No lynching on West Bluff; Journal Star disappointed

Apparently the Journal Star was expecting the Moss-Bradley Association to string up Alicia Butler and bat her around like a piñata at last night’s candidates forum. The Journal Star’s coverage begins with a heavy tone of disappointment: “Despite a reputation for being a tough crowd, the Moss-Bradley Residential Neighborhood Association ignored the elephant in the room for one of its own.” Phil Luciano said on the radio today that he thought the neighborhood association had given Butler “a pass.”

I’m not quite sure what these fine members of the media were expecting. Alicia Butler was the first candidate to speak, and the first thing she said was that she wasn’t going to talk about the controversy surrounding her that night, but that a statement from her lawyer would be forthcoming. I suppose we all could have peppered her with questions about it anyway, just for sport, knowing full well all she would say is “no comment” and “my lawyer will be issuing a statement soon.” Instead, the residents took the four minutes allotted Butler for questions and answers to ask her school-related questions.

Nevertheless, I caught up with Butler after the meeting and did ask some follow-up questions. For the most part, she spoke off the record, and I always respect someone’s request for comments to be off the record. But I can tell you a couple of things. Her lawyer is Hugh Toner, and she doesn’t know exactly when he’ll be issuing a statement, but she thinks it will be next week. Her mother, who was with her at the forum last night, steadfastly stood by Alicia and believes this is all a smear campaign. And finally, I asked her if she felt a sense of urgency in getting this resolved, because it certainly appears from the outside that she’s kind of dragging her feet. She said she was working diligently to find all her documentation and is turning over everything she finds to her lawyer.

Judging from her interaction with several people who came up to her while we were talking, she continues to have a lot of supporters despite the controversy. Even Mayor Ardis expressed to me that he was still supporting her, which the Journal Star is now also reporting.

Me? I haven’t made up my mind yet. In an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show, Opie tells Andy and Barney about a friend he has named Mr. McBeevee. He explains that McBeevee walks in the trees, has twelve extra hands, and jingles when he walks like he has rings on his fingers and bells on his toes. Andy and Barney believed this fantastic person was just an invisible friend and played along until Opie claimed McBeevee had given him a quarter and a little hatchet. They then worried that Opie was stealing these items and using “Mr. McBeevee” as an excuse for his kleptomania. Andy threatened Opie with a spanking if he didn’t come clean and admit that he made up this McBeevee character, but Opie steadfastly maintained he was not lying.

Andy decided not to spank Opie, but believe him instead. Barney, of course, thought he had lost his mind. It was so obvious Opie was making all this stuff up. Then something amazing happened: Andy met Mr. McBeevee. It turned out it was a real person — a lineman for the telephone company. He walked in “trees” (telephone poles), had twelve “extra hands” (tools), and the jingling was from his tool belt. Opie was vindicated in the end.

Can that be a metaphor for what’s happening with Butler? Probably not. I talked to Bradley myself today and checked the alumni directory. There is no indication anywhere that I can find that she ever graduated. It will really be a miracle if Alicia somehow produces transcripts that prove she really did get her bachelors and masters degrees.

But that said, I still think the whole thing is fishy. Charges that this is a smear campaign are not without merit. Even if it’s true that she embellished her resume, neither her job (she’s self-employed) nor the school board position require the degrees in question, so why did the Journal Star investigate it? Yes, it reflects on her character. But then, so does this letter to Sean Matheson signed by 14 District 150 administrators in May 2004 that alleges he “physically assault[ed] the Superintendent,” among other indiscretions. Yet that letter was allegedly suppressed by the paper’s editorial board. You didn’t see a big exposé in the Journal Star about that, even though it’s clearly more egregious than padding one’s resume. Why did the Journal Star apparently protect Matheson, but skewer Butler? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.

I’m willing to suspend judgment until Butler’s lawyer issues his statement. But it needs to come before the election, and it better be good. I found Butler to be very likable, and frankly, I want to believe her. But regardless of whether this revelation was politically motivated, it is an issue of trust and integrity. If she claimed to have degrees she really doesn’t have, then she needs to go, regardless of how likable she is or whether I agreed with her voting record on the board.

Johnson: Park District will sue city if HPC recommendation is approved

Robert JohnsonAt the Moss-Bradley candidates forum last night, current park board member and candidate for board president Robert Johnson said that if the City Council approves the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation to landmark elements of Glen Oak Park, it’s the unanimous desire of the park board to sue the City for violating the Park Board’s sovereignty.

He went on to say that preservation of the parks and its historic artifacts is the responsibility of the Park Board, and if the people don’t think the board is doing an adequate job, they can vote out the current board members.

All Park Board members are running unopposed.

Johnson also stated that the Peoria Playhouse children’s museum planned for the park would not happen if that structure were to be given historic landmark status. However, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission who was present at the meeting countered that claim, explaining that the Junior League only wanted to make minor changes to the exterior of the building, and thus landmark status would not scuttle their plans for a museum.

Heights bows to public pressure

Kellar Branch Railroad“Results of two public hearings showed overwhelming support for a recreational trail, Mayor Mark Allen said Tuesday,” according to a report in today’s Journal Star. Thus, the Heights will be sending a letter expressing their renewed support for the Park District’s push to eliminate rail service to Carver Lumber and future rail-served businesses in Pioneer Park.

While disappointing, this comes as no surprise. It would be very hard for a small municipal body like the Heights to go against the Park District/RTA (Recreational Trail Advocates) machine. The Kellar Branch topic has become so politically charged and the court of public opinion so tainted by disinformation from the Park District, RTA, and Journal Star that it’s practically impossible to get a fair hearing on it anymore.

That’s why there exists a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

It’s the policy of the U. S. Government, among other things, “to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public….” So, they want to see shippers continue to be rail served, and they want them to get competitive shipping rates. Rail conserves energy, reduces the number of trucks on the streets (which saves money in highway maintenance), and is better for the environment. The government wants to encourage that.

In this case, Peoria and Peoria Heights are the owners of the railroad, and they want to replace their current carrier (Pioneer), which up until August 2005 had been providing good service at reasonable rates by all accounts, with a new carrier (Central Illinois Railroad), which has proven to provide inadequate service — if any — at exorbitant rates. The service and rates are so bad that it’s actually more economical for Carver to transload their material and truck it to their facility in Pioneer Park.

Why would the Cities want such an inferior rail carrier? Because they’re not interested in providing rail service. They want to rip out the railroad and put in a recreational trail. That flies in the face of the nation’s transportation policy.

It is true that the federal government also supports the creation of recreational trails on abandoned railroad beds. But that’s only if the rail line is not being used, and its primary purpose in many cases is to preserve the rail corridor for possible future use. In other words, it’s the government’s second choice. Its first choice is that rail service continue.

In city council and village board meetings, the fate of railroad service may be decided on the basis of a popularity contest. But it doesn’t work that way on the Surface Transportation Board. They conduct a more objective balancing test to protect shippers from arbitrary and capricious cuts in service by railroad owners.