Category Archives: Elections

School Board (2nd District) Election Results 2007

Perhaps the most surprising returns of the night came from the District 150 School Board election (winners in bold):

Candidate Votes %
1 Linda Butler 1,439 24.87%
2 Rachael Parker 1,277 22.07%
3 Bill O’Brien 1,243 21.49%
4 Alicia Butler 962 16.63%
5 Beth Akeson 864 14.94%

I was not surprised that Alicia Butler didn’t win. On her campaign postcard, the very first bullet point reads, “Open, honest communication with the community.” Kind of ironic, isn’t it? Since the charges were levied that she did not have the degrees she claimed to have, she’s not had open communication with anyone (we’re still waiting for a comment from her lawyer), and obviously her honesty is the very thing at issue.

I was surprised that she didn’t come in last. Beth Akeson tied for first place in my precinct, but in district 2 at large she came in dead last, even behind Alicia Butler. I’m not sure I understand why. I guess her message just didn’t resonate with the voters. Maybe this is for the best — now she can continue to focus on the Heart of Peoria Commission instead of having her interests divided.

Bill O’Brien was interviewed on WCBU after the final numbers came in. Even though he only lost by approximately 30 votes, he was willing to graciously concede rather than pursue a recount. We all thought that was very gentlemanly of him.

Rachael Parker was one of my endorsements, so it’s good to see her win, of course.

The biggest surprise to me was that Linda Butler came in first. I’m clearly out of touch with other voters in the second district because I didn’t see that coming at all. I felt Linda Butler was the status-quo candidate; she’s the only candidate that didn’t take a hard stance against the school in the park idea. I never would have expected her to come in first.

I’m going to predict that this will not represent much of a shift for the school board.

City Council At-Large Election Results 2007

With the exception of Turner moving from fourth to second place, the general election results for the top five vote-getters were exactly the same as the primary election. Here are the final results (winners in bold):

Candidate Votes %
1 Gary Sandberg 13,767 18.84%
2 Eric Turner 11,912 16.30%
3 Ryan Spain 11,894 16.27%
4 George Jacob 9,656 13.21%
5 Jim Montelongo 7,773 10.63%
6 Dan Irving 5,136 7.03%
7 Gale Thetford 4,915 6.72%
8 Patti Sterling-Polk 4,313 5.90%
9 Gloria Cassell-Fitzgerald 2,172 2.97%
10 Dan Gillette 1,552 2.12%

This is not a big surprise. There was some question as to whether Montelongo could hold on to the #5 spot, but the top four winners were solid. I was impressed with Dan Irving’s final showing. He was eighth in the primary and moved up to sixth. Even though the margin between fifth and sixth place was approximately 2,600 votes, that’s still not bad for an at-large election. I’ll bet if he would run again in two or four years, he would win.

Vote Today

Vote today and you’ll get this nifty sticker to proudly display on your lapel.

Once again, here’s a recap of the Peoria Chronicle endorsements:

City Council

  • Gary Sandberg
  • George Jacob
  • Dan Irving
  • Dan Gillette
  • Jim Montelongo

School Board

  • Beth Akeson
  • Rachael Parker

Park Board President

  • Tim Cassidy

Library Referendum

  • Yes

City Council: Sandberg, Jacob, Irving, Gillette, Montelongo

In Tuesday’s general election, we’ll be picking five at-large City Council candidates to represent Peoria for the next four years. Since Chuck Grayeb and John Morris are not running for reelection, there are just three incumbents and seven newcomers vying for the five seats. In the primary election, I only endorsed three candidates: Gary Sandberg, George Jacob, and Dan Irving. I’m sticking with those candidates and adding two more: Jim Montelongo and Dan Gillette.

Gary Sandberg has a simple, consistent philosophy: city government exists to provide basic essential services in the most cost effective, efficient manner to keep taxes low. He has proven himself to vote consistently with that philosophy. He should be retained.

George Jacob was surprised when he learned that I endorsed him in the primary. It’s nice to know I’m not too predictable. In addition to what I said in my primary endorsement, there are some other things that make Jacob a good choice. He supports attracting manufacturing jobs to Peoria. Many candidates talk about the creative class and the med-tech jobs we want to attract, and those are certainly important. But we need to be a city that has jobs for everyone, and jobs in all parts of the city — not just the north end or the second district. Having good head-of-household jobs in and near the older neighborhoods (and I would say especially the south end) is as important for stabilization as dealing with crime.

Dan Irving has not let his eighth-place finish in the primary election dampen his optimism or resolve. Rather, he has campaigned even harder. It’s paid off — he picked up endorsements from Congressman LaHood, Mayor Ardis, several council members, and even the Journal Star. I have to admit, some of these endorsements caused me to briefly rethink my own endorsement of him. But based on the priority he puts on core services (fire, police) and his support for older neighborhoods (through the Heart of Peoria Plan and other initiatives), I feel confident he would make a good addition to the council and would work to move Peoria in the right direction.

Dan Gillette is the underdog in this race. He didn’t actually win in the primary, but got into the race when ninth-place finisher Charles Schierer dropped out. Gillette provides an insider’s view to the council. Having worked for the city in the public works department, it should come as no surprise that his campaign slogan is to have a “clean, safe city.” He’s familiar with the city’s budget, which means he won’t have the kind of learning curve your average new councilman has. He will be able to get right to work looking for ways to use taxpayer’s money more efficiently. And he’s clearly an essential services candidate.

I really had a hard time coming up with a fifth endorsement. I’m passionate about supporting “essential services first” candidates because I feel the city has gotten away from its core responsibilities. For their tax dollars, citizens at minimum expect — I’ll go so far as to say “deserve” — adequate fire and police protection and well-maintained infrastructure (streets, sewers, etc.). When a council continues to subsidize parking decks while simultaneously underfunding the fire department — and defends that decision — we have a serious problem.

Jim Montelongo is not what I would consider an essential-services-first candidate. But I’m endorsing him because of his strong stance on crime. It appears that this is the issue about which he’s most concerned. He’s a proponent of the “broken window theory” of police enforcement, which was successful in New York under Rudolf Giuliani. I think there’s something to be said for geographic diversity on the council, so the fact that he lives in the fourth district is a plus. I’m a little nervous about the more progressive parts of his platform (e.g., installing fiber optic lines city-wide), but I believe those ideas will be tempered by the budget realities of GASB-45 and other high-priced obstacles facing the city now.

As for the rest of the candidates, Eric Turner lost any modicum of support from me when he defended the MidTown Plaza TIF and development on WCBU’s “Lunch with the Candidates” series. Ryan Spain is passionate about economic development, which is his job at Heartland Partnership, but he lacks knowledge of and depth on the other planks in his platform. Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald would make a better school board candidate, since that is where her experience lies. Gale Thetford was the architect of the $6 garbage fee as well as the driving force behind Mid-Town Plaza; no way should she be allowed back on the council. Patti Sterling-Polk‘s platform is entirely too vague. I’m not clear what her priorities would be if elected.

Whoever you decide to vote for, I encourage you all to vote on April 17.

School Board: Akeson, Parker

Beth AkesonIt will come as no surprise to anyone that I’m endorsing Beth Akeson for the District 150 Board of Education. I serve with her on the Heart of Peoria Commission and have seen first-hand how she works with a team of people toward a common goal.

Akeson does a lot of research. She’s relentless in educating herself about topics on which she needs to make a decision both through written materials and personal interviews. She is committed to getting public input before making decisions. That’s important, since the current school board has a habit of making poorly-researched decisions first and then getting public “input,” which they summarily ignore anyway.

Perhaps most importantly, she believes we need to raise the expectations of children in our education system. It’s not enough for the district to make “adequate yearly progress” its goal. District 150 needs to aim higher than minimum standards. And that’s what being on the school board is all about — the children. The school board should be doing everything it can to facilitate educational excellence (not just adequacy) for all students.

I’m confident Beth Akeson will be an excellent addition to the school board. She’s strongly endorsed.

Rachael ParkerRachael Parker works for the City of Peoria in economic development. While we all recognize that the city and the school board are two completely separate governmental entities, they are nevertheless interdependent. They both draw from the same tax base, so the health and success of each body depends in large part on the health and success of the other. With that backdrop, I believe Parker would be an asset on the school board to help foster understanding between the two bodies.

Parker is also a proponent of inclusive decision-making. It’s sad that the school board has such a bad reputation in the area of listening to the community that this is such a big campaign issue. But the fact is, it is a big issue. We need people on the board who will really listen to the people whom they are representing and treat them with respect. Parker will do that.

She’s also a proponent of vocational education. I believe vocational education is important whether students are able to go to college or not. It teaches job skills and attitudes that students can begin using immediately in their summer jobs as they’re just beginning to enter the workforce and build their resume.

Finally, Parker (as well as Akeson, for that matter) understands that the Board of Education sets policy, vision, and direction for the school district and then lets the superintendent carry it out. Currently, the board appears to be led by Mr. Hinton. Getting the chain of command righted and having the school board do the leading will do wonders for improving District 150.

The rest of the candidates

It was a little tough coming up with endorsements since there was such a good pool of candidates this time around. It was a toss-up for me between Parker and Bill O’Brien, but I gave the edge to Parker for her city connections and because she would bring more diversity to the board. I feel that Linda Butler is what I would call a “status-quo” candidate. That is, I feel her platform is in line with what the current school board is already doing. She’s the only candidate who has continued to support the Glen Oak Park site for an East Bluff school.

As for the embattled Alicia Butler, I’ve maintained all along that if the controversy surrounding her honesty and integrity were not cleared up before the election, then I can’t in good conscience endorse her. If she is able to clear her name after the election, she can always run again the next time around. But it’s too much for me to believe that this is some sort of vast political conspiracy involving both the Journal Star and Bradley University to remove her from the board and ruin her life.

There’s a logical principle that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, and in this case the simplest explanation is that Alicia fudged her resume and is trying to cover up her mistake. I’ll give her credit for chutzpah, but I’m afraid I can’t give her my vote.

Dan Irving picks up high-profile endorsements

Dan IrvingCity Council candidate Dan Irving held a press conference today to announce several endorsements of his campaign. Announcing their endorsements in person were Congressman Ray LaHood, Mayor Jim Ardis, and fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting. Also announcing endorsements but unable to attend the news conference were third-district councilman Bob Manning and fourth-district councilman Bill Spears.

Congressman LaHood took advantage of early voting and cast his ballot this morning at 9:30. He said he was giving his support because of Irving’s business experience, involvement in the community, and his perspective as part of the “younger generation.” Ray said he was endorsing candidates for city council because he lives in Peoria, pays taxes in Peoria, and thus he cares about what happens in Peoria. LaHood disclosed that he also voted for George Jacob, Ryan Spain, Gale Thetford, and Eric Turner. LaHood voted early because he will be returning to Washington this weekend.

Mayor Ardis feels that Dan has a good background on the issues the city is facing and that he will be a good addition to the “team.” Ardis specifically mentioned that he agreed with Irving’s platform on the issues of crime (supports saturation patrols, surveillance cameras), strengthening neighborhoods, and promoting economic development. Ardis also endorses George Jacob, Ryan Spain, and Eric Turner.

Councilman Nichting believes that Irving has strong leadership skills that will “progress Peoria forward,” and generally agreed with the mayor’s reasons for endorsing him. Nichting also endorses George Jacob and Eric Turner.

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.

Alicia Butler’s credentials questioned

Alicia ButlerThe Journal Star is accusing Alicia Butler of falsely claiming to have a bachelors and masters degree from Bradley University. Butler has not directly denied it.

Anyone know any more about this issue? I mean, Alicia has been on the school board for a while now. No one thought to check out her credentials before this? How did this come up all of sudden, right before the election?

I can’t quite understand Butler’s response as reported. Whether or not you have a degree is easy enough to prove — all you have to do is get out your diploma. If these allegations turn out to be true, it will be not only professionally, but personally devastating to Butler. I’m not a big Alicia Butler fan, but honestly I hate to see this happen to anyone; I hope the allegations are untrue.

Someone out there knows what’s going on — come on… give!

Update (3/31): Now that I’ve read the full article that ran in Saturday’s paper, I have to say this looks very bad for Alicia. All the other candidates were easily able to provide proof of their college degrees. As one commenter pointed out, this is easy to do. In fact, if anyone questioned my degree from ICC or my wife’s degree from Bradley, I could just go to my filing cabinet and pull out our diplomas — it would take me two minutes, tops. Why does Butler claim “she would not have time to verify the information before the election”? The election is 17 days away.

Worse, Bradley’s registrar (it wasn’t clear to me from the previous article that a Bradley official had actually verified this) has gone on record saying Butler does not have any degrees from Bradley. I’m not sure how Butler could “know” she has a degree from Bradley, yet Bradley could somehow not know.

It’s true, as the paper points out, that there is no educational requirement to be on the school board, so the fact that she doesn’t have these degrees does not disqualify Butler from her current seat or the present race. But her integrity and character are seriously in question now, and that doesn’t set well with voters who are already distrustful of sitting school board members. I think this sinks any chance there might have been of her being reelected.

On the one hand, and I’m assuming these allegations are true based on the testimony of the Bradley registrar and Butler’s inability to prove otherwise, Butler has no one to blame but herself. But on the other hand, I’m still bothered by this statement:

Triggered by allegations against Butler, the Journal Star asked all five District 150 School Board candidates to verify their educational credentials.

Who made the allegations against Butler? Was it another candidate? A sitting school board member? Is this political payback for a decision or vote Butler made? Again, I can’t have much sympathy for someone who lied on her resume, but the source of the allegation is still germane. Who wanted to ruin Butler’s reelection bid and why?

Quiz Show: Council candidates participate in Warehouse District test

Last night (3/22), the ten candidates for five city council at-large seats stood by easels with flipcharts on them, marker in hand, and answered questions compiled by the Warehouse District Association. It was fun, but it really was a test — a test to see how much the candidates know about the Heart of Peoria Plan, the proposed Land Development Code, and the Warehouse District. Their answers will be graded and, while the answers won’t be published, their scores will. It’s just one more tool in evaluating the candidates.

Only part of the time was spent writing answers on paper, however. Interspersed were three or four rounds of questioning that required the candidates to answer verbally. Here are some of the questions and answers (remember, these are going to be specific to the Warehouse District because that’s the audience for this forum):

Q: Where should the next major development be in the city?

  • Turner: Museum and CAT visitors center, Warehouse District and Eagle View area
  • Thetford: Downtown, older neighborhoods,
  • Spain: Downtown, riverfront, warehouse district, Renaissance Park
  • Sandberg: Within the 8,000-acre Heart of Peoria area

Q: Would you vote for the Warehouse District TIF if elected to the council?

  • Polk: Only if it’s not detrimental to District 150
  • Montelongo: “I would want some strings attached to that as well.” (didn’t specify what strings)
  • Jacob: Wants to complete the TIF study before making a final decision

Q: If elected, what value would you place on the Warehouse District?

  • Irving: Extremely high; development needed in this area, especially retail
  • Gillette: Important; outdoor malls, restaurants, night clubs, etc., needed to bring people to the area
  • Cassel-Fitzgerald: Very high; supports Warehouse District

Q: How would you fix the streets in the Warehouse District and Downtown?

  • Cassel-Fitzgerald: Procedures in place for owners to do something about the sidewalks; some streets need to be two-way; to some extent it depends on who moves there
  • Gillette: Return some streets to natural character (e.g., many downtown streets still have brick underlayment); change one-way streets to two-way; change Washington Street to three lanes
  • Irving: Change one-way streets to two-way; put in more ornamental landscaping; imperative that traffic be slowed down in order for Warehouse District to be successfully implemented
  • Jacob: Make one-way streets two-way; slow traffic down; create diagonal parking; realize that this effort will require significant investments in infrastructure

Q: What is the city council’s role in economic development in the Warehouse District?

  • Montelongo: “Set the tone” for business growth
  • Polk: Find as many venues to make the city as progressive as it can; use Warehouse District to bring tourism in; provide whatever the need to make this a thriving area
  • Sandberg: Adopt regulations that would promote investment; stand against development not in keeping with the vision for the Heart of Peoria Plan and Warehouse District

Q: (1) Have you ever walked the Warehouse District? (2) If so, do you think the city’s efforts to keep the streets/sidewalks clean and repaired is adequate?

  • Spain: (1) Yes; (2) No, a better job needs to be done in this area for the Warehouse District to be successful; consider the “hidden costs” of doing this (e.g., added costs to clear the sidewalks of snow in addition to the street)
  • Thetford: (1) Yes, portions of it; (2) Not as good as it should be, but better than some older neighborhoods; the city needs to work on the streets all over Peoria, not just in the Warehouse District
  • Turner: (1) Yes; (2) Visited warehouse districts in other cities, so he knows the vision; here, “we have a long way to go.”

Q: Will you encourage establishment of the arts as a vital part of the Warehouse District?

  • Turner: Yes; committed to Arts Partners
  • Thetford: “Without question”; has a minor in theater and has acted at Cornstock, so is committed to the arts; our arts community distinguishes Peoria from among other cities in Illinois
  • Spain: “Absolutely yes”; it is a critical part of our community; offered to have his jazz band come down and play a gig in the Warehouse District

Q: What do you think the [now-defunct] Riverfront Commission in the past accomplished?

  • Sandberg: It was a waste of money that destroyed our riverfront; the scale is wrong, the architecture is wrong; it is a barricade to our river [after Sandberg’s comments, the audience applauded unprompted — the only time this happened]
  • Polk: Disappointed in how our riverfront turned out; expected something different
  • Montelongo: Got things started, but outcome was misguided; didn’t meet expectations
  • Jacob: It’s easy to sit back and bash the Riverfront Commission’s work after the fact; yes, mistakes were made, but the opportunity now is to work with what we’ve got and come up with solutions; focus on the future

Q: What has the Heart of Peoria Commission (1) accomplished so far, and (2) what can they do in the future?

  • Irving: (1) They have brought forth the form-based code; (2) communicate, publicize, and come up with more ideas for drawing people into the older parts of town
  • Gillette: (1) They’ve completed basic studies on what can be done; (2) need to communicate and listen to the neighborhoods
  • Cassell-Fitzgerald: (1) Commission has not done what it could have done; there are no resolutions to their recommendations; (2) Work closer with neighborhood associations; network with other organizations

Keep in mind that these questions and answers are just pulled from my notes. Some of the candidates talk very fast, and I just tried to get the basic gist of what they were saying, with a quote here and there when I could get it. In fairness, they had to talk fast, because the pace of the Q&A time was pretty peppy.

I thought these questions and answers gave some insight into the candidates’ knowledge of the issues that are important to the Warehouse District, and also some idea of how they view the council’s role in development. Jennifer Davis of the Journal Star covered the event, as did Kim Carollo of HOI News.