Dear PJS, thank you

Linda Fish is my first cousin, once-removed. For those of you not into genealogical terminology, that means that her mother and my grandmother were sisters. I didn’t really know Linda — her first tragic accident occurred when I was only eight years old — but her mother, my Aunt Dorothy, never fails to send me and my family birthday and anniversary cards every year. In an age of e-mail and phone calls, personal letters and cards are few and far between, so it’s always a special treat to catch up on family news when I receive Aunt Dorothy’s cards.

According to family lawyers Melbourne, it’s with great sadness that I heard about Linda’s death the other day. But the reason for this post is to thank Matt Buedel for his wonderful story about her life and family in today’s Journal Star. It was a beautiful tribute to her and the undying love of her husband. Thank you.

Good riddance, AMAZEum

The new choices for museum names have been released, and they’re about 1000% better than the previous ones. See if you don’t agree:

  • PORT OF EXPLORATION MUSEUM:
    The Peoria Center for Art, History, Science and Achievement
  • ILLINOIS RIVER VALLEY MUSEUM:
    The Peoria Center for Art, History, Science and Achievement
  • HEARTLAND CENTER:
    The Peoria Museum of Art, History, Science and Achievement
  • PEORIA RIVERFRONT MUSEUM:
    The Center for Art, History, Science and Achievement
  • MUSEUM ON THE SQUARE:
    The Center for Art, History, Science and Achievement

All the advertisements start off with the self-congratulatory opening line, “We heard you!” That is gratifying, and I’ll give them credit for that. I’ll also give them credit for not making “Lakeview” a choice, as I’m sure that would push the other museum partners right over the edge. By and large, the new names are more meaningful. There are still a couple of holdovers from the first voting, but the most ridiculous names (AMAZEum, ExploraSphere) have been rightfully thrown in the dustbin.

Not surprisingly, I’ll be voting for Peoria Riverfront Museum. You can vote for your favorite at www.namethemuseum.org.

Maybe this is why Schock and other Republicans aren’t signing on to HB 5766

A bill in the Illinois General Assembly, HB5766, would extend the current electricity rate freeze three more years (providing relief for Illinois families) and is supported by the Citizens Utility Board. However, our representative in the 92nd district, Aaron Schock, isn’t signed on as a co-sponsor, nor is any other Republican.

I’d like to say I remembered to follow the money immediately, but to be honest, it wasn’t until challenged by a commenter on Billy’s blog that I actually checked Schock’s campaign contribution record.

According to his Jul-Dec 2005 and Jan-Jun 2006 D-2 Semi-annual campaign contribution reports, Schock received:

  • $1,300 from AMEREN Illinois PAC ($1,000 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $1,250 from MidAmerican Engergy Holdings, which provides power to the Quad Cities ($1,000 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)
  • $800 from Exelon PAC; Exelon owns Commonwealth Edison, which provides power to Chicago ($500 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $500 from the Illinois Energy Association ($250 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)

That’s a pretty good chunk of change. I imagine he’s probably going to vote against HB 5766.

Impress with success, not new buildings

I understand the sentiment behind the Journal Star’s recent editorial about District 150. They say, “Somewhere in this debate, those children got lost. It is time for Peoria to find them again, for its own sake.”

I totally agree with that sentiment; I really do. I want to see the community pull together and provide the best possible education for our children. I think everyone wants that. But the editorial board’s prescription is a placebo. They whitewash over the serious issues that have led to the “general unpopularity” of the school’s decisions.

They say, “Hinton and his board have a mandate to try and rescue a declining school district,” and, “With this new school and others, they’re trying to do that.” This is the crux of the problem. What the editorial writers have stated is not the school board’s mandate, nor are the school board’s actions the way to achieve either this or their real mandate. Allow me to quote the oath of office each school board member must take before taking his or her seat on the board (105 ILCS 5/10‑16.5):

I, (name of member or successful candidate), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of the Board of Education of Peoria Public School District 150, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to the best of my ability.

I further swear (or affirm) that:

  • I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets;
  • I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees;
  • I shall recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting; and
  • I shall abide by majority decisions of the board, while retaining the right to seek changes in such decisions through ethical and constructive channels.

That is the school board’s real mandate. I would submit that one reason residents are up in arms over the school board is because they’ve failed in this aspect: “I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets.”

How do the school board’s recent actions stack up against this part of the oath? They did not do due diligence in assessing the rehabilitation possibilities of their current property (viz., Glen Oak School) before they decided to build a new school on a different site (adjacent to Glen oak Park). Thus, they started spending taxpayer money on property acquisition, architects and planners without verifying a new building or additional property were warranted in the first place. They have changed the scope of their project from building a replacement school to building a community center, which has added $7 million more to the projected cost of construction. They have taken a building (Blaine-Sumner Middle School) that was slated for closure and sale to save the district money and, instead of disposing of the property as outlined in their own Master Facilities Plan, have rehabilitated it for use as an office building. These are not examples of faithfully protecting the school district’s assets.

So they’re not fulfilling their real mandate, but they’re not even fulfilling the editorial writers’ mandate. Building new school buildings is not going to “rescue a declining school district.” Sorry. Whittier was built in 1914 and is a model school, earning awards and making adequate yearly progress. Sterling was built in 1962 and is on Academic Watch Status.

But here’s what’s really strange. Whenever I mention that there is no correlation between the age of buildings and test scores, I’m always told that no one is claiming that building a new school will improve student performance. So, why build, then? What’s the purpose? Read the editorial writers carefully on this point:

To the degree that the condition of a city’s school facilities makes a statement about the value locals place on their children and their educations, Peoria does not stack up well against other Illinois communities. If there is one thing Peoria really can’t afford in a competitive environment, it’s to leave that impression.

Did you catch it? The key word is “impression.” We need to spend all this money so that we give the impression that we “locals” value our children and their education. Who cares if they actually are educated? Maybe we can fool those out-of-towners into relocating here if we blind them with our shiny buildings in the park.

That’s not a good enough justification for spending $22 million (plus $2-3 more million in acquisition/demolition costs). And it certainly doesn’t constitute finding “those children [who] got lost” in the debate. If we want to find the children, we need to start focusing on root problems instead of secondary issues like new school buildings. If we want to attract people to the city, we need to impress them with our school report cards and high test scores — then when they start moving back into town we’ll have the money to build those shiny new schools.

More budget talks tonight

The Peoria City Council will not have a regular business meeting tonight, but rather a special meeting starting at 5:00 to continue discussing departmental budgets. However, there are a couple of unfinished business items on the agenda (health care coverage and janitorial services).

The departments who will be discussing their budgets tonight are Legal, Inspections, City Manager’s Office, Clerk’s Office, and Treasurer’s Office. Not exactly a hot time in the old town tonight.

Casual Comment II

Faithful reader Karrie suggested I also post when the Peoria Park District trustees’ terms expire. I think that’s a fantastic idea:

Park District Logo

Timothy J. Cassidy 2007
Stanley P. Budzinski 2007
James A. Cummings 2007
Jacqueline J. Petty 2007
Roger P. Allen 2009
Robert L. Johnson, Sr. 2009
Matthew P. Ryan 2009

They’re not as well-known as the school board members. You don’t see them in the newspaper much. But they spend a lot of your tax money and have made some questionable decisions. For instance, they’re the ones who want to toss a $565,000 rail asset in the garbage and drive Carver Lumber out of business so they can ride on a taxpayer-funded bike path on warm summer days.

Note that four out of the seven board members (including President-at-Large Tim Cassidy) come up for reelection next year.

Casual Comment

Just a reminder of when the District 150 School Board members’ terms expire:
Peoria Public Schools logo

Alicia Butler 2007
Sean Matheson 2007
Martha Ross 2008
Mary Spangler 2009
David Gorenz 2010
Jim Stowell 2011
Debbie Wolfmeyer 2011

Within the next three years, over half the board could change. It’s something to think about.

Renovation never seriously considered for Glen Oak School

The Word on the Street column today has an interesting segment on the need for a new building in District 150’s Woodruff attendance area:

The biggest question that taxpayers should demand an answer to is this: Does District 150 know for sure it needs a new building?

Because, according to Hinton himself, the district only did a preliminary review of whether the school could cost-effectively be renovated.

“Glen Oak had a preliminary one, but not a final one,” Hinton said Friday.

Did you catch that? The school district has purchased eight houses at over $800,000, hired planners and architects to start designing a new school, made overtures to the park district toward a land-sharing agreement, etc., etc., and they’ve only done a preliminary review of whether the current Glen Oak School could cost-effectively be renovated.

If that sounds familiar, it could be because on April 19th, I took an in-depth look at the basis for the school district’s building plan, and concluded the same thing:

Yet, based on this “analysis,” the [Master Facilities Plan] report confidently concludes (emphasis mine): “The District has or will soon have the necessary match of funds derived both from available restricted reserves and the sale of a health-life-safety bond (for the replacement of a minimum of two and as many as six buildings the cost of which to remediate is greater than the cost of replacement).”

The report gives no justification for the statement in bold.

Nowhere in the report do they give a breakdown of what it would cost to renovate/expand the current buildings versus what it would cost to do a new construction (including acquisition, demolition, legal, and other hidden costs). There’s no feasibility study. All they’ve really done is identified which schools they feel (subjectively) are in greatest need of repair. That’s no basis upon which to start tearing down schools and building new ones on different sites.

Five months later, Mr. Hinton has confirmed my conclusions. I wonder when Hinton, et. al., were planning to do a “final” review. After the new school was completely built, perhaps? And what are they planning to do if it turns out the result is, “Well I’ll be dogged, I guess it is more cost-effective to renovate this building”? Will they renovate it and turn it into another office building, like they did with Blaine-Sumner Middle School?

What happened to the district’s efforts to save money? That’s how this whole thing started, you know. Closing 11 schools and building 6 new ones was supposed to save the district a bundle of money. Yet cost estimates for the new school in the Woodruff attendance area are already $7 million over budget, property acquisition costs are already over budget, and the $500,000 they were supposed to save by closing Blaine-Sumner has evaporated as they’ve instead put money into renovating it and keeping it open as an office building.

This is no way to run a school district, folks.

“Marie” at 10 p.m.: Much ado about nothing

Steve Tarter writes about the “chilling effects of censorship that loom down the road,” as tacitly prophesied by WTVP’s decision not to air a special on Marie Antoinette until 10:00 p.m. due to “risque drawings and depictions of the Queen of France” that are shown.

Note that they’re still showing this program, just not at 7:00 when kids could be watching. Apparently, that’s what’s defined as “censorship” nowadays.

But this is the line that really got me: “We look to public television for bold reporting on issues. Will that be curbed now that there’s a threat that the finished product may be too hot to handle for some stations?” This country had much, much stricter decency standards thirty years ago and earlier, yet television was still able to take down McCarthyism and bring Vietnam into our living rooms every night. Don’t tell me TV can’t do “bold reporting” without showing naked pictures and playing unedited four-letter words.

Speaking of which, Tarter adds this: “Kevin Harlan, general manager over at WMBD-TV […] heard rumblings from some groups about some of the language used in the ‘9-11’ documentary run by CBS two weeks ago. New York firefighters had the gall to utter four-letter words while describing the devastation at the World Trade Center.” Tarter apparently is unable to grasp the subtle distinction between “live” and “taped” programming. If the firefighters are on live TV and reacting to a tragedy like 9/11, that’s one thing. No one is arguing that they should somehow have the presence of mind to censor themselves as they watch thousands of people die before their eyes.

But the program he’s talking about is a documentary; all the footage is on tape. The director and editor know exactly what is going to be said and when, and they are completely capable of bleeping out any offensive words at that point. Not only is it technically possible, but it also would not diminish the emotional impact of the program in any way. Who is the person who, upon hearing bleeps or audio dropout during that segment of the broadcast, thinks to himself, “I wonder what those fellows said when that plane smashed into that building?”

We all know what they said. We all know what we said when it happened. Not editing those words out is just the networks’ way of callously exploiting a national tragedy to push the envelope of what kind of language is allowed on broadcast television.

But the point is you’ve got a growing cable/satellite universe unfettered by federal restrictions while over-the-air networks cower in fear lest a community zealot cry foul.

In addition to having to fight for funding, now PBS also must battle with Animal Channel, TNT, History Channel and all the rest on a playing field not even close to being level.

And when was the last time you saw nudity or heard four-letter words on “Animal Channel” (did he mean “Animal Planet”?), TNT, or the History Channel? Hmm? If PBS is getting beaten up by these networks, it’s not because they’re “cower[ing] in fear” over federal decency standards.