Daily Archives: January 24, 2007

Dunlap, Peoria Journal Star, Radio

Problem in Dunlap flap is with Journal Star, not library

11 Comments

The Journal Star has been reporting lately on some controversy surrounding a referendum for the Dunlap library to issue bonds to build a larger library. Today’s paper has this summary:

Since the November election, controversy has surfaced over the referendum. Unofficial results first showed it had passed, but a later tally showed it had failed by 42 votes. However, absentee ballots counted in the two weeks following election day confirmed it actually had passed, with 1,185 people voting in favor of issuing bonds and 1,176 voting against them.

Despite that turnaround, no one in the media was told or reported the final results, leaving some residents to believe they were kept in the dark and, therefore, missed a deadline to seek a “petition for discovery” – essentially, a possible re-count.

However, Jonathan Ahl, news director of WCBU 89.9 FM in Peoria, says that description of the situation doesn’t jibe with his experience:

WCBU obtained the vote total of the referendum from then County Clerk JoAnn Thomas on November 8th, the day after the election. We reported at the time the yes votes outnumbered the no votes by six. Thomas said in an interview that all votes had been counted except for the provisional ballots and absentee ballots that were postmarked by November 5 that had not yet arrived in the mail. The early votes HAD been counted at that time.

We reported again on November 15th that unless there was a challenge, the referendum would pass with the yes position winning by nine votes. In addition to Ms. Thomas willingness to answer our questions on the results, all of this information was available on the Peoria County Clerk’s web site.

With that in mind, it is baffling to me to read sentences in Journal Star reports claiming the numbers were never released to the media, and that the apparent win by the yes votes was not discovered until “a few weeks later.”

Most disturbing is the Journal Star’s sweeping statement that “no one in the media was told or reported the final results.” I guess it depends on what they mean by “final.” If they mean that only certified totals are “final,” then no, probably no one in the media reported on them at that point.

But there’s a reason for that. The “unofficial” tally, which was posted on the county’s website on 11/15/06 and reported on WCBU is identical to the tally that was certified and posted on 11/28/06:

QUESTION TO ISSUE $2,500,000 LIBRARY BONDS, Vote For 1

Early/Absentee Election Total
YES 148 (66.67%) 1,037 (48.48%) 1,185 (50.19%)
NO 74 (33.33%) 1,102 (51.52%) 1,176 (49.81%)

So, why would anyone need to re-report something when the tallies didn’t change? It sounds to me like WCBU reported on the vote totals on the county website, but the Journal Star was evidently sitting around waiting for someone to call up and tell them about it. I thought reporters were supposed to go out and get information, not sit around waiting for news to come to them.

Are they now trying to cover their failure by claiming “no one in the media was told” and blaming the whole thing on the library board?

Nation/World

State of the Union 2007

12 Comments

State of the Union Address 2007

Did anyone watch the State of the Union address last night? What are your thoughts on it?

I was happy to hear the President’s comments about congressional earmarks — that they not only should be transparent and actually in the bills on which the House and Senate vote (not inserted later into conference reports anonymously), but that they should be reduced by at least half as a matter of fiscal responsibility. I wonder if Mr. LaHood got the message:

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

As far as the mechanics of the speech, I thought it sounded a lot less stilted this year than in past years, and I like how they moved the traditional “the-state-of-our-union-is-strong” line to the end of the speech this year. Bush sounded the most relaxed this year of any of the speeches of his I’ve watched. Outside of what I just mentioned, however, the speech was pretty formulaic. It had the usual laundry list of policy initiatives and a few too many special guests in the gallery. I’m looking forward to the day that a president either (a) submits his state of the union message in writing and skips the speech, or (b) delivers a speech that is a stark departure from the usual mold.

The big topic, of course, was the war in Iraq. I’m of the mindset that we should fight wars to win. This is shaping up to be just like the way we left Vietnam — and I’m afraid the fragile government in Iraq is going to fall just like Saigon did if we start pulling our troops out now. I think that would be immoral; it’s imperative for our country to finish what we started and not leave Iraq until the government is stable enough to stand on its own without U.S. military help. Thus, I think a troop surge is appropriate, and should be funded.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

What about you? What was most interesting to you about the speech? With what did you agree or disagree? Ethanol? No Child Left Behind reauthorization? Immigration policy? There were a lot of issues covered last night; take your pick.