Monthly Archives: December 2006

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

The Thetford Files: Fire Station 11

3 Comments

In the months leading up to the at-large City Council election, I’ll be occasionally pulling out some pertinent data on Gale Thetford and posting it under the headline “The Thetford Files.” George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and if there’s one part of the past it would be a real shame to repeat, it’s the election of Gale Thetford to the City Council.

So, without any further ado, here’s a quote from the Nov. 22, 2003, City Council minutes:

Council Member Thetford repeated her motion not to hire 11 firefighters this year and not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew would be utilized or putting equipment out of service.

Recovering from a fire can be really difficult, however, we recommend you to look for fire damage repair services to pick up all the damages that this incident have left.

Council Member Ardis questioned Council Member Thetford regarding her motion. He said the recommendation was directly contrary to that of a 20-plus year professional firefighter and head of the City’s Fire Department.

[…]

Motion to not hire 11 firefighters this year, but not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew could be utilized or to put a piece of equipment out of service was approved by roll call vote.

Yeas: Gulley, Morris, Teplitz, Thetford, Turner, Mayor Ransburg – 6;
Nays: Ardis, Grayeb, Nichting, Sandberg, Spears – 5.

Just a reminder, of the six who voted for this motion, three were defeated in the very next election: Ransburg (replaced by Ardis), Teplitz (replaced by Van Auken), and Thetford (replaced by Manning). Of the five nays, all are still currently serving on the council.

Peoria Park District

Judge rules that Park District violated Open Meetings Act

18 Comments

Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge allege that the Peoria Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they met in closed session on March 8 and 22 to discuss a land-sharing deal with Peoria School District 150. Judge John Barra ruled Monday that the Park District clearly violated the OMA on one of two counts.

The OMA “is designed to prohibit secret deliberations and action on matters which, due to their potential impact on the public, properly should be discussed in a public forum.” Thus, closed session meetings are only allowed under narrowly-defined exceptions. There are two exceptions regarding property that would allow the park board to go into closed session:

  • The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)
  • The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)

Alms and Partridge contend that the Park District was not purchasing, leasing, acquiring, or setting a price for the sale of publicly-owned property, and thus violated the OMA by going into closed session on March 8 and 22. The easiest way for a judge to determine if the OMA was violated is to listen to a recording of the proceedings of the closed session meeting. The OMA requires public bodies to make an audio or video recording of closed session meetings and keep those recordings for a minimum of 18 months.

However, Park Board secretary Joyce McLemore erased the recording of the March 8, 2006, closed session meeting after only six months. In lieu of that, the judge could only consider the minutes of that meeting and a sworn affidavit from the Park District that contends the Park Board did discuss purchase, sale, or lease of property in compliance with the section 2(c)(5) or (6) exceptions to the OMA.

Thus, Judge Barra ruled on Count 1 — whether the OMA was violated by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session — that the facts of the case are in dispute, and the parties would have to present further evidence to prove whether or not the OMA was violated. In other words, Alms and Partridge have a valid case and it can proceed to trial.

On Count 2 — whether the OMA was violated by Secretary McLemore’s erasure of the March 8 closed session tape — Judge Barra ruled that the facts in this instance were not in dispute, and that the Park District did indeed violate the OMA. The tape is erased and McLemore admitted to erasing it. A hearing will be held to determine the appropriate remedy for that violation.

All I can say is, thank goodness someone in this town is holding our elected officials accountable.

UPDATE: The Journal Star finally posted their report on their website.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Spin City: Journal Star editorial on school/park agreement

10 Comments

The Journal Star didn’t publish its pro-intergovernmental-agreement editorial online today, so I can’t link to it. But I’m still going to comment on it. I think everyone is aware that District 150 and the Peoria Park District on March 29, 2006, signed a Letter of Intent to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow the school district to build a new school at the corner of Frye and Prospect using a combination of acquired parcels and shared Glen Oak Park land. The Journal Star thinks the park board should stick by that agreement, despite public outcry against it.

The Journal Star editors’ thesis is summed up in the first sentence:

If the Peoria Park Board were to pull the rug out now from beneath its partnership with District 150 regarding the construction of a new school in upper Glen Oak Park, just eight months after effectively greenlighting the project, it would represent an act of bad faith not only against District 150, but against its own taxpayers.

That sentence is the epitome of spin. First of all, what represents “an act of bad faith…against its own taxpayers” is the park district violating the Open Meetings Act to hammer out an agreement with the school board in secret (there’s a lawsuit still pending on that matter), and the school board subsequently acting on a letter of intent as if it were legally binding.

Secondly, the taxpayers don’t want the school in the park! The Journal Star Editorial Board (JSEB) can’t seem to get that through their heads. If the park district were to cancel their participation in this project, it would show — contrary to the JSEB’s assertions — that they were acting in good faith, listening to the taxpayers, and making amends for their earlier errors.

The JSEB then writes this whopper:

[A]ny misgivings Park Board member Roger Allen and perhaps others had about this project should have been voiced publicly before March 29, when the two boards agreed to go forward, and before District 150 spent $877,500 purchasing eight private properties next to the park. Even if it was premature of District 150 to begin buying homes before it had the park district’s rock-solid OK, there was time for the park board to say “whoa” before it got this far.

No kidding. Apparently the park board didn’t realize this would be so unpopular with the public, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed the letter of intent in the first place. Which is why it might have been a good idea to not have secret meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act in the first place. Those laws are there for a reason — and one of them is to protect the park board from foolish mistakes like this one.

If a majority of the park board follows Allen’s lead [i.e., changing their minds] …they’ll have some real explaining to do to [the] taxpayers.

Au contraire; if a majority of the park board continues to ignore the public and act on secret deals, then they’ll have some explaining to do to taxpayers.

Despite feigned concern for taxpayers, the JSEB in the very next paragraph implies that those same taxpayers are either malicious (spreading misinformation; suing the park board), or stupid (believing misinformation), or simply ungrateful (for not embracing a new East Bluff school at any cost).

There’s more, which you can read below (just click the “show more” link to read the whole editorial), but those are the main points. |inline

Traffic

Ahl witnesses horrific accident

1 Comment

If you haven’t checked out WCBU News Director Jonathan Ahl’s blog lately, you’ll want to read this story. A horrific auto accident happened last night around 11 in the evening, authorities said.

Fortunately (and amazingly), no one was hurt but they did contact their Personal Injury Attorney New Jersey to get a settlement and representation. In fact, the guys in the minivan were able to open their doors, crawl out, and walk around. Not quite as spectacular as what Ahl witnessed, though.

In cases like this, you’ll want to get the services of a car accident lawyer, he or she will be able to assist you in obtaining the monetary compensation you deserve to cover any accident-related losses, such as car repairs, lost wages, social security disability, and medical expenses. A professional car accident lawyer will be able to help you make the insurance company pay up.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Note to Tim Cassidy: School Board has already acted

Today’s Journal Star quotes Peoria Park District Board President Tim Cassidy saying this about the upcoming park board meeting where they will be discussing District 150’s plans to build a new school building on a corner of Glen Oak Park:

“I don’t see how we could (vote). The school district hasn’t acted on anything yet. I don’t think they’ve made a final decision. I don’t think we should be preempting the decision for them,” Park Board President Tim Cassidy said last week.

Let’s see, the school board has spent $877,500 to acquire property on the proposed site, signed a letter of intent to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the park board, hired architects and planners to work on design and programming for the new building, and spurned all attempts from the public and the City of Peoria to build on the current Glen Oak School site… am I leaving anything out? If Mr. Cassidy believes that constitutes no action on the part of the school board, then he has a most bizarre definition of inaction.

Since he doesn’t want to “preempt” the school board’s decision, the park board will not vote on the matter at Wednesday’s meeting; they’ll just hear testimony from the school board, the Heart of Peoria Commission, and the public at large.

If you’d like to attend and let the park board know how you feel about the whole thing, you can! The meeting is open to the public, and will take place 6 p.m. Wednesday (Dec. 13) at Lincoln Middle School, 700 Mary St.

City of Peoria, Elections

Let the City Council race begin

2 Comments

Intrepid WMBD-AM 1470 reporter Dave Dahl was at the Election Commission this morning interviewing candidates who were filing petitions to run for the five at-large City Council seats in April. Today was the first day potential candidates could file. And the first ones to file were:

  • Dan Irving
  • George Jacob (by proxy)
  • Patti Polk
  • Chuck Schierer
  • Ryan Spain
  • Gale Thetford

Yes, that’s right — Gale Thetford wants to run for an at-large seat. No doubt she wants to do to all of Peoria what she did to the 3rd District. Let’s see, she was a big supporter of MidTown Plaza, eminent domain takeovers of little old ladies’ houses on Dechman, and the TIF created to make it all possible. And she supported the regressive $6/mo. garbage “fee” with which the city is still saddled. Oh, yeah, she’ll do great in an at-large race at a time when essential services are foremost in citizens’ minds (thanks to the snow-plowing fiasco).

I’ve said this before, but I just love saying it — I had the pleasure of voting against Gale Thetford in the last council election before I moved to the West Bluff. Now, thanks to this at-large bid, I’ll have the pleasure of voting against her again.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 strike averted

10 Comments

All the major news outlets are now reporting that District 150 teachers have agreed to the school board’s proposed contract. 1470-AM WMBD is reporting that teachers signed a 3-year contract:

At issue were wages, specifically the district’s request for a “hard freeze”; that is, no raise even for additional experience or education. Now, teachers will get that “step” increase second semester this year, along with a raises of 1% and 1.75% in years two and three of the contract, respectively.

Huh. 1% raises for teachers. And, um, how much of a raise for administrators? Oh, that’s right — 33% for the Associate Superintendents. I think the teachers should have called the district’s bluff. But I’m sure several of them were scared by the threat of replacement workers.

I guess in District 150’s book, having teacher pay not keep up with inflation while administrator pay skyrockets is “what’s best for the children.”

UPDATE: Here’s a little more detail from WHOI (channel 19):

Here are some key points about the new contract. It allows for lane changes. That means teachers will be paid more for the more education they receive. It also allows for step increases, meaning teachers get increases based on the number of years they’ve taught. Base pay raises are included in the second and third years of the contract. It’s a three year deal.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 places ad for substitute teachers

6 Comments

In today’s Journal Star classifieds:

Employment Opportunity with Peoria Public Schools Peoria, Illinois Peoria Public Schools, Peoria, Illinois, has immediate openings for: SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS Qualifications: B.A./B.S. degree; must meet all other eligibility requirements required by Illinois School Code. Send resume and letter of interest to: Peoria School District 150 Human Resources Dept. 3202 N. Wisconsin Dept. Peoria, IL 61603 Attn: Substitute Teacher, We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Kind of a hardball tactic during contract negotiations. On the other hand, how many substitute teachers want to be scabs for District 150?

The Peoria Chronicle

Has my blog always looked this way on IE?

6 Comments

I usually use Firefox for my web browser. It’s leaner and less and annoying than Internet Explorer (IE). But recently I was on a computer that only had IE on it, so I looked up my blog and noticed that, while it still looked pretty normal, there were several things askew. The top of the page (where you can click on “home” and “e-mail” and “search”), for instance, is not centered vertically in the box. Also, the lines separating the different sections of my sidebar look like they’re sticking out the left side a bit.

My question is, has my blog always looked this way, or is this something new with IE7? I’m sure I checked this on IE before and it looked okay…. I’m not sure how to fix it, but I’ll see what I can do. It’s not a big deal, but it’s going to bug me now.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 administrators continue to lose credibility

9 Comments

District 150 teachers are on the brink of a strike, and negotiations don’t appear to be moving very quickly. Yet the Journal Star mentions in passing (emphasis mine), “[Superintendent] Hinton, who did not attend the negotiations, said both sides seemed to be understanding each other better after Friday’s talks.”

Why isn’t Hinton attending the negotiations? According to the District 150 Board of Education Policy Manual the first thing on the list under “Powers and Duties” for the superintendent is that he shall “attend all meetings of the Board, shall be a member of all committees, and shall attend all meetings of the same, except when his or her own appointment, performance, contract, or salary are being considered.”

Perhaps there is a really good explanation, but the paper doesn’t state what it is. I know the guy isn’t going to attend every meeting in the world, but wouldn’t you think that, of all meetings, these might be some of the most important ones for him to attend?

Time doesn’t appear to be an issue. He had time to draft an undated letter to the teachers with a line some have interpreted as a veiled threat (“options have been prepared for our families in the event of a work stoppage”) and another line that is a bald-faced lie (“two school buildings were closed this year”; Blaine-Sumner was not closed, but simply repurposed for administrative use).

It’s just another credibility gap. Of course, that isn’t the only one in these negotiations. I’ll just mention again, in case anyone has forgotten, Associate Superintendents Cindy Fischer and Herschel Hannah are budgeted to receive raises totaling approximately $60,000 between the two of them. These are positions that are completely unnecessary in the first place. They were created to replace Kay Royster on an interim basis until a new full-time superintendent could be found. Then they stuck around after Hinton was hired to give him time to be certified. Then they were made permanent. And now these huge salary raises are scheduled for same year they want a “hard freeze” on teacher salaries.

And what about the $877,000 in premature property acquisition adjacent to Glen Oak Park that the school board authorized this year? The Park Board has yet to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district on sharing park land for a new school there — although that meeting is coming up next Wednesday (Dec. 13).

One will pardon the teachers for being skeptical of Hinton’s claim: “While we have taken serious steps to address the deficit, we have remained focused on our core business — student achievement.”

If you’re interested in reading all of Hinton’s letter, a PDF version of it is available on Clare Jellick’s Education Blog, and the text can be seen here by clicking the “Show More” link below.

|inline