Campaign finance report shows Norridge Improvement Party paid Scott Erdman, Straughn’s attorney
Details are coming to light over the objections filed by Michael Straughn against myself (Adam Chudzik), Anna Mitera, Andrew Kopinski, and the term limits petitions.
Some of those details including who is actually funding the objection. More specifically, who paid for the attorney used by Straughn.
Straughn has not attended any of the hearings thus far, instead being represented by Chicago attorney Scott Erdman. Ostensibly, Erdman is working for Straughn.
However, a campaign finance report filed by the Norridge Improvement Party (NIP) for the fourth quarter of 2020 shows the NIP’s political action commitee sent a $3,500 payment to Erdman on December 21.
The payment was made mere days after the three candidates filed their nomination papers.
A week later, on December 29th, the last day objections could be submitted, Straughn filed the four objections.
The Norridge Improvement Party’s previous attorney was Richard Means, who died on December 18th from COVID-19.
According to committee information for the NIP on the Illinois State Board of Elections website, Daniel Tannhauser is the chairperson of the Norridge Improvement Party, with Jack Bielak, the treasurer.
Tannhauser was appointed to the position of Norridge’s Village President in July of 2019. Jack Bielak was elected in 2019 as a Norridge Village Trustee.
Bias and conflict of interest
The big issue here: Tannhauser is also the chairperson of the electoral board hearing the objections!
The other members of the Norridge electoral board are also Norridge Improvement Party members – Jackie Gregorio, and Ursula Kucharski.
Tannhauser, Gregorio and Kucharski have all funded their party’s political action committee through campaign contributions.
It’s clear Straughn is just a proxy. The real objector behind the scenes appears to be Daniel Tannhauser, and his masters in the Chicago 38th ward.
This payment to Erdman by the Norridge Improvement Party ties it all together.
Clearly, the judges, including and especially Tannhauser, have clear and present bias, and a conflict of interest. It’s also highly unethical behavior on their part.
At a subsequent hearing, Tannhauser had the arrogance to state he didn’t make any payments to Scott Erdman.
Clearly Tannhauser was stung by the payment revelation, and his statement was an attempt at damage control.
But the proof is all there to see, and no denials will make this issue go away.
None of us can possibly get a fair hearing when the judges are all Norridge Improvement Party, and are funding the objector’s attorney.
Adam Chudzik, Norridge