BREAKING NEWS: Illinois Senate overrides Governor’s veto on SB2477

The Illinois Senate today voted 45-11 to override Gov. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of SB2477, and Sen. Shadid got a round of applause as this was his last public act before leaving office.

SB2477 would give Public School District 150 the ability to use the Public Building Commission to raise funds for school construction. Blagojevich’s veto amended the bill to require a referendum to access PBC funds. If the House follows suit and overrides the Governor’s veto, the bill will become law as is, and the PBC could sell bonds on behalf of the school board for renovation or construction of school buildings without taxpayer approval via referendum.

UPDATE: Today, I’m unveiling a new feature on my blog: audio! Click the play button below to hear the Senate action today on SB2477:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/SB2477.mp3]

I’m still working out the kinks a bit — for instance, you’ll notice there’s a buzz in the audio; that’s because my current setup for recording is analog and I have a bit of 60-cycle interference. I’ll try to fix that for the future.

My thanks to 1 Pixel Out for the WordPress embedded audio plug-in.

Council Roundup: I’m officially disappointed

Another year of the regressive $6/month garbage fee.

Another year of understaffing at Fire Station 11.

Another missed opportunity by the council as they voted 8-3 essentially to finalize a budget that once again does not address two of the biggest issues of the past several years.

I thought this “new” council was supposed to be different. But it turns out the only ones to vote against this budget plan were the vererans: Sandberg, Grayeb, and Gulley.

Evidently, from the discussion last night, it’s a virtue not to raise property taxes, even if “holding the line on taxes” means compromising fire safety in one of the most densely-populated areas of town and hitting the poor and elderly with regressive fees. Yeah, they really took the moral high ground last night. It will look good in political ads anyway.

I was willing to give the council the benefit of the doubt last year. The rookie members needed time to get their bearings, understand the budget process, etc. I bought it. I was willing to wait until the next year for the revolution. But “next year” has come, and things haven’t changed. What’s their excuse this time?

What does it take to get representatives who will do what we elected them to do?

Journal Star could use some remedial civics classes itself

Speaking of the Journal Star’s editorial yesterday, they sum up their case for PBC funding with this condescending paragraph:

But again, the primary criticism comes from those who’ve never quite come to grips with the fact that they live in a republic, not a direct democracy. Should District 150 regain its PBC connection, perhaps it should spend those funds constructing a building in which they teach civics, the lessons of which seem lost on a certain segment of the population.

Translation: if you’re against the school being able to get funding through the Public Building Commission (PBC), then you’re an ignorant boob in need of remedial education.

Maybe the editors of the Journal Star should attend those civics lessons instead. They can start by studying the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, where he says that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, if the people don’t want the school board to have the power to spend tax money on new schools without a binding referendum, that is perfectly within the rights of the citizens of a republic.

Indeed, one needn’t throw out the school code or the Constitution, nor do they need to resort to direct democracy, in order to place reasonable limits on their representatives in our current form of government. In the case of the PBC, these limits already exist, and those who oppose PBC funding are not arguing for new legislation, but the status quo.

And since when is it the job of our legislators to represent other municipal corporations? Are Schock and Shadid representatives of the school board or the people? In this case, they’re acting as representatives of the school board, since the people clearly don’t consent to additional bonding authority being given.

And since the Journal Star thinks PBC funding should be available to all, why are they in favor of SB2477 which would only grant this bonding authority (a) for 5 years, and (b) only for Peoria Public School District 150? The Journal Star should be fundamentally opposed to this abridgment of our republic and advocate instead a bill that would completely repeal the 1993 law that stripped all school boards from using the PBC. Of course, such a bill would never pass the legislature, because it’s easier for representatives from elsewhere in Illinois to pass laws that don’t affect their constituents.

Here’s another civics lesson from Bob Bratt: citizens of Illinois have the right under Illinois’ constitution “to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances.” In other words, voting our representatives out of office is not our only avenue for participation.

Arnstein’s Ladder

I was doing some research at the library recently and I stumbled across this article from 1969 titled, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” by Sherry R. Arnstein.

In her article, Arnstein sets up a typology to explain the varying degrees of participation regular Joes (“have-nots”) are afforded by those in power (“haves”). She simplifies these into eight categories, or rungs on a ladder:

Here’s a good summary explanation of each rung:

1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. Both are non participative. The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations.

3 Informing. A most important first step to legitimate participation. But too frequently the emphasis is on a one way flow of information. No channel for feedback.

4 Consultation. Again a legitimate step attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. But Arnstein still feels this is just a window dressing ritual.

5 Placation. For example, co-option of hand-picked ‘worthies’ onto committees. It allows citizens to advise or plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.

6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees.

7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability of the programme to them.

8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme e.g. neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds.

I don’t know about you, but this ladder rings true to me. I certainly have experienced manipulation as described here. I’ve been to many meetings that were billed as an opportunity to participate in a process only to discover that it was really just an opportunity for the real decision-makers to try to overcome public objections and extol the virtues of their plan. Then afterwards they could say that everyone had a chance to be heard, and that the public input was taken into consideration — even though no changes had been made.

I think this could be a good tool for evaluating public input opportunities from various municipal organizations in Peoria. Where do you think recent public input opportunities fall on Arnstein’s Ladder? For instance:

  • Public input on the location of the new school in the Woodruff attendance area
  • Surveys on the new name for the Peoria Regional Museum
  • The Target: Peoria crime forum

Finally, do you think (as the Journal Star apparently does) that we have full “Citizen Power” by virtue of our elected representatives on these various municipal organizations?