Municipal Judge Candidate 'Withdraws' From Race
Cannot remove name from ballot, but will not campaign for office.
The field of candidates for municipal judge in Wentzville just got smaller.
Candidate Jay Lenox told the Board of Aldermen that he was not going to campaign for the office. Lenox made the announcement at the board's work session Wednesday.
"I would withdraw if I could, but I can't," Lenox told the board."I'm giving my support to Steve Martin."
It is too late to remove Lenox's name from the ballot. The election is Tuesday, April 5.
Lenox, an attorney at Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos in St. Charles, said he entered the race because he didn't like the direction the courts were heading in.
"I think the city should have an honest, ethical, fair and impartial judge," he said.
After reviewing the large field, Lenox said he decided that he didn't want to split the vote.
"It would be a real shame if neither myself or Steve won," he said. "It would be a disservice to the city, the citizens and the police department for me to stay in and split the vote."
Lenox said he did not consider himself a candidate and would not go to the expense of campaigning. He also made it clear that he was not pressured to exit the campaign.
Mike Carter, St. Peters, currently serves as the city's judge. He is running for reelection.
Other candidates on the ballot include:
- Andrew Koor, O'Fallon;
- Michael Kruse, O'Fallon; and
- Joel Eisenstein, O'Fallon.
Donna Sherwood, a candidate for the Ward 2 seat being vacated by Peggy Meyer, spoke after Lenox made his announcement to chastise the board of aldermen.
"I think it is totally inappropriate for you to all0w Mr. Lenox to campaign for Mr. Martin," she said. "You need to allow other candidates the same opportunity."
Mayor Paul Lambi noted that Lenox spoke in public forum and Sherwood was allowed to do the same.
"I didn't prepare remarks or have anyone here," she said.
O Hush
12:18 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
I've had personal experience with two of the candidates.
Mr. Koor was a Gardian ad litem for my children when I was trying to get more custody. He stopped meetings with me early, charged the full hour, and seriously chastised me when my ex-wife got angry about his (Koor's) custody schedule. He is clueless - and charged more than either of the other lawyers in the case. And most importantly, I have one child who has serious issues because of his mother's permissive and selfish attitude.
After we all moved here from Indiana, my ex-wife seriously impacted my custody and relationship with my children. I had no power to enforce the agreement until it was "settled" in St. Charles court. Mr Eisenstein, as my ex-wife's lawyer, managed to keep my hearing out of the courts for over 2 years by switching us to recused judges over and over again.
What a shame that these men will try to focus their moral and legal "assets" on the public good!
Suzy
7:14 pm on Friday, April 1, 2011
Dear o hush, your comments are the direct opposite of my experience with dealing with mr. Koor. He always tried to do what is best for the children when he was gal. Are you sure he didn't do what was best for your children?
O Hush
9:44 am on Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Dear Suzy. My ex would say the same thing. I think Mr. Koor summed it up as he was cutting one of our meetings short when he said: "Why do you want the kids more anyway?" My ex has kept me in the dark on medical issues (including a gang-beating of one of my children and permanent medical procedures); legal issues on drugs, violence and traffic issues; restricted my access to the children on birthdays, holidays and other visitation, and refused my requests to get help for a drug-using child who spent years recovering from mistakes. Mr. Koor took the St. Charles approach to child welfare - let "mom" have the kids, let "dad" have the bills, and the kids welfare is not a concern. Your solution may very well have been in the best interest of your children. Mine, sad to say, was definitely not.