I see the light at the end of the tunnel — I should be done editing by tomorrow afternoon. In the meantime, please feel free to comment on the news of the day, or whatever else you’d like to talk about.
If you can’t think of anything, might I suggest commenting on the Journal Star’s insulting editorial on the East Bluff school issue today? Oh, how I wish I had time to comment on that….
Well, I was off by one vote. I predicted that the Park Board would agree to pursue an intergovernmental agreement by a vote of 4-3.
Instead, the Park Board rejected the school’s plan to share park land on the corner of Glen Oak Park for a new East Bluff school building by a vote of 4-3.
I wasn’t able to attend the meeting, so I don’t have any details. If you know any details, please be sure to add them in the comments section below! I’ll add more as they become available.
UPDATE (10:09 p.m.): A friend of mine just wrote and shared these details:
The vote was 4 to 3 with Roger Allen, Tim Cassidy, Stan Budzinski and Jim Cummings voting “yes†to the motion which read†…reject the School Board’s proposalâ€. Board members Petty, Johnson and Ryan voted “no†So a yes was a no and a no was a yes- Typically confusing, but regardless this is a start in the right direction. […]
It was a packed meeting- standing room only- most of us had to stand in the hall. It was very respectful and orderly. […]
Cassidy was more general in his comments and while he complimented Ken Hinton for doing a wonderful job as Superintendent he said the Peoria Park Board’s responsibility is to protect park property and therefore he had to stick with his ultimate responsibility and vote to preserve the park.
Update (12/21): Here’s the story from a few news outlets:
Also, WMBD-TV had this reaction from Superintendent Ken Hinton:
Newschannel 31 talked to District 150 Superintedent Ken Hinton Wednesday night who said he’s disappointed the park district didn’t allow the use of the land, but he’s not discouraged because he says the district has other option[s]. Hinton said he plans on talking to the school board Thursday.
I wonder (along with Billy Dennis, Bob Manning, and others), where is Mr. Hinton’s concern for the children now? It sounds like he’s saying, since he didn’t get his way, he’s going to recommend not building a new school in the East Bluff at all, but “another part of the community.” Is exacting your revenge against the East Bluff what’s best for the children, Mr. Hinton?
You know you want to comment on it — here’s your forum.
Mary Spangler (12:27)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/1-Spangler.mp3]
Debbie Wolfmeyer (4:46)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/2-Wolfmeyer.mp3]
Alicia Butler (4:45)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/3-Butler.mp3]
Sean Matheson (2:07)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/4-Matheson.mp3]
Jim Stowell (2:26)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/5-Stowell.mp3]
Vice President Martha Ross (3:44)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/6-Ross.mp3]
President David Gorenz (7:21)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/7-Gorenz.mp3]
Superintendent Ken Hinton (2:02)
[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/8-Hinton.mp3]
Seriously, folks, it’s time for me to really put my nose to the grindstone and heavily focus on editing the big Christmas program for Christmas Eve at 10:30 p.m. and Christmas Day at 12 noon on WEEK-TV. Thanks to a couple snow days and some big news days I got a little carried away with the blogging stuff.
But the time has come. I wish to remain employed, and unlike Billy, I get $0 from blogging. So it must take a backseat for the next couple of weeks.
In the meantime, please feel free to comment on anything you’d like in response to this post — treat it as an open thread — and don’t forget to visit the fine folks on my blogroll.
Merry Christmas!
UPDATE (12/17): There’s an article in the Journal Star about the big Christmas production I’m editing. The article by Michael Miller and including many pictures of the concert is called “Holiday Celebrations.”
At the Park Board meeting last night, Board President Tim Cassidy stated that “our board secretary [Joyce McLemore] was not familiar with the law” when she erased audio tapes of executive sessions that are to be kept for 18 months according to the Illinois Open Meetings Act. He added that the March 8 tape — the one requested in a lawsuit against the Board — “was not erased because of anything having to do with this [school siting] project.”
Cassidy also said that the fault for the erasures ultimately lies with the Board of Trustees, which he said “does not have a policy” on retention and disposal of executive session tapes. As a result, Cassidy revealed that “40 to 50 tapes were erased that shouldn’t have been.”
Just in case you’re wondering what the Open Meetings Act says about audio recordings, here it is from 5 ILCS 120:
Sec. 2.06. (a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings, whether open or closed, and a verbatim record of all their closed meetings in the form of an audio or video recording.
[…]
(c) The verbatim record may be destroyed without notification to or the approval of a records commission or the State Archivist under the Local Records Act or the State Records Act no less than 18 months after the completion of the meeting recorded but only after:
(1) the public body approves the destruction of a particular recording; and
(2) the public body approves minutes of the closed meeting that meet the written minutes requirements of subsection (a) of this Section.
The part of the act requiring a verbatim recording of closed sessions was signed into law by Gov. Blagojevich on August 12, 2003, and took effect January 1, 2004. This would be during McLemore’s tenure as board secretary. She has been making recordings and storing them since January 2004, according to her testimony, so she was aware of and compliant with at least section 2.06(a). She also said she thought she could destroy the tapes after the minutes were approved and released to the public, which is one of the requirements for disposal as shown in section 2.06(c)(2). However, she was unaware of the 18-month retention requirement in section 2.06(c) and the public-body-approval requirement in section 2.06(c)(1).
All I can say is, the timing and scope of this error is most unfortunate. It appears that all the executive session tapes from the effective date of the law had been kept up until June of this year. Then all the tapes of meetings with approved and released minutes (40 to 50, according to Cassidy) were destroyed, just a month after a lawsuit was filed against the Park District regarding the proceedings of one of those tapes.
So far, comments to my blog have been 100% in defense of McLemore. And I have to admit that I have no axe to grind with the board secretary. We all make mistakes, and I’m not suggesting that I want her to go to prison over this or anything. However, given the circumstances, I think a certain amount of suspicion regarding this act is justifiable. Hence, I believe it should be investigated, if for no other reason than to remove that suspicion.
Otherwise, doubts will continue to linger, such as this one from Merle Widmer: “Of course many [tapes] were [erased]; who would just erase the most damaging tape without erasing a bunch of others to make it look like just a housecleaning act? No one in the tax funded public sector erases a tape from an executive committee closed session without the approval from at least three entities: The administrator, the attorney and the full board.”
Last night, I attended the Park Board meeting at Lincoln Middle School. The big topic of discussion, as you all know, was the school siting issue; i.e., should the Park Board enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 to build a school on a corner of Glen Oak Park, sharing some park land in the process.
The most entertaining part of the evening (for me, anyway) was the presentation by District 150 consultant Judy Harris Helm. She was brought in to present the school district’s point of view on why a school sited in the park is superior to one at the current Glen Oak School location.
Appropriate for the grade school setting, Dr. Helm started her presentation with a little “show and tell.” She showed a picture of a bee rather crudely drawn by a young student, then showed a more recognizable picture of a bee she said was drawn by the same student only 45 minutes after the first one. The difference? The student only had book-learning before drawing the first picture, but had observed a real bee before drawing the second one. Conclusion: “When children only learn through books and secondary sources, they cannot practice the application of concepts. The experiences we provide shape the brain and intelligence.”
Now, if you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself at this point, “Okay, that sounds great. What does this have to do with putting a school in a park?” Answer, according to Dr. Helm: “If that can happen with a bee, just imagine…if all this were part of a school.” She went on for at least half an hour pointing out the following:
Access to outdoors is associated with
- Reduction of depression and aggression in children
- Reduction of symptoms of attention deficit
- Reduction of discipline problems
- Environment-based education improves standarddized test scores and grade-point averages and develops skills in problem solving, critical thinking, and decision making.
- Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that childhood experiences in nature stimulate creativity.
What does the park site offer to children and teachers?
- Botanical gardens
- Zoo with new Africa Exhibit
- Children’s museum with the river exhibit, science areas, history areas
- Fitness areas
- Frontier playground
- Nature access: study of biology, botany, zoology
- Lagoon: study of aquatic life
You get the idea. That part was actually not that entertaining. The entertaining part was the question and answer period. Immediately following her presentation, one member of the audience got up and, after pointing out to Dr. Helm that all the cited benefits were programming-related, not site-related, asked if the same outcomes — the same educational benefits — could be achieved just as effectively via a field trip to the park from the current site. Answer from Dr. Helm, and I quote: “Yes.”
A half-hour-plus argument extolling the virtues of siting the school in the park completely undermined by one simple question! It was a beautiful thing. But it got funnier — trying to save face, Helm went on to say that if the school wasn’t sited in the park, such field trips wouldn’t happen because — are you ready? — it would require planning and forethought on the part of teachers (teachers can’t/don’t plan?) and money for busing (clearly, $22 million for a new facility is far more cost effective than busing the kiddies six blocks or letting them walk). She eventually stopped talking (mercifully) and handed the mic to Hinton.
Later, during the public comment period, another member of the audience asked Superintendent Hinton what programs were in place currently at Lincoln Middle School and Woodruff High School to take advantage of Glen Oak Park which is right across the street from both schools. Mr. Hinton’s answer: “I don’t know.” If being adjacent to a park is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn’t the park being utilized right now by the schools that are right across the street? If it is being used, where’s the data showing the superior student performance at these schools?
It’s worth mentioning that everyone who spoke to the board during the public comment period — everyone, to a person — spoke against the park siting for the school. Included among the commenters were representatives from the Glen Oak Park Neighborhood Association, the Serenity Neighborhood Association, and the East Bluff United Neighborhood Association.
Now that we have Dr. Helm on record as saying that the same educational objectives the school district wants at the park site can be achieved at the current site at Frye and Wisconsin, I think that should be final nail in the coffin for this plan. I’m not saying it will be, because the odds are pretty good that the school board will go through with it anyway unless the park board votes it down. But it should be.
Recently, Judge Barra ruled that the Open Meetings Act was violated when an audio tape of the March 8, 2006, closed session Park Board meeting was erased. Joyce McLemore is the Secretary of the Board for the Peoria Park District, and she was the one who erased the tape. I suggested in a comment to an earlier post that I would try to get a copy of her confession.
Here it is. In a statement filed in the Alms/Partridge court case, McLemore gives this explanation of why she erased the tape (click here for PDF of document):
Words can’t express my regret when I tell you I have made a mistake with respect to the executive meeting back-up tapes. After the June 14 release of closed minutes, I cleaned up and organized the written and tape files. Feeling I could do so, I discarded discussion tapes associated with the written released minutes. I felt I had this backlog of tapes, starting in January 2004, and I systematically worked through the list of released minutes to match up with the corresponding discussion tapes, which tapes I marked “released”. I have been Board Secretary for over 6 years, and before that I worked for the District as Recreation Secretary for 17 years. I’ve always felt confident in my handling of Park District confidential records. Until July 26th, when Attorney Konsky was updating you on the Alms/Partridge lawsuit, I had been oblivious to my mistake. Realizing the tape record you were discussing couldn’t be transcribed because of what I had done – it hit me like a ton of bricks.
On Monday, July 31st, I told Bonnie of my mistake, and Attorney Konsky. At Attorney Konsky’s request, I have inventoried the tapes in storage, to determine what records are gone.
I am solely responsible for this huge mistake and it will not happen again. Whatever I need to do to account for it, I will do.
I know the perception of bungling these tapes will be out there, and I do not want the District and Board to be blamed. Please know I would never purposely put you or the District in the position I find myself in. It was a thoughtless mistake on my part, but an honest one.
To guard against future mistakes I will:
-Use only one side of one tape, per recording
-I will inventory tapes on a semi-annual basis, as I have always done with the formal written minutes.
-At no point will I attempt to organize or clean up the back-up tapes unless directed to do so by this Board.
-I will continue to store the tape records in the safe along with the confidential minutes.
-I will ask for an outline or plan of action for release of the confidential tape records from Attorney Konsky.August 7, 2006
V. Joyce McLemore
Secretary of the Board
Peoria Park District
Note that there’s no indication to whom the letter is addressed. I can only conjecture (based on a little deductive reasoning) that it must be to Park Board President Cassidy. Note also that it’s not an affidavit. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe one of my lawyer readers can comment on this, but this statement is not technically sworn testimony, is it? It sort of sticks out among the other legal documents in the case file. Maybe that’s not a big deal.
Now, what are we to make of this situation? On its face, it certainly sounds unbelievable. It’s quite the coincidence that just a month after a lawsuit was filed against the Park District on May 5 regarding negotiations that took place in closed session on March 8 that Secretary McLemore — a 23-year veteran with the Park District dealing with secretarial duties — would suddenly decide it was finally time to get around to systematically erasing tapes that had been backlogged since January 2004, erasing the tape of the meeting under investigation in the process, all without direction from the board. They say truth is stranger than fiction, but this really presses the limits of plausibility.
The State’s Attorney should investigate. At the very least, McLemore’s statement should be given under oath under penalty of perjury. Violating the Open Meetings Act (Class C misdemeanor) and tampering with public records (Class 4 felony) are both serious offenses.
Congress Daily (via GovExec.com) reports:
The House on Friday overwhelmingly defeated legislation backed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., that would establish a Pentagon “report card” system of grading congressional defense earmarks on their individual merits.
[…]
Opponents argued the measure would undermine congressional prerogatives in determining where the money goes and would cost Pentagon staff countless hours of work preparing their evaluations of defense spending.
Voting no, of course, was Rep. LaHood, which is surprising (sarcasm) because he’s supposedly in favor of transparency in the earmarks process. The Bill was HR6375, “Requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress an annual report and to provide notice to the public on congressional initiatives in funds authorized or made available to the Department of Defense.”
The so-called “report card” would have been required to be posted on a public website and include the following information:
Content.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include, for each congressional initiative applicable to funds that were authorized or made available to the Department of Defense for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following:
“(1) A description of each such congressional initiative, including—
“(A) the geographic location (by city, State, country, and congressional district, if relevant) in which the funds covered by such congressional initiative are to be used;
“(B) the purpose of such congressional initiative (if known); and
“(C) the recipient of the funding covered by such congressional initiative.
“(2) For each such congressional initiative, an assessment of the utility of the congressional initiative in meeting the goals of the Department, set forth using a rating system as follows:
“(A) A rating of ‘A’ for a congressional initiative that directly advances the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.
“(B) A rating of ‘B’ for a congressional initiative that advances many of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.
“(C) A rating of ‘C’ for a congressional initiative that may advance some of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.
“(D) A rating of ‘D’ for a congressional initiative that cannot be demonstrated as being cost-effective in advancing the primary goals of the Department or any agency, element, or component of the Department.
“(E) A rating of ‘F’ for a congressional initiative that distracts from or otherwise impedes that capacity of the Department to meet the primary goals of the Department.
Not only is it transparent, it would have given the public an independent expert opinion on whether the earmarks are cost-effective and advance the nation’s primary defense goals.
Don’t you just love the justification for defeating this? It would “undermine congressional prerogatives on where the money goes.” Yes, we don’t want those pesky voters undermining their elected representatives’ prerogatives. God help us if the voters knew what their representatives were actually doing in Congress! *Gasp* The voters might actually start holding them accountable for passing legislation that furthers the nation’s primary goals instead of giving sweetheart deals to campaign contributors! Horrors!
And, don’t you feel just awful for all the extra work it would load on those poor Pentagon staffers? I’m sure the Pentagon would much rather implement the whims of congressmen than engage in any pesky planning or evaluation of the efficacy of the programs Congress chooses to fund. What a headache!
Yes, once again Mr. LaHood and 329 other representatives voted to keep the earmarks system shrouded in secrecy so they can continue bringing home the pork without accountability.
For those of you interested in the “Community School Project” (i.e., the plan to put a replacement school for the Woodruff attendance area on a corner of Glen Oak Park), tonight’s the night to express your opinion to the Peoria Park Board. They will be meeting at Lincoln Middle School, 700 Mary St. (next to Woodruff), at 6:00 p.m.
One question that I hope comes up is, “How does this partnership help fulfill the Park District’s mission statement?” That mission statement is, “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” So, how exactly does putting a school on a corner of the park constitute “stewardship of the environment”? What “quality recreation” is being provided by the school? What “leisure opportunities”?
Rep. Ray LaHood wants Mary Harkrader and Camille Gibson booted off the Peoria City Election Commission for firing Executive Director Jeanette Mitzelfelt, the Journal Star reports. Whether or not they deserve to be ousted is a separate issue I’m not prepared to debate at this time. But I do think the situation is filled with irony.
One of the big reasons touted for why the city election commission is supposedly superior to the way the county clerk oversees elections is that the city election commission is bi-partisan and, thus, supposedly not as susceptible to political interference. But the charge now is that the commissioners acted on political motivations in firing Mitzelfelt. “The Peoria Board of Election Commissioners has never experienced a failure of the public’s trust,” the Election Commission’s website proudly states. Guess they’ll have to change that copy.
But getting back to LaHood. He’s quoted in the Journal Star as saying, “This is the most outrageous political move I’ve seen in a long, long time…. This is absolutely pure politics.” Well, Ray knows a little something about playing politics. Just a couple of months ago, he participated in retaliation against the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee’s deliberate leak of a classified document, then bragged about it to Fox News saying, “If the ranking member wants to play politics, there are some of us on the other side that can play politics, and I’m not afraid to do it.” Now he’s got his sites set on Harkrader and Gibson.
Is retaliation becoming a pattern for Ray?