Daily Archives: July 8, 2008

Peoria Public Schools

Martha Ross says race is the reason she was not elected D150 Board President

58 Comments

Regular commenter PrairieCelt has taken the time to transcribe Martha Ross’s comments at the end of Monday night’s school board meeting. I’ll let her words and the words and those who spoke after her speak for themselves.

Ross: I have a few words to say to the Board and the public – whatever public there might be, it really does not matter. I am going to name this It Is Time.

It is time to come together around what it going to take place and how we are going to move forward in educating our children in this district.

It is time that I came to terms with the fact that there is always going to be a divide based on black and white in this community. Nobody wants to talk about race but that is what it is about – it is about race. We know that because it was set up over 300 years ago.

And it is time also, that I realize that making all the Board meetings and making all my committee meetings over the last seven going on eight years, going to all the Board meetings and doing what I am supposed to do, is not going to make a difference in the way I get treated, and I feel I have been really slighted by some of my colleagues in giving me the opportunity to serve. It would not matter – it is not because I don’t have the education because I think I have more formal education than many of my colleagues and it is not because I don’t have the abilities to fulfill the presidency, particularly because I have served on local, state and national boards, sometimes in the presidency role or the chair of the committee role.

So I say it is time, in my opinion, for African Americans especially to realize that this plan to divide us has been put into place over 300 years ago. And we have to look at this and come to terms with this and see how we are going to address this.

A few of us have been provided privileges, meaning African Americans have been provided privileges, to get ahead, and what did it cost us to get there?

For my tenure on this board, I have expressed over and over why I don’t vote for expelling children, yet my colleagues choose to denigrate me in public because I voted the way that I voted.

And you have a Code of Conduct that talks about each persons vote should be respected – I would think that would include me.

During my tenure on the board, I have voted based on how I felt about the issues relating to the students in this district based on information I have received from the administration and research I have done myself.

During my tenure on this board, I have tried to ask questions at the board meetings that would inform the public. Some people say they are stupid questions or dumb questions or silly questions however you want to term that. But I have tried to ask questions so that it gave the public information about our business which is their business – the taxpayers.

I am unclear why members of the board find it necessary to attempt to degrade or deface my character to make themselves feel good about their own free-will decisions because whatever you decide to vote on is your free will.

I dont think you have to – and I brought this up last year – I don’t think you have to degrade another person to justify the decisions you make.

I am not happy with people doing that – you don’t have the right, it is not fair – again, you do not have the right to do that. That, to me, could be illegal or at least unethical.

But people who say that this is not about race – I cant think of it being any other way except that it is about race. We can cover it up, we can avoid it but when you tell people that these are the reasons why I am not going to vote for this person, I think you are degrading my character and I don’t appreciate it.

I am fully capable of being president and maybe you, Dr. Gorenz, don’t want to be in a team role – maybe the only way you can function is in a leadership role – I don’t know. I don’t know what the reasons that many people think that I am not capable of leading this board are, but I am capable and nothing anyone is going to say is going to make me feel that I am not capable.

There has always been a division and will always be a division and no matter how many hoops you jump through or how good you are, you will always going to have that divide.

But somehow – if we sign a Code of Conduct or an agreement – we should at least look at that agreement and say, okay, lets live by it – not just on paper.

So I don’t need to be in a presidents or a vice presidents role to do what I do or what I have been doing all these years, whether you think what I have been doing is valued or not, I think it is valued. I spend my time.

And, again, I just wanted to make that statement that I really don’t appreciate it and it is not fair and I will not accept it.

Gorenz: Any other comments? Mr. Stowell.

Stowell: Well I have to take exception because if she is saying her colleagues have done – I certainly don’t feel as I have done anything. I chose tonight the best leader who I thought was for this board. I meant no personal affront to it Mrs. Ross and I meant nothing, there is not a thing in me that made race an issue in this, and you smirk.

Ross: Yeah.

Stowell: There is no thing at all that I brought into this . . .

Hinton: Let me say this right now. Let me say this right now

Ross: Excuse me . . .

Hinton: Well wait. Let me finish, let me finish.

This is – I need to refocus us, everybody has their right to make their comments and say what is in their hearts and in their minds. But there is an outside entity that would love to see this board and this effort be fractionalized and I returned to this district to see to it that that did not take place because this is about the children. This is about the children.

I am so proud of this board in the sense that so much effort and focus has come about because this board being willing and more than able to stand up and make some changes and do what needs to be done for the children.

Now the only way, the only – where – this place where this conversation is going to go is a place where it becomes a controversy for the next 6 months, which is going to take us away from our focus and our direction.

We have overcome major obstacles. Tonight we heard about Skills U.S.A. Today or tonight Mrs. Spangler made the suggestion that is going to save some kids life that we talk about drug testing for athletes.

Tonight we’ve talked about starting a new program, a Math Science Technology Academy that will prepare many of our kids for the future.

Tonight we have talked about major entities like the Ag Lab and universities working with us and collaborating and going forward.

The comments have been made, the statements have been made, and if we need to say anything else then we need to say what is good for our kids, what is good for this district, what is good for this community.

Now it is time to go forward and we are going forward and this does not need to be, so I am very proud and very pleased that the strength and the courage that is in this board to stand up and do some great things.

Now I am just going to close by saying there are some very big highlights that I consider a part of my career and being able to serve kids, parents and teachers tonight is one of those nights in the sense that it does not seem like it is a big thing as far as providing time for teachers to get better at what they do, but I will tell you without a doubt you have improved the lives of thousands of kids and hundreds teachers. Thats what you guys do. That is what you do.

We don’t denigrate and we don’t become contentious, that is not what we are about. We are about doing what is right in this community and for this district.

So with that being said, I mean if there are other comments they can be held until a later date.

Gorenz: I would accept a motion to adjourn.

Stowell: Second

Gorenz: Thank you

2008 Campaign, New Urbanism

A new urban look at McCain and Obama

11 Comments

The Congress for the New Urbanism has published a summary of the presidential candidates’ stances on issues regarding new urbanism and sustainability. They looked at the candidates’ websites, voting records, news sites, and position papers to come up with as much information as they could gather. So far, Obama is the only candidate that has really addressed those issues at all, other than the issue of climate change, on which McCain has weighed in.

The biggest difference between the two candidates in this area, based on available information, is regarding Amtrak funding. McCain wants to cut all funding for Amtrak. Obama, in contrast, was a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007 which continues support for Amtrak. He also supports the development of high-speed freight and passenger rail.

Uncategorized

Joke of the day

Leave a comment

From Late Night with Conan O’Brien (this was my favorite joke from his monologue last night):

Today, Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez and his wife Cynthia filed for divorce. And because New York is a community property state, Cynthia could end up with 268 career home runs.

For additional information, check out https://tiffanyfinalaw.com/our-legal-services/.
 
In cases where both parties want the divorce and agree to the marriage coming to an end, the legal process is typically easier. In other cases, where one party is taken by surprise when served with divorce papers, the process can be more complicated. Often times, the blindsided party will do whatever he or she can to prolong the process and in turn, will often make the situation more painful for both sides.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council preview 7/8/08

7 Comments

At tonight’s council meeting, at-large councilman Jim Montelongo will be attending via teleconference. Some notable items:

  • River Trail Drive Plan — This is Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger’s brainchild to build townhouses along the riverfront from the Riverplex north to Spring Street, along with a Grandview-Drive-type road that goes by it. The townhouses would be on the west side of the road, and the river side of the road would remain parkland, giving drivers, bikers, and pedestrians an unobstructed view of the river. I attended one of the public meetings for this project and heard some discontent from environmentalists in attendance due to the fact that some parkland would be taken away in the course of this project. Apparently, their objections weren’t very strong because there’s been no formal opposition mounted, and this request to seek a developer appears on the consent agenda. Looks like a shoo-in.

  • More land for the Enterprise Zone — I’ll let this agenda item speak for itself (emphasis mine):

    On June 10, 2008 Council directed staff to commence the process to expand the City of Peoria’s Enterprise Zone to include certain properties bordered by Sheridan, Glen, University and Lake and the Sheridan Village Shopping Center. Since that time staff has received suggestions and requests that the entire commercially zoned area within those boundaries be included in the Zone. Staff is now requesting that all properties zoned commercial/office within the Glen/Sheridan/Lake/University area be included with the original expansion application…. The new development has not been completely planned, and the exact dollars [financial impact to the city] cannot be determined at this time. The City would lose the portion of sales tax on building materials purchased within the City for these projects. However, the City will gain additional sales tax from the new retail development that occurs due to this expansion. Additionally, a number of new jobs will be created both from the construction as well as from the retail stores. And the investment would help revitalize and stabilize the area.

    This illustrates just how haphazardly we throw around enterprise zone status in Peoria. Some businesses surrounding a proposed enterprise zone want in on the action, so the council reflexively complies, even though these additional businesses have no plans and the city cannot even evaluate the financial impact of adding them to the enterprise zone. The city gets most of its revenue from sales taxes, so discounting sales taxes from such a large swath of Peoria without considering the impact on city revenues is injudicious. Yet it’s on the consent agenda.

  • Making CHDO’s rehab older homes, not just build new — This is second district council member Barbara Van Auken’s idea. An example of a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) would be Habitat for Humanity (although there are others, of course). Ideally, they build new homes (in-fill development) and renovate older homes for low-income people. However, in Peoria, these organizations always build new. I personally find nothing wrong with that, as we have plenty of need for in-fill development in our older neighborhoods. But Van Auken would like to see one out of every three projects be a renovation. Since these organizations get federal money through the city’s CHDO funding program, the city can add those strings to the money if they wish. The CHDOs oppose this proposal basically because of the “unpredictable costs associated with rehab” (e.g., lead paint abatement, asbestos, etc.). The risk is that CHDOs may just decide not to do any more projects, in which case the city would lose the grant money and the development that CHDOs provide. The city staff is nevertheless recommending approval, with a promise that they will report back after a year on how well the policy is working. My only fear is that as many exceptions to the Land Development Code will be made in these rehab projects as have been made in new construction.

  • Closing loopholes in the payday loan store moratorium — In response to criticism of her plan to put a moratorium on zoning certificates for payday loan stores, Van Auken has proposed this additional ordinance that would extend that moratorium to building permits. With the moratorium on zoning certificates, it only would stop standalone payday loan stores, but not stores in strip malls. This ordinance is designed to close that loophole.

  • Van Winkle is back — Former public works director Steve Van Winkle is being appointed to the Traffic Commission. This won’t require much of a time commitment from Van Winkle since the Traffic Commission cancels most of its meetings. Also, recently retired city engineer Gene Hewitt is being reappointed to the Board of Local Improvements.

  • Firefighters get a new contract — A new three-year contract has been negotiated between the city and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), giving firefighters a raise of 3.5% and other benefits.

  • Methodist Hospital expansion — This is probably the biggest item on the agenda; there are actually three separate motions on this project; here, here, and here. Methodist wants to put their entire campus under institutional (N1) zoning, plus make modifications to Hamilton Boulevard; that latter item is resulting in the Historic Preservation Commission attempting to designate the boulevard an historic landmark. I’m confident this plan will sail through the council with very few questions. It’s amusing to me how I’ve heard about how “new urban” and pedestrian-friendly this design is, yet they want to get out of the West Main regulating plan (form-based code) and have requested numerous variances to the Land Development Code. Both of those codes are designed to ensure that the principles of new urbanism are followed, resulting in pedestrian-friendliness. And, incidentally, neither Methodist nor city staff have shared these plans with the Heart of Peoria Commission, not that anyone cares.

  • Elliott’s strip club gets a liquor license — …and a bunch of taxpayer money, as expected. They’ll get a Class A (tavern) with a subclass 1a (2 a.m. closing) and subclass 2 (live entertainment) liquor license as part of a settlement agreement between the city and the owners of Elliott’s. Also in the covenant: a promise that the city will allow an “adult cabaret” in that location for at least ten years, and the payment of $50,000 in attorney’s fees to Elliott’s. That’s right! Thanks to the city fighting this, Elliott’s will get everything they wanted in the first place, plus $50,000 in your tax money! On a positive note, it could have been worse; $50,000 is significantly lower than what was predicted.