Monthly Archives: April 2007

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Exception might not be enough for Spain

10 Comments

Peoria City HallA couple astute readers of my blog have pointed out to me an exception to the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act that might be a loophole that would allow Ryan Spain to serve on the city council without violating the act. (We’re still waiting for an opinion from the state’s attorney’s office as of this writing.) The exception reads like this:

(b‑5) In addition to the above exemptions, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services, or labor if:

A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which the interested member of the governing body of the municipality, advisory panel, or commission has less than a 1% share in the ownership; and

B. the award of the contract is approved by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality provided that any such interested member shall abstain from voting; and

C. such interested member publicly discloses the nature and extent of his interest before or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and

D. such interested member abstains from voting on the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

Sounds pretty cut and dried, but in state law, things aren’t always what they seem. Just ask Bud Nystrom.

Roy “Bud” Nystrom was a city councilman in Crystal Lake, a northern suburb of Chicago, when the company he worked for put in a bid to build a Bio-Solids storage facility for the city’s new wastewater treatment plant. Even though he abstained from voting on the contract, even though the council rejected his company’s bid, and even though he only inadvertently broke the Prohibited Activities statute, Nystrom was nevertheless indicted on 10 felony counts of official misconduct and prohibited financial interest in August 1998. He later worked out a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “attempted interest in a contract,” according to Chicago Tribune reports from the time.

What does this have to do with the exception I quoted? Well, the above exception I quoted was passed in 1997 and took effect in January of 1998. During Nystrom’s controversy, the Chicago Tribune had this to say about it (emphasis mine):

Already the [Public Official Prohibited Activities Act] statute has been relaxed by a new law that takes effect in January. The new law says that city officials only violate state law if they engage in public contracts on behalf of publicly traded companies in which they own more than a 1 percent stake.

Even with that change, Cowlin believes the law remains unfair. He thought the [Illinois Municipal] league should take a look at amending the law further and exempt municipal officials who are employed by private companies.

Heartland Partnership, where Spain is employed, is not a publicly traded company, but a private company, just like Nystrom’s employer. If one keeps reading the statute, it does say (emphasis mine):

(e) For the purposes of this Section only, a municipal officer shall not be deemed interested if the officer is an employee of a company or owns or holds an interest of 1% or less in the municipal officer’s individual name in a company, or both, that company is involved in the transaction of business with the municipality, and that company’s stock is traded on a nationally recognized securities market….

So it doesn’t look like the “b-5” exception is going to be enough for Spain, which may explain why it’s taking so long to get an answer from City Hall; I imagine they’re working with the state’s attorney, Spain and his attorney, and Heartland Partnership to come up with a way to allow Spain to serve without violating the statute. It will be interesting to see how it all gets resolved.

Spain controversy in the news

There have been some follow-up stories in the news that are worth mentioning. WEEK-TV interviewed Spain on their 9:00 newscast for sister station WAOE “my59”:

“I just find it very unfortunate that a particular member of the council is working to play games now as we look to get down to business,” said Spain. “So today while I was out trying to build relationship in Springfield (at the General Assembly), a member of council is looking to play games.”

I think it’s unfortunate that this is being portrayed by Spain and his supporters as just “playing games.” A more appropriate response would be, “I was unaware of that state law; I don’t believe I’m in violation of it, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure I comply with it.” Or something like that.

Spain would be smart to make friends with Gary and not treat him as an enemy just because he pointed out this state statute. Gary didn’t write the law, and he’s had to live by it — giving up business because of it — so it’s not unreasonable for him to want to make sure everyone else is abiding by it, too.

WEEK ran a follow-up story yesterday that just said Spain had met with city attorney Randy Ray, but that nothing had been resolved yet.

Yesterday’s “Word on the Street” column in the Journal Star states, “Spain’s boss Jim McConoughey says his agency is willing to do whatever needed to make sure there isn’t a problem.” That’s a very generous statement by Spain’s boss, considering it could mean the loss of $50,000 a year to his business.

Sandberg asks Lyons to retract statement

Then there’s this statement by state’s attorney Kevin Lyons that was quoted in the same article: “Lyons did note that some current City Council members have faced similar conflicts. ‘Of course, Gary Sandberg, as an architect, has had contracts and done work for people who do business with the city, and he just abstains,’ Lyons said.”

I e-mailed Gary to ask him about that statement, since it seems to contradict what he said in the comments section of my blog. In response, he copied me on an e-mail he sent to State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and the Journal Star that read:

Unless you were misquoted, I would like to know one instance and/or all the instances where any one of my clients had a contract with the City of Peoria to provide services or a product while I was doing Architectural work for that client. Your statement, if quoted correctly, is inflamatory [sic] and totally incorrect and creates a situation where I could lose my Architectural license from the State of Illinois.

If NOT quoted correctly, I would expect you to have already sent a correction to the newspaper….

I do Architectural work for clients IN the City of Peoria. I do NOT have clients that do work FOR the City of Peoria.

I haven’t checked today’s paper to see if there was a correction. It will be interested to see if anything comes of that. Whenever lawyers are involved, it’s always the same story: hurry up and wait.

Kellar Branch

All quiet on the STB front

3 Comments

Way back in January, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) agreed to reopen the case of whether Pioneer Industrial Railway should be replaced as the operator of the Kellar Branch rail line with Central Illinois Railroad. They said they wanted to hear from both sides of the issue, consider any new evidence each side would like to provide, and then decide whether to uphold their original ruling or overturn it. Said they, “We will require this evidence on an expedited basis so as to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.”

All the evidence was in by the middle of last month. One wonders what “as quickly as possible” means to the STB. They do seem to move at a snail’s pace. Regardless of which side of the issue you’re on, it is frustrating to have these long periods of time in limbo, waiting for a ruling.

The longer they wait, the more work they make for themselves. Since the deadline for evidence passed, further filings have come in — from the Friends of the Rock Island Trail, from the City, from Peoria Heights, and a motion from Pioneer to strike all those untimely filings. So now the STB has to decide what evidence they’re going to allow first (a separate ruling), then decide the core issue.

Meanwhile, Carver Lumber is without competitive rail service, the tracks are lying unused by anyone and deteriorating, and impatience is mounting. Hopefully “as soon as possible” will mean “before Memorial Day” at least.

City of Peoria, History

Descriptive Sketch of Peoria, 1896

10 Comments

1896 Township MapAs I was reading PeoriaIllinoisan’s transcription from a 1908 book about Peoria, it reminded me of some of the descriptions I’ve read in a book I inherited from my grandfather: “Standard Atlas of Peoria City and County Illinois” by M. Huebinger, C. E., Peoria, Ill., published by Geo. A. Ogle & Co. Publishers & Engravers, 1896. So, today’s post will be just a little slice of Peoria history.

The city was quite a bit smaller then. I don’t have a good way of scanning the map, so I’ll just describe the city limits. At the northeast, the city goes no further north than Nebraska Ave. — that means that Glen Oak Park and Springdale Cemetery are not in the city. Moving west, the city line goes south at Knoxville, then west on Illinois to Elizabeth (now Sheridan). Then the city line goes south again along Elizabeth to Chambers Ave. (now Columbia Terrace). The line then extends west along Chambers to Bradley St. (now University), where it goes south to Main, then west on Main to Western Ave. Are you with me so far? You may have noticed that Bradley Park is also not in the city limits, nor is the Bradley Farm which would become the Uplands neighborhood six short years after this atlas was published.

The city line then goes south along Western to Lincoln Ave., west on Lincoln to a point in line with Livingston St., then south through the middle of several blocks and along Livingston to Grinnell. It dances back to Western (too hard to explain), then heads south to “Lower Main” (now Krause Ave.), then straight east to the river. And that’s it. That’s all there was to the city.

There was a part of Richwoods township called “North Peoria,” which was roughly a rectangle from modern-day Sheridan and Wilcox at the northwest to Nebraska and Perry to the southeast. There was also a part of Peoria township called “South Peoria” that was roughly anything south of Seventh St. (now Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.) and west of Western (except those areas I said earlier were within Peoria). Everything else was unincorporated.

As you read this glowing description of Peoria from the 1896 Peoria Atlas, you’ll have to suffer the flowery, verbose way of writing that was popular then. But pay close attention to the description of the schools, parks, and streets, and the new library they were building — this would be the “model of architecture” that was torn down in 1968 to make way for the non-descript box we have now.

Now, without any further ado, here’s the “Descriptive Sketch of Peoria from 1896:

Continue reading Descriptive Sketch of Peoria, 1896 →

City of Peoria, Elections

Spain’s election could be contested

54 Comments

Ryan SpainSounds crazy, doesn’t it? I mean, the guy got a ton of votes, came in third place, and bested one of the three incumbents. What’s there to contest?

Answer: Whether state law will allow him to serve.

There’s this part of Illinois law called the “Prohibited interest in contracts” clause (50 ILCS 105/3) that says:

No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or Constitution of this State, may be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote.

Ryan Spain works for Heartland Partnership, a private company. The City of Peoria has a contract with the Heartland Partnership for $50,000 per year through 2008 (it was passed by the council on 4/19/05). Spain has an indirect interest in that contract since he is an employee of Heartland Partnership.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office published an opinion in 1996 that said employees of contracted organizations benefit indirectly from those contracts, and are thus prohibited from serving on municipal councils. They quote People v. Sperry (1924) as precedent:

If we attach any significance to the words used by the statute, “directly or indirectly interested in the contract,” we think the conclusion cannot be escaped that the officers of the city, who are also employees of the contractor, must be considered as indirectly interested in the contract, without regard to the fact that they derived no direct benefits from the contract itself.

I don’t know if anyone will actually contest it, but one would think it’s likely. I don’t imagine the council wants to take the chance of being in violation of state law. I’ve sent an e-mail to city attorney Randy Ray seeking comment. I’ll post his response as soon as I receive it.

If my interpretation of the law is correct, this situation raises a lot of questions. For instance, could this problem be removed if Heartland Partnership cancels their contract with the city before Spain takes office? I don’t know if that’s even possible, but if it is, I guess we’ll see what is more valuable to the Heartland Partnership — Spain on the council, or $50,000/year from the city.

Another question that arises is what will happen if Spain is found to be disqualified from service. Will the city try to get state law changed to allow him to serve, like they did with George Jacob? Jacob was originally ineligible because he held a liquor license, but state law was changed to allow him to serve as long as he abstained from any liquor-related decisions. If Spain ends up not being able to serve, would the sixth-place finisher (Dan Irving) be installed as a councilman instead?

Interestingly, this is not the first controversy surrounding Spain’s campaign. He set up a campaign teleconference event — a virtual town hall meeting — that took place at the Workforce Development Center at One Technology Plaza. Several people questioned whether tax-payer money was used for the event, but Spain says the meeting was paid for completely by his campaign, and that his forthcoming campaign disclosure reports will show this.

UPDATE: I’d just like to say, as far as communication goes, Randy Ray does a great job. He’s always timely and informative in his responses. Here is what he had to say on this issue:

Thank you for the question. I do my best to answer citizens’ legal questions concerning their city government, and I intend to answer this one. I have always addressed conflicts first with the affected official, and then, if no resolution is reached, with others. Accordingly, I will address this issue first with Mr. Spain, and then with you. Obviously, the time frame is short, so you can expect to hear from me on or before May 1.

I think that’s a fair way to handle the situation. Of course, I will post Mr. Ray’s follow-up when I receive it. As you can see, it may be a few days. Legal stuff always takes a while.

Uncategorized

Thank-you note to the Jacobs from the Irvings

3 Comments

I received this e-mail today from Amy Irving, wife of City Council candidate Dan Irving:

CJ,

I am writing to ask if you could somehow post on your blog my heartfelt thanks to George and Jeannine Jacob who were so gracious to me and my family after the sudden death of my dad on Monday morning, the day before elections.

During this extremely difficult time for all of us, George, Jeannine and his crew offered to post Dan’s signs at several pricinct locations, and even made a follow-up phone call Monday evening to tell him they were done. They also arranged to have meals from Basta restaurant delivered to my mother’s house, along with other sincere acts of concern.

Thank you, again to the Jacob Family.

Amy Irving & Family

My wife and I also offer our deepest condolences to Amy and her family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them during this time of grief. I commend George Jacob and his family for their selfless acts of compassion; they’ve provided a great example of what it means to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Crime, Peoria Police

Beachler could still be charged

35 Comments

Terry Beachler has a tentative court date of May 1 stemming from his arrest for obstructing an officer. No charges were formally filed in the March 26 incident, and the whole thing would likely have been forgotten if it hadn’t garnered such a strong public reaction. Now, the possibility exists that charges could be filed after all.

I talked to Beachler’s attorney Drew Parker. Parker confirmed that no charges have yet been filed, and charges may or may not be filed on May 1. So until then, he’s advising his client to not make any further statements about the incident.

Elections, Peoria Park District

Park Board President Election Results

Incumbent Tim Cassidy easily won reelection as president of the Park Board over sitting board member Robert Johnson. The vote wasn’t even close:

Tim Cassidy 9,200 72.46%
Robert Johnson 3,496 27.54%

There wasn’t a lot of controversy surrounding Cassidy; he endeared himself to many voters by voting against the land-sharing deal with District 150 for a new school adjacent to Glen Oak Park. Robert Johnson was outspoken in his criticism of Cassidy’s vote on that issue and intimated that the decision could be reversed if he were elected president instead of Cassidy. I think that hurt him. Also hurting him was his off-the-cuff remark that the Junior League wouldn’t be able to build their children’s museum if the City Council approved historic landmark designation for certain elements of Glen Oak Park. He later retracted that statement.

The ultimate result is that the Park Board remains completely unchanged.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library, State of Illinois

Referenda Results: Library, Smoking

5 Comments

The referendum to spend $35 million on the Peoria Public Library system passed overwhelmingly:

Advisory Proposition To Issue $35,000,000 Library Bonds

Yes 9,951 71.59%
No 3,949 28.41%

The referendum was advisory and non-binding, so the next step is for the library to get City Council approval for their plans.

City council members are usually reluctant to raise property taxes, fearing voter backlash. But last night, the voters showed that they don’t mind having their taxes raised for basic city services (in this case, library service). I think the council should consider that as they start working on the budget.

The other referendum on the ballot was, “Should the State of Illinois Prohibit Smoking In All Indoor Work Places and All Indoor Public Places?” Results:

Advisory Proposition To Ban Smoking In All Indoor Work Places And All Indoor Public Places

Yes 9,191 66.84%
No 4,560 33.16%

This was the most meaningless referendum on the ballot. As originally proposed by Councilman Chuck Grayeb, it was supposed to ask voters if they wanted a smoking ban in Peoria. Grayeb didn’t have the votes to get that question on the ballot, so this question was substituted. These results will be put in the form of a resolution that will be forwarded to Springfield, where it will be received, filed, and ignored.