Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Quinn promises cuts, talks to suburbanites
Next Post: Greedy U
Posted in:
* The ongoing investigation surrounding state Rep. Paul Froehlich’s use of property tax appeals to allegedly boost his campaign fundraising and his reelection prospects has turned over a much overlooked rock.
Victor Santana.
As a result of the probe, Fox Chicago reports that Santana, who is about as close as you can get to Cook County Board of Review member and county Democratic Party Chairman Joe Berrios, has been banned from doing any business with the Board of Review.
Part of the problem with Santana is that he’s allegedly been charging people for his interventions with the Board of Review, which would be illegal since he’s not an attorney. He’s reportedly been helping Froehlich with property tax appeals in Froehlich’s district.
From last night’s Fox Chicago report…
But was Froehlich getting help on the inside? Judy McCurdy, who ran Froehlich’s office until she was fired last year, says she was instructed by Froehlich not to follow the standard procedure of mailing the tax appeals to the board.
“The forms were mailed to an individual by the name of Victor Santana, who was the connection for Paul Froehlich.” Said Judy McCurdy
Even though Santana hadn’t worked at the board of review in years, he still had open access to staffers and private areas controlled by commissioner Joseph Berrios. Now, all three commissioners, including Berrios, have banned Santana from their offices…
Placko: “Have you ever taken this kind of action before, banning someone from the board of review?”
Houlihan: “Well I’ve been here two and a half years and we have not banned anyone since I’ve been here.”
And the mystery gets even deeper. Remember Mike Gray, the owner of the Schaumburg furniture store? He told the board, that’s not his signature on his tax appeal which was notarized by Victor Santana.
Gray says he paid Santana two thousand dollars to handle two appeals. Problem is, Santana is not an attorney.
“The concern with Victor Santana is that he, according to certain individuals, has earned money for his involvement and assistance in handling real estate appeals. And unless he’s an attorney he should not be doing it.” Said Larry Rogers Jr.
Here’s the full Fox report…
* Doing research on Santana is not easy. He doesn’t show up much on campaign reports, for instance. What appears to be his company, QTA [Quick Turn Around] Services, gave money once to a committee he controlled that is now defunct, Citizens in Action. There’s another business named “RFG Consultants” that has the same address that he’s used. That company has given a few bucks. Santana’s apparently listed on one disclosure report as being paid $200 in 2001 for a “baptism.”
And I haven’t yet found anything that looks like an expenditure to him on Rep. Froehlich’s campaign finance report for the last six months of 2008. He did give to Froehlich’s township committee back when Froehlich was a Republican.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 10:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Quinn promises cuts, talks to suburbanites
Next Post: Greedy U
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m glad somebody finally put Victor Santana in the spotlight. Can they ban him from the entire building? All public buildings? That would be a nice touch, since he’ll probably just slink over to a new Berrios-sponsored watering hole for his next feeding at the public’s expense.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 11:31 am
“The concern with Victor Santana is that he, according to certain individuals, has earned money for his involvement and assistance in handling real estate appeals. And unless he’s an attorney he should not be doing it.” Said Larry Rogers Jr.
{Rule 1 Individual taxpayers may retain an attorney or represent themselves before the Board. Other taxpayers, including corporations, must be represented by an attorney. A person who is not an attorney may not represent a taxpayer before the Board.
Rule 2 Failure to follow any rule may, in and of itself be grounds for the denial of any relief.
Rule 24 All complaints, summary sheets and logs must be signed by the taxpayer, or, if he/she is represented by an attorney, they may be signed by the attorney. The signature on each of these documents constitutes a representation that the facts appearing thereon are true and correct.
Rule 25 Copies of all documents filed with the Board shall be accompanied by an authenticity affidavit* in which each such copy is separately identified.
Rule 26 All affidavits filed before the Board shall be signed by a person having knowledge of the facts, provided: that an affidavit filed on behalf of a corporation where one person does not have knowledge of all the facts may be filed by a duly qualified representative of the corporation based upon affiant’s inquiry of, and facts ascertained from, those representatives of the corporation having knowledge of the facts.}
Unless here is something in statute; I don’t see anything in the Board of Review Rules which would preclude providing professional services associated with an appeal for a fee by someone other than an attorney, so long as those services do not include representing a taxpayer before the Board.
It gets a little fuzzy surrounding the issue of signature notarization. While he may be potentially liable for a violation of the Notary law; I don’t think that his notarization of singature on documents may be construed as representing someone before the Board; assuming notarization is required.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 12:04 pm
Anything that shines a spotlight on the various dealings of Joe Berrios is a good thing. A very good thing.
Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 12:20 pm
Quinn T Sential, re-read the last sentence of Rule 1.
When a person is filing the paperwork to request a review, they are “representing” the property owner. You don’t necessarily have to literally stand in the same room as the Commissioners to be “representing” someone.
I filed my own appeal last year on my personal residence. I am not a lawyer, but rule 1 allows me to file the paperwork related to my personal property for myself.
If my neighbor asked me to file their paperwork for them, I am not allowed to do so because I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of their property.
Same goes for Santana in this matter (especially so with regards to the commercial property in question which in all likelihood is owned by a corporation rather than an individual).
Make sense?
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 1:00 pm
What? Ethical issues for a member of the GA??? But we’ve been told that all the corruption lies in the executive branch…
Comment by Greg B. Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 1:15 pm
At some point there needs to be an investigation into the political contributions to Rep. Toni Berrios from Property Tax lawyers doing business before her father. Not that she gets what the conflict is but folks we are talking about big bucks coming her way. HUGE conflict of interest and should be investigated for potential quid pro quo.
Comment by ANON Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 1:19 pm
{Quinn T Sential, re-read the last sentence of Rule 1.
When a person is filing the paperwork to request a review, they are “representing” the property owner. You don’t necessarily have to literally stand in the same room as the Commissioners to be “representing” someone.}
If a person submits the paperwork signed by the property owner, they may be nothing more than a bicycle messenger or postal worker, because the application can be submitted via U.S. Mail.
{If my neighbor asked me to file their paperwork for them, I am not allowed to do so because I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of their property.}
If you delivered paperwork to the Board of Review as a matter of convenience which was signed by your neighbor, you would not be improperly representing your neighbor before the Board, but you could be a bicycle messenger or U.S. Postal worker.
I also think the situation with the corporation is somewhat fuzzy; because I think the story only indicated that he notarized the owner’s signature.
Rule 26 requires that all affidavits filed before the Board shall be signed by a person having knowledge of the facts. Whomever signed the paperwork may have had knowledge of the facts, and yet was neither the attorney, nor the property owner. Now; signing someone else’s name to an affidavity is a completely different story, but I did not yet see that alledged as to Santana.
I think the BOR has a problem in that “representing someone before the Board” is not otherwise deifned in the rules, and unless it is defined elsewhere in statute their regulatory provision designed to qualify who can participate in the process for a fee is weak, and subject to pretty loose interpretation.
If taken before a jury; who’s determination could result in screwing some lawyers out of making money, my wager would go on the attorney’s losing that bet withour a staute or rules that are more clearly defined.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 1:44 pm
Using arranged assessment reductions as political and personal currency is just the newest iteration of devious corruption. Santana has just crafted the newest method by which the pockets of self-aggrandizing bottom feeders are lined at the expense of honest citizens
Comment by current coin of the realm Tuesday, Jul 7, 09 @ 10:23 pm