City council gives library board the silent treatment

This week’s Word on the Street is especially snarky, and for good reason. Open government is highly valued by most voters (but not everyone), so reporters generally get miffed when government officials deliberately try to skirt the Open Meetings Act in order to conduct the public’s business in secret:

They didn’t break any rules, but definitely skirted the intent of the Open Meetings Act. There were only three councilmen, two School Board members, two District 150 administrators and two representatives from the Library Board there. Clever.

After the meeting, it was the library board president who was the most candid, reports Karen McDonald. She wasn’t surprised by that, and neither am I. I was, however, surprised by this:

When the City Council deferred the issue, it said it would be submitting questions to the Library Board. Council members came up with the now-renowned list of 49 questions, which only made it into library officials’ hands after they went searching for them. Said the Library Board’s spokeswoman, Trisha Noack, “Actually, we got our questions from the city Web site, as they were not sent to us.”

I expect better from this council. Even if official protocol didn’t dictate that the council communicate directly to the library board, common courtesy should. Whether or not the council agrees with the library board’s recommendation, they should at least treat the board with some respect. As has been pointed out by the Journal Star and others, the library board has done everything that’s been asked of them. They’ve done their due diligence. Where is the city council’s?

Why is all the artwork gone? (UPDATED)

In July 2006, downtown museum developers with city approval kicked off “Picture Museum Square.” For a fee, anyone — artists, schools, businesses, etc. — could paint one of the panels of the plywood fence surrounding the old Sears block downtown. The idea was to raise money for the museum project and make the block more attractive while waiting for construction to commence. Each panel cost $500. Many participated as several of the panels were decorated with various styles of artwork.

But it’s all gone now.

As PeoriaIllinoisan shows with his trusty camera, the plywood fence surrounding so-called Museum Square has been painted black. It’s unclear whether Caterpillar or the City painted over all the artwork. You may recall that Caterpillar recently was granted a lease by the city to use the block as an employee parking lot while their parking deck is getting some maintenance work done to it.

The lease agreement specifically states that the outside of the fence is the City’s responsibility to maintain, and that additional artwork can be painted there, although Caterpillar has the right to approve the artwork first:

5.5 … In addition, the City shall maintain the exterior of the existing fence surrounding the Premises. The City shall have the right to grant additional licenses to community groups to paint or attach artwork or graphics to the exterior of the fence surrounding the Premises, provided that Caterpillar shall have the right, in the exercise of its reasonable judgment, to approve all such artwork and graphics. The attachment of such artwork and graphics shall not negatively impact Caterpillar’s use of the Premises.

I’ve written to Interim City Manager Henry Holling asking for an explanation for the painting over of the artwork. I’ll update this post with his response when I receive it. I agree with PeoriaIllinoisan: inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE (6/10): Here’s the response I received from Henry Holling:

Mr. Summers, the fence painting was worked out between the Museum Group and Caterpillar. The artwork was not painted over, it was removed for future use.
Thanks for your inquiry.

Also, the Journal Star has an article today about plans for the fence. I’m glad to hear they didn’t paint over the artwork.