Daily Archives: May 10, 2007

Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

Yes, I agree, build the trail now!

71 Comments

Pro-Trail-SignWhile I was at the park district offices recently, I noticed they had green signs there that stated “Build the Trail NOW” and gave a web address for more information. I asked if the Park District made up the signs, and they said no, someone else did. Then they asked me if I wanted one, which gave me the biggest laugh of my day.

Today, I’ve been told by a couple of people that these signs are all up and down University street between Glen and Northmoor, along the Race for the Cure route.

The funny thing is, I agree with the simple message, “Build the Trail Now.” In fact, I believe that the trail could have been built years ago. The people who made the signs no doubt think that Pioneer Railcorp, Carver Lumber, and/or the Surface Transportation Board are holding things up. But the truth is the only organization holding things up is the Park District.

The Park District can build that trail any time they want by putting it next to the rail line or next to the streets that parallel the rail line. Nothing is stopping them except their own stubborn desire to see the Kellar Branch rail line removed.

The Park District has proven that money is not an issue: they’ve been able to get Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) grants to build portions of the trail that they had originally planned to build with federal funds that carry more restrictions.

The Park District has proven that a Class I trail is not absolutely necessary: they’ve built a Class III trail south of War Memorial Drive with those IDNR grants I referred to earlier. Apparently they just want the Class I trail north of War Memorial — seems a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

The Park District has proven that even a Class I trail can be nothing more than a glorified sidewalk: the portion of the trail they’ve built at Pioneer Park and Sommer is nothing more than a sidewalk that parallels the roadway, while still being separate. Their plans call for the same thing in Peoria Heights. If they can do that there, why couldn’t they do it along, say, Harvard Ave.? Why do they have-to have-to have-to replace the Kellar Branch rail line?

So, I’ll jump on that bandwagon. I say to the Peoria Park District: Build the Trail, NOW! And stop wasting taxpayer money trying to eliminate rails from the city.

Peoria Park District

Park Board told SA last night’s action was done months ago

1 Comment

Park District LogoI erroneously stated yesterday, “Part of the remedy handed down [for the Park Board’s Open Meetings Act violation] by the state’s attorney’s office was that the [park] board have a policy/procedure on the proper creation, storage, and destruction of closed session recordings.” After rereading a copy of the state’s attorney’s letter to the Park Board, it turns out that’s not accurate.

What the letter actually stated was that the park board previously told the state’s attorney’s office that it already had a policy in place for destroying closed session tapes, and that was the basis upon which the state’s attorney’s office declined to take punitive action. So now the question is, if the park board already had a policy in place, why are they just now adopting a resolution?

On September 13, 2006, William W. P. Atkins of the State’s Attorney’s office wrote a letter to Tim Bertschy, who is representing the Park Board in the lawsuit over violations to the Open Meetings Act. The letter states that Atkins met with board president Tim Cassidy and park district attorney Jim Konsky to discuss the matter. In the letter, Atkins makes it clear that the Board cannot simply blame their secretary Joyce McLemore for destroying the tapes:

Ms. McLemore is not the only one to blame in this matter. The Park District failed to promulgate a policy regarding destruction of closed meeting verbatim records. Further, the Board failed to supervise the Secretary closely enough to discover the ongoing destruction of records until nearly three years of some of the recordings had been destroyed.

So the Board itself is culpable in the Open Meetings Act violation because, in part, they didn’t have a policy. So, why was no punitive action taken against the board? Read on (emphasis mine):

In this particular case, you have informed me that the Park District now has a policy only allowing destruction of verbatim recordings in compliance with the portion of the Open Meetings Act cited above. Further, the Secretary has been instructed concerning this policy to insure her obedience to the Board and the law….

Because you have reported these violations to the State’s Attorney’s Office and taken measures to prevent such violations from occurring again, no purpose would be served by any punitive action at this time.

That was September 2006. Now, in May 2007, eight months later, the board is adopting a policy that they told the State’s Attorney they already had. What kind of games are being played here? Did they already have the policy or not? If they didn’t, then they lied to the State’s Attorney in September. If they did, then why do they need to re-adopt the policy eight months later?

Between the school board and the park board, the principle of “open government” is getting a black eye.