

Of course not all campaigning will be about how good the candidates are.  No matter how many covenants are signed, an inevitable part of any election is tearing down the opposing candidate.  In the genteel (relatively) world of UU politics this is usually preceded by effusive praise of the other candidate as a local minister followed by a long and detailed “but…”  These negative messages may be targeted to you based on your identified interests and passions.  In this campaign this has often broadly been that Morales lacks spiritual depth and uses “scare” tactics about growth on one hand, or the Hallman is an inward focused navel gazer and is unprepared for the demographic shifts remaking the American religious landscape on the other.  Both criticisms can and are made with passion and sometimes delivered with sharp elbows, but are part and parcel of any campaign.

But inevitably in any campaign with passionate advocates some negative campaigning is likely to turn nasty either without the knowledge and approval of the candidates or sometimes with a wink-and-a-nod from their campaigns.  Usually you will find nothing committed to paper.  But you may hear alarming rumors about murky pasts, secret agendas, connections with “devil figures,” even, alas, sexual and relationship peccadilloes.  No one can ever seem to track down the origin of these kinds of rumors, but they can flash across the Assembly at astonishing speed and be nearly impossible to refute without highlighting them even further.  Beware of and discount any of these kinds of rumors.

The candidates will have a joint Presidential Forum at 7 PM Thursday night.  It will undoubtedly last longer than the appointed hour and a quarter.  That session will be available on streaming video for the folks back home or for delegates confined to their hotel rooms by Brigham Young’s revenge.  CDs will be available in the blink of an eye.  Both campaigns will take careful note of the questions and answers.  Within hours each campaign will have out material tailored to the hot button issues identified in the appearance, highlighting their candidates' responses, and criticizing the answers of the opponent.

And then, believe it or not, the campaigns really roll into high gear.  Each will be carefully counting and tracking delegates, noting when each finally expresses a preference or indicates a leaning.  Leaners and the ever dwindling pool of uncommitted voters will each receive even more direct attention from the campaigns and their leading surrogates.

Balloting will finally take place from noon to 5:30 on Saturday in the Exhibit hall.  Delegates will have to bring their signed ballot stubs to the polling place to relieve a ballot.

Then it’s nail biting time.  Nobody has been able to poll this election, but all indications are that it will be a very tight race.

The results will be announced at what is billed as a special worship service in Celebration of the Candidates and the Election.  It is being advertised as a worship service to keep celebrating by the victor’s supporters and wails of grief from the loser’s at a minimum. It will fail to accomplish that.  The losing candidate will make a very gracious statement and pledge support of the winner.  The winner will be effusive in praise of the looser and promise to rely on him/her for advise and support.  And then it will, quite suddenly, be over.

Inevitably some of the loser’s folks will be bitter.  Some will say that this is the “final straw” and will announce that they are leaving the UUA for good.  A few will even mean it.  One final piece of advice:  Don’t let yourself be one of these soreheads.  As the children of Knoxville reminded us after the shooting in their church, The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.

Rev. Peter Morales and Rev. Laurel Hallman shared a chuckle at a joint appearance at the Central Midwest District Assembly in April.

Despite the fact that the Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman has been an announced candidate for two long years (and a presumed candidate before that) and the Rev. Peter Morales has been on the trail for over a year, many rank-and-file Unitiarian Universalists—you know, the folks in the pews—may be getting their first real look at the Presidential contest when they opened the Summer issue of UU World magazine. Each candidate placed bought-and-paid-for two page advertising spreads.  (Sorry the ads do not appear in the on-line version you will find via the previous link.  UUs out there can go scramble for their print copies for the discussion below.  Go ahead, I’ll wait.)

The two ads are a study in contrasts.  Hallman won the coin flip, or something.  Her ad was first.  For UU political junkies who have been closely following the campaign, it was a revelation.  The left hand page contained a series of bullet points on change, the challenge of the multicultural future, growth, and building “the movement that we love.” None of these issues were featured proximately in her original platform, which emphasized deepening “understanding of our liberal religious heritage, theology, and spirituality.”  All were hallmarks of the Morales campaign and were driven to the fore by reactions to the multiple joint appearances made by both candidates at many venues over the last year.

But while effectively acknowledging that Morales has shaped the campaign, the ad makes a mantra of adding some variations of “it takes more than talk” to each implying that Morales is all wind and no sail.  Does this campaign tactic seem vaguely familiar to any one?

The second page features a missive from the candidate which opens with warm fuzzies and a positive tone, but follows with another back hand to Morales, “I will never forget that the UUA is not a corporate headquarters or government agency—it is home to a religious movement.”  This is a clear reference to Morale’s long pre-ministerial career in business, journalism, and California government thus attempting to make light of his call for the application of modern management tools and technology while questioning the depth of his “spirituality.”

Flanking the bullet points and the essay on both pages are impressive endorsements by UU heavy weights in bold print, including names which the most of delegates hold in awe and esteem.  It is an impressive list and meant to emphasize a theme of the Hallman campaign from the outset—that she is the Chosen One and that Morales is something of an interloping outsider.

The Morales ad which follows is a study in contrasts.  It opens with a very brief quote from the candidate:

Our movement has breathtaking potential.  If we act boldly, with clear vision and tough practicality we can seize this historic opportunity to revitalize our faith.

Then follows with a series of endorsement statements from a wide range of sources, heavy hitters and ordinary lay members alike, discussing Morale’s plans for growing the faith, leading in hard times, public witness, and multiculturalism.  Dimly screened behind the text are photos of dozens of other endorsers of all ages, colors, sexes, and classes.  Nary a negative implication or word against Hallman appears.

The Hallman ad reflects a campaign that feels besieged and defensive.  Morales, on the other hand, presents an optimistic, grass roots, issue oriented face.

Meanwhile, identity politics, originally foresworn by both candidates, has raised its head.  Early on in the campaign, when Morales seemed more of a nuisance than a serious competitor, Hallman sailed along with the largely unspoken understanding that women would rally behind her after other high profile women lost the last two UU presidential races.  Then Morales picked up endorsements by some highly regarded women ministers of large congregations.  After a joint appearance of the two candidates at the International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women in Houston this February the Board of the Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation unanimously endorsed Morales.  Many Feminists, it turned out liked Morales and his record on women’s issues. 

The response of the Hallman campaign was to dust off a year old resolution here-to-fore languishing in the depths of the personal endorsements on the Hallman web page.  The Annual Meeting of the Unitarian Universalist Women & Religion organization endorsed Hallman at a meeting before the 2008 General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale.  That was before both candidates made their presentations at the GA and Morales emerged as a serious contender.  Now the endorsement of this smallish organization was needed to balance the Board of the venerable Women’s Federation, recognized as one of only three survivors among UUA Affiliate Organizations.

Supporters and surrogates of the Hallman campaign also began openly appealing for gender solidarity because it was “finally time” for a woman to take the helm.  The wind was partially taken out of those sails when the last woman to run from the UUA Presidency, the Rev. Dianne Miller reiterated her endorsement of Morales on the UU e-mail discussion list Election-L thusly:

…The next UUA President faces tough decisions with big needs and decreased resources, and will need to act in a climate of competing demands and viewpoints.

I have decided to support Peter Morales for a number of reasons. For one, I have been impressed with his inclusivity and warmth and his ability to maintain a steady engagement with issues in the midst of politically charged discourse.

Speaking of Election-L, that is where a good deal of the heat—and some light—is generated in the campaign.  Although only 380 or so folks subscribe, this discussion forum gets lively with passionate advocates of both camps arguing to sway the votes of a relatively few uncommitted readers.  A personal e-mail to a list contributor asking him to dial down his rhetoric by a Morales campaign official was recently accidently posted to the list leading to a flurry of charges of sexism against both the poster and the campaign official from Hallman supporters.  Both men subsequently apologized both for the technical error and for offence given.

Then Hallman campaign manager, the Rev. Wayne Arnason decided to make the tempest-in-a-teapot an opportunity to blow up the stove and paint the Hallman campaign in high minded nobility by declining to participate further in discussions on the list.    The only thing he accused the Morales campaign of was "strategizing" about list posts. Guilty as charged.  That that is what campaigns do--strategize to find ways to bring their message clearly to the most number of voters.  Despite that, most pro-Morales posts on the list have come from people completely independent of the campaign or who, like Hallman supporters, use the list as a way of announcing their personal endorsements. 

Some regard the decision to publicly disengage was itself “strategizing.”  Self declared undecided potential voters appealed to both side to continue to post positive information about their candidates.  Morales campaign manager Dea Brayden promised Election-L readers that, “…the Morales campaign has been and will continue to be committed to maintaining a tone that… meets both the letter and the spirit of the covenant that the candidates agreed
to…”  She said further that:

I expect that Morales supporters will continue to post to this list. I hope
that Hallman supporters will too, and that we all will continue to maintain
an innuendo-free tone that always has been our aim.  It is to everyone's
benefit that the strengths, the passions and visions of both candidates are
described here.  May the discourse be substantial and useful.

Subsequently posts have been made to the list by neutrals, Morales supporters, and Hallman supporters, if not members of her official campaign.

The campaign has also been conducted in the blog-o-sphere.  Both campaigns have their own blogs. Morales for UUA President has been around longest and contains long form individual endorsements, endorsements by organizations like the Women’s Federation and Unitarian Universalsist for a Just Economic Community (UUJEC), and direct responses from  Morales himself on campaign issues.  He used the forum to address questions about the fate of UUA Affiliate Groups and to de-bunk a nasty but persistent rumor that he did not plan to move to Boston to work out of UUA headquarters if elected.

Hallman was late to the blog arena.  Her Laurel Hallman for UU President so far includes just two entries, both of them lifted in total from her regular web page.  With no new entries in over a week, the campaign may have already abandoned trying to keep it up.

Meanwhile individual bloggers are stepping up endorsements of both candidates, and sometimes lively discussions go on in the comments sections.  

Both candidates can be found on Facebook--Morales and Hallman.  And both have posted their candidacy announcements, some sermon or speech clips, and endorsements on You Tube.  Neither, as far as I can tell have fallen for the charms of Twitter, which I am told is blogging for the short attention span era.

With the election at General Assembly in Salt Lake City only four weeks away, absentee voting by delegates and ministers in fellowship has already begun.  Some congregations, like Eliot Chapel in St. Louis either have already or will soon hold meeting to instruct their delegates. Rev. Daniel O’Connell described the process and outcome at Eliot.

Other congregations, like my own Congregational Unitarian Church in Woodstock, leave their delegates to vote their consciences.  I have already cast my absentee ballot for Peter Morales.  

My guess, as both an old hand at politics and a UUA governance geek is that the race, which Hallman once thought of as securely in her hands, is now up for grabs.  In fact rank and file trends might be edging toward Morales.  Since there are no polls or goat entrails to read, we may all wait on pins and needles for the outcome.

Full disclosure: I am a declared Morales supporter and a member of the campaign's Web Communications Team.  I am solely responsible for the content of this post and have not shared it in advance with any member of the Morales campaign.

Meredith Reid Sarkees and Patrick Murfin wish to thank all of our volunteers, contributors, supporters and the voters.  We lost the election, but are proud to have stood up to be counted.

Here are the results as posted on McVote.  These results are not final.  Early and absentee ballots have not yet been recorded.  But early voting was very light and will not significantly affect the out come

So what happened?

Support for the Democratic Party candidates closely tracked the turn out in most Democratic Primaries (the last Presidential Primary excepted.)  In other words folks who are so strongly committed to the party that they have been willing to let their friends and neighbors in a traditionally overwhelmingly Republican area know who they are came out to vote.  The much larger number of folks who now vote Democratic in state and national elections, but traditionally pay no attention to local races, could not be turned out despite a concerted effort.  Some how we have to get the “national Democrats” to recognize the importance of local races.

Meanwhile the Republican Party, stung by the loss of McHenry County last November, was highly motivated to re-assert their traditional dominance of local governments.  The party raised and spent unprecedented money in support of their Team Nunda slate and in support of Algonquin Township trustee candidates challenged by another Democratic slate. 

The township was blanketed by hundreds of Team Nunda signs and hundreds more signs for each individual candidate.  By contrast the Change for Nunda campaign could only afford 50 signs at least half of which were stolen.  There were also multiple mailings and robo calls.  Change for Nunda got out one targeted mailing and volunteers made about 1000 phone calls in concert with McHenry County College Trustee candidate John Darger.  The Republicans also actually got out and canvassed door-to-door in some areas, which has been unheard of in recent elections.  They had ceded the shoe leather department to Democrats who have tried to make up for less well funded campaigns with personal campaigning.

So it became a turn-out-your-base election.  And the sad fact is that in Nunda Township the Republicans can still turn out a bigger base than the Democrats.

The Nunda Open Space Referendum was also a factor.  Murfin and Sarkees enthusiastically supported the referendum, which would have issued bonds to buy and preserve open space to protect ground water reserves.  Although the funding mechanism failed to pass it by a mere handful of votes the last time it was offered, bringing it back to the voters in hard economic times was risky.  But it was a matter of conscience for both candidates.

You can see that the yes vote closely paralleled the Change for Nunda numbers.  Murfin and Sarkees got the majority of yes voters.  On the other hand support for the referendum undoubtedly cost the candidates some votes even among Democrats voting their pocket books over environmental concerns.

Finally, did the last minute smear campaign launched against Murfin have much effect?  For all of the strum und drang it was essentially shouting down the rain barrel.  It got  half a dozen lunatics into a froth in the on-line comments to letters to the editor in the Northwest Herald.  “Discussion” there quickly spun out of control and ended with accusations that Murfin was an actual “Communist.”  But most voters of either party disregarded the noise.  It certainly did not effect the Democratic base.  At worst may have motivated a couple of dozen knuckle draggers to turn out to vote for Team Nunda—and to oil their guns in preparation for the upcoming insurrection against the “socialist/facist/muslim/terrorists/gun grabbing/baby killing regime in Washington.”

But despite the defeat, this election was an important skirmish in the on going guerilla campaign to “Turn McHenry County Blue.”  By not ceding local races to the Republicans, Democrats force them to spend large amounts of cash.  We keep our campaign organizations intact and in practice between even-year general elections.  And we develop experienced candidates who learn the ropes and can go on to bigger things.  First time candidate Sarkees, who outdrew old timer Murfin, has all of the credentials to go on to other races.

It seems just yesterday since Nunda Township Democrats caucused to nominate Meredith Reid Sarkees and me as candidates for Township Trustee.  Less than three month is not much time to pull together a campaign, even one for an often neglected local race.  So we have been pretty busy.

We appreciate the support offered to us in donations of time, talent, and treasure.  Without it he could not hope to challenge one of the most entrenched political machines in McHenry County.

Now we need you to go the final mile.  VOTE!  Call your friends and neighbors and remind them to VOTE!  In the race for Nunda Township Trustee vote only for you Change for Nunda candidates, Murfin and Sarkees.  Do not “fill out” your ballot by voting for any of the Team Nunda Republicans.  You don’t need to vote for all four positions.  Vote only for the best.

While you are at the polls, please support the Nunda Township Open Space Referendum, which we have enthusiastically endorsed.  And vote for John Darger, candidate for McHenry County College Trustee.

 And after the polls close please join us and the friends and supporters of Algonquin Township Democratic Candidates—Frank Hyden, Robert Franks, and James McTague—and John Darger at Porter’s Oyster Bar, 446 W Virginia Street, Crystal Lake to follow the returns and celebrate the campaigns. 

On Saturday, Patrick Murfin, with Meredith Reed Sarkees one of the Change for Nunda candidates for Township Trustee, was out canvassing for votes the old fashioned way—by ringing door bells and talking to actual voters.  He had to work fast with a heavy spring snow storm threatening to close in.  He will be hitting the bricks again next weekend.  So will volunteers in other “urban” precincts.

While the tactic may be traditional, a high tech voter data base enables Democratic Party Precinct Representatives to target likely supporters.  Getting those supporters to the polls on April 7 or to cast an early vote is critical to electoral success.

Voters, including those in more rural areas of Nunda Township, are also being contacted by phone and by  post card mailing.

Our Change for Nunda yard signs are in!  If you would like to host a sign, please e-mail your request to pmurfin@sbcglobal.net.  Hurry, supplies are limited!

Early voting for the April 7 Consolidated Election begins Monday, March 16 and continues through Thursday, April 2.  This increasingly popular voting option is the choice of many busy people and insures that your vote is locked in and counted no matter how hectic election day turns out to be. 

Meredith Reid Sarkees and Patrick Murfin, the Change for Nunda candidates are opposed by an entrenched political machine.  We need bank every reliable vote now.

Please consider opting for early or absentee voting.

If you want change in Nunda Township, when you get to the polls cast your Trustee votes only for Murfin and Sarkees.  There are four Trustee positions up for election and only two Democratic candidates.  You are not required to cast 4 votes!  Votes for any of the Republican candidates will pile up votes for them and lessens the chance that your voice for change will be heard.

Early Voting Will Be Conducted At:

McHenry County Administration Building

667 Ware Rd., 2^nd Floor, Conference Room A

Woodstock, IL  60098

Mar 16^th thru Mar 20^th, Mar 23^rd thru Mar 27^th,

Mar 30^th thru Apr 2^nd

Hours: 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM

Saturday, Mar 21^st and Mar 28^th   

9:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Nunda Township Offices

3510 Bay Rd, Annex

Crystal Lake, IL 60012

Mar 23^rd thru Mar 27^th, Mar 30^th thru Apr 2^nd

Hours: 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Saturdays--NO Hours 

Early voting will also be conducted at a number of other locations in the county.  Ballots for all jurisdictions will be available at each location.  For a full list of locations and times consult the McHenry County Clerk’s web page.

Change for Nunda candidates Patrick Murfin and Meredith Reid Sarkees  congratulate the winners of the Republican Party Primary, Tom Palmer, Joni Smith, James C. Schlader, and Kelvin “Lee” Jennings.  We look forward to engaging them in a vigorous debate about the future of our township.  The vote totals courtesy of McVote are:

All four trustee candidates ran together as part of Team Nunda, which was led by powerful highway commissioner Don Kopsell, who was unopposed in the primary.  Dennis Jagla crushed Alan Weaver, the candidate who ran as a “soft” Republican and who appealed for Democratic support with a disingenuous mailer.

All in all, it was a triumph for the regular Republican political machine and business as usual.  Team Nunda can leave out all of those campaign signs already dotting the township.  They probably believe that they can sprint toward victory in the April 7 Consolidated Election while hardly breaking a sweat.

But only about 850 voters participated in the primary.  They represent, for the most part, the core of party diehards. The spring election is also typically a low turn-out affair.  But this time Democrats and the many Independents, who are loath to identify party preference to their friends and neighbors, will be in the mix.  And these voters are eager to see the refreshing winds of change and reform blow through this corner of the county as they have blown through Washington.  They know that the economic crisis faced by all of us will bring new challenges to township government that can only be met with fresh eyes and hands.

Meanwhile, over in Algonquin Township Linda A. Lance, Joseph H. Powalowski, incumbent Niels E. Sorensen, and Lowell A. Cutsforth crushed perennial looser Mark Guerra upholding the unchallenged supremacy of Highway Commissioner Bob Miller.  What is it about highway commissioners as Republican satraps anyway?

They will face Democratic nominees Robert Frank, Frank Hyden, and James McTague.

Democrats and Independents have often skipped the spring off-year election because the races are low profile and they have assumed the contests—when there are any—have been decided by an unchallengeable GOP machine.  But if we can get only one quarter of the folks who cast Democratic ballots in the 2008 Primary or who in the privacy of the voting booth changed the political landscape of McHenry County forever by decisively supporting Barack Obama, we can win.  Yes we can!

It is our job to make sure those Democrats and Independents know what is at stake.  You will be hearing from us.  We will be reminding you to vote—and to cast your votes only for the Democratic Party nominees in these townships.

McHenry County Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Bergan Schmidt addressed confusion over the upcoming Republican Party primary elections in Algonquin and Nunda Townships in a recent statement.

“The only way voters can support Democratic candidates in these townships is to cast their ballots in the April 7^th Consolidated Elections,” Bergan Schmidt said.

Republicans chose to select their candidates in a primary election scheduled for Tuesday, February 24.  Democrats elected to choose their candidates by caucus, which Bergan Schmidt noted was a considerable savings to tax payers.

Winners of the Republican primaries will square off against Democrats for trustee seats in both townships.  Frank Hyden, Robert Frank, and James McTague are the party nominees in Algonquin Township.  Patrick Murfin and Meredith Reid Sarkees will be on the ballot in Nunda Township.

“If a voter chooses to participate in the Republican primary, however, he or she can still vote for Democratic candidates in the April election,” Bergan Schmidt pointed out.

Voters with questions should contact the party at 815 788-9540 or e-mail info@mchenrydems.com.