Monster News Editor Challenges Tucker Appointment

Monster News’ chief editor has asked the Illinois Attorney General and Wayne County State’s Attorney to challenge Linda Tucker’s right to hold a seat on the Wayne County Housing Authority board.

Ronald Baker says he remains the lawful resident commissioner because no qualified successor has replaced him. He has sent both offices a formal request to bring a quo warranto action, with a 46-page packet containing appointment records, his written intent to serve, Resident Advisory Board records, county and housing-authority minutes, and resident statements.

The immediate question is straightforward: How could WCHA replace its resident commissioner with someone who is not directly assisted by the Authority when residents were asking to serve?

Disclosure: Baker is Monster News’ chief editor and is personally challenging the appointment. This report describes his claim, the records supporting it, and the government action he has requested. The request to the prosecutors is not a court filing or a ruling that Tucker must leave office.

The records at the center of the challenge

Baker’s August 11, 2022 certificate appointed him to complete the term of Ina Dunlap after she moved out of housing. The certificate says that term expired in June 2026.

On August 8, 2026, Baker sent WCHA and the county a written request to continue serving. He expressly asked them to treat his letter as notice of his intent to serve under any applicable resident-board-member or small-PHA-exception process.

On September 2, Executive Director Kim Musgrave recommended Tucker for a five-year term following Baker’s expiration. The county’s September 10 minutes record Chairman Daryl Hargrave’s appointment of Tucker. Those same minutes record Kathy Sands warning the board that Tucker was not a housing resident and that Baker remained willing to serve.

The central dispute is about the required resident seat. Being a county resident does not make someone a resident board member under HUD’s rule. That rule concerns people directly assisted by the housing authority. Baker’s request states that Tucker is not directly assisted by WCHA.

Read the selected records below. The public copy removes private contact information and resident names; it is not the complete private packet sent to the prosecutors.

• Read the redacted appointment-challenge records (PDF)

The RAB records do not mention the seat

The March 12 Resident Advisory Board agenda lists the PHA plan and the proposed grievance hearing officers. It does not list an opportunity to serve on the governing board.

The meeting minutes describe those same two subjects. They contain no resident-commissioner discussion, no invitation to serve and no response period for interested residents.

Yet WCHA’s September 16 minutes record Musgrave telling the commissioners that notice had been given to the RAB of the opportunity to serve on the board.

That is the claim the government needs to examine against the actual notice and its delivery date. The March agenda and minutes do not document it. Baker’s submission also includes resident statements describing attempts to participate and his own written expression of interest before Tucker’s appointment.

The issue is not whether the RAB held a recorded vote approving Tucker. Section 964.425 requires notice of the opportunity and a period for residents to express interest. The challenge is that WCHA cannot claim nobody wanted the position while residents were trying to obtain it.

• March 12 RAB agenda and minutes — public packet, pages 5–6
• September 16 WCHA statement about RAB notice — public packet, page 7
• Baker’s August 8 written intent to serve — public packet, pages 3–4

The small-PHA exception has conditions

Under 24 CFR 964.415, a covered housing authority’s governing board must include at least one eligible resident board member unless an exception applies. Section 964.410 defines that status through direct housing assistance, not ordinary residence in the county.

WCHA cannot establish the small-PHA exception simply by pointing to its size. Section 964.425 requires all of the following:

• Fewer than 300 public-housing units, or no public-housing units.
• Reasonable notice to the RAB of the opportunity for residents to serve on the governing board.
• No resident notification of an intent to participate within a reasonable period after the RAB receives notice. That period cannot be shorter than 30 days.
• Repeating the notice and opportunity at least once every year.

Subsection (c) requires compliance with the resident-board-member rules when the exception’s conditions are not met.

Baker’s argument is that WCHA failed those conditions: the supplied RAB records do not show the required opportunity, residents describe efforts to participate, and his August letter expressly notified the Authority that he intended to serve.

That puts the notice, its timing and the treatment of resident interest at the center of the investigation.

• 24 CFR 964.410 — definitions
• 24 CFR 964.415 — resident board members
• 24 CFR 964.425 — small-PHA exception and its conditions

Baker claims the seat did not become vacant just because June arrived

Illinois’ Housing Authorities Act contains language allowing service until a successor has been appointed and qualified. Baker relies on that provision to claim continuing title to the position.

Section 3 also states that each appointment becomes effective when the presiding officer files the certificate of appointment with the Recorder of Deeds.

The county’s September 16 response to Baker’s request for Tucker’s recorded certificate supplied county-board minutes, not a recorded certificate. His request asks the prosecutors to obtain the appointment and recording evidence and determine whether Tucker lawfully replaced him.

The same recording requirement applies to Baker’s appointment. The certificate establishes what the county signed in 2022; the recording history is part of the title-to-office question he has asked the prosecutors to resolve.

• 310 ILCS 10/3 — commissioner appointments, successor language and recording requirement
• County response and appointment-minute excerpt — public packet, pages 8–9
• Earlier reporting: WCHA — Who Has Authority to Govern?

What the request asks the two offices to do

Quo warranto is the Illinois court action used to challenge someone’s right to hold public office. Section 18-101 authorizes a challenge to a person unlawfully holding or exercising an office.

Baker has asked both the Attorney General and State’s Attorney to bring that action. He requested separate acknowledgments and written decisions within 30 calendar days. That is his requested response period, not a statutory 30-day deadline.

Baker says the challenge will not end if the Attorney General and State’s Attorney decline to bring it. If both offices refuse or fail to act, he intends to take the matter to circuit court himself by petitioning the judge for leave to file a quo warranto complaint.

Section 18-102 provides that route after notice to both offices and the opposing party. “Leave” means the court’s permission. Baker must establish his personal interest in the occupied position and obtain that permission before prosecuting the case himself. A prosecutor’s refusal does not decide whether Tucker lawfully holds the seat.

• Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, Article XVIII — quo warranto
• People ex rel. Wofford v. Brown — court explanation of the request, notice and standing requirements, paragraphs 12–15

HUD has a separate compliance question to answer

The prosecutors have been asked to address the right to hold office. HUD’s Public and Indian Housing office has a related responsibility: examining whether WCHA complies with the federal resident-board-member requirement and whether its claimed exception satisfies HUD’s own conditions.

Section 902.1(b) says HUD continues to monitor housing authorities for compliance with federal requirements and their Annual Contributions Contracts beyond the PHAS scoring process. A dispute over the resident-board-member requirement does not disappear because county officials made the appointment.

Baker says he intends to forward his original request and supporting packet to HUD’s Yolanda Miller and ask her to advance the matter to her superiors and the officials responsible for compliance review.

The requested review should obtain the actual RAB notice, proof and date of delivery, the response period, resident expressions of interest, the claimed exception and the appointment records. Those are the records needed to test what WCHA told its commissioners.

Resident representation is a federal requirement. An exception must be supported by the required facts. A statement that notice was given is not a substitute for showing what residents were told and how their expressions of interest were handled.

• 24 CFR 902.1(b) — HUD compliance monitoring beyond PHAS scores

Monster News will follow the two offices’ handling of the request and report substantive responses and any court filing. The challenge is now before the prosecutors; a judgment removing Tucker has not been entered.

Illustration: AI-generated editorial satire by Monster News, reused from an unpublished report. The eagle, county-chair fox and realtor character symbolize the disputed succession. Labels in the illustration express the challenger’s position; they are not a court finding or a depiction of an actual proceeding.