Daily Archives: December 13, 2006

Peoria Park District

McLemore: “I am solely responsible for this huge mistake”

11 Comments

Recently, Judge Barra ruled that the Open Meetings Act was violated when an audio tape of the March 8, 2006, closed session Park Board meeting was erased. Joyce McLemore is the Secretary of the Board for the Peoria Park District, and she was the one who erased the tape. I suggested in a comment to an earlier post that I would try to get a copy of her confession.

Here it is. In a statement filed in the Alms/Partridge court case, McLemore gives this explanation of why she erased the tape (click here for PDF of document):

Words can’t express my regret when I tell you I have made a mistake with respect to the executive meeting back-up tapes. After the June 14 release of closed minutes, I cleaned up and organized the written and tape files. Feeling I could do so, I discarded discussion tapes associated with the written released minutes. I felt I had this backlog of tapes, starting in January 2004, and I systematically worked through the list of released minutes to match up with the corresponding discussion tapes, which tapes I marked “released”. I have been Board Secretary for over 6 years, and before that I worked for the District as Recreation Secretary for 17 years. I’ve always felt confident in my handling of Park District confidential records. Until July 26th, when Attorney Konsky was updating you on the Alms/Partridge lawsuit, I had been oblivious to my mistake. Realizing the tape record you were discussing couldn’t be transcribed because of what I had done – it hit me like a ton of bricks.

On Monday, July 31st, I told Bonnie of my mistake, and Attorney Konsky. At Attorney Konsky’s request, I have inventoried the tapes in storage, to determine what records are gone.

I am solely responsible for this huge mistake and it will not happen again. Whatever I need to do to account for it, I will do.

I know the perception of bungling these tapes will be out there, and I do not want the District and Board to be blamed. Please know I would never purposely put you or the District in the position I find myself in. It was a thoughtless mistake on my part, but an honest one.

To guard against future mistakes I will:

-Use only one side of one tape, per recording
-I will inventory tapes on a semi-annual basis, as I have always done with the formal written minutes.
-At no point will I attempt to organize or clean up the back-up tapes unless directed to do so by this Board.
-I will continue to store the tape records in the safe along with the confidential minutes.
-I will ask for an outline or plan of action for release of the confidential tape records from Attorney Konsky.

August 7, 2006

V. Joyce McLemore
Secretary of the Board
Peoria Park District

Note that there’s no indication to whom the letter is addressed. I can only conjecture (based on a little deductive reasoning) that it must be to Park Board President Cassidy. Note also that it’s not an affidavit. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe one of my lawyer readers can comment on this, but this statement is not technically sworn testimony, is it? It sort of sticks out among the other legal documents in the case file. Maybe that’s not a big deal.

Now, what are we to make of this situation? On its face, it certainly sounds unbelievable. It’s quite the coincidence that just a month after a lawsuit was filed against the Park District on May 5 regarding negotiations that took place in closed session on March 8 that Secretary McLemore — a 23-year veteran with the Park District dealing with secretarial duties — would suddenly decide it was finally time to get around to systematically erasing tapes that had been backlogged since January 2004, erasing the tape of the meeting under investigation in the process, all without direction from the board. They say truth is stranger than fiction, but this really presses the limits of plausibility.

The State’s Attorney should investigate. At the very least, McLemore’s statement should be given under oath under penalty of perjury. Violating the Open Meetings Act (Class C misdemeanor) and tampering with public records (Class 4 felony) are both serious offenses.

General News, Nation/World

LaHood votes against transparency for earmarks

2 Comments

Ray LaHoodCongress Daily (via GovExec.com) reports:

The House on Friday overwhelmingly defeated legislation backed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., that would establish a Pentagon “report card” system of grading congressional defense earmarks on their individual merits.

[…]

Opponents argued the measure would undermine congressional prerogatives in determining where the money goes and would cost Pentagon staff countless hours of work preparing their evaluations of defense spending.

Voting no, of course, was Rep. LaHood, which is surprising (sarcasm) because he’s supposedly in favor of transparency in the earmarks process. The Bill was HR6375, “Requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress an annual report and to provide notice to the public on congressional initiatives in funds authorized or made available to the Department of Defense.”

The so-called “report card” would have been required to be posted on a public website and include the following information:

Content.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include, for each congressional initiative applicable to funds that were authorized or made available to the Department of Defense for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following:

“(1) A description of each such congressional initiative, including—

“(A) the geographic location (by city, State, country, and congressional district, if relevant) in which the funds covered by such congressional initiative are to be used;

“(B) the purpose of such congressional initiative (if known); and

“(C) the recipient of the funding covered by such congressional initiative.

“(2) For each such congressional initiative, an assessment of the utility of the congressional initiative in meeting the goals of the Department, set forth using a rating system as follows:

“(A) A rating of ‘A’ for a congressional initiative that directly advances the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(B) A rating of ‘B’ for a congressional initiative that advances many of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(C) A rating of ‘C’ for a congressional initiative that may advance some of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(D) A rating of ‘D’ for a congressional initiative that cannot be demonstrated as being cost-effective in advancing the primary goals of the Department or any agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(E) A rating of ‘F’ for a congressional initiative that distracts from or otherwise impedes that capacity of the Department to meet the primary goals of the Department.

Not only is it transparent, it would have given the public an independent expert opinion on whether the earmarks are cost-effective and advance the nation’s primary defense goals.

Don’t you just love the justification for defeating this? It would “undermine congressional prerogatives on where the money goes.” Yes, we don’t want those pesky voters undermining their elected representatives’ prerogatives. God help us if the voters knew what their representatives were actually doing in Congress! *Gasp* The voters might actually start holding them accountable for passing legislation that furthers the nation’s primary goals instead of giving sweetheart deals to campaign contributors! Horrors!

And, don’t you feel just awful for all the extra work it would load on those poor Pentagon staffers? I’m sure the Pentagon would much rather implement the whims of congressmen than engage in any pesky planning or evaluation of the efficacy of the programs Congress chooses to fund. What a headache!

Yes, once again Mr. LaHood and 329 other representatives voted to keep the earmarks system shrouded in secrecy so they can continue bringing home the pork without accountability.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park Board meeting tonight at 6:00

2 Comments

Park District LogoFor those of you interested in the “Community School Project” (i.e., the plan to put a replacement school for the Woodruff attendance area on a corner of Glen Oak Park), tonight’s the night to express your opinion to the Peoria Park Board. They will be meeting at Lincoln Middle School, 700 Mary St. (next to Woodruff), at 6:00 p.m.

One question that I hope comes up is, “How does this partnership help fulfill the Park District’s mission statement?” That mission statement is, “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” So, how exactly does putting a school on a corner of the park constitute “stewardship of the environment”? What “quality recreation” is being provided by the school? What “leisure opportunities”?