Council to consider keeping elections the way they are

State election law has changed, but the city council has a chance to override the changes and keep everything in Peoria status quo. Here’s the skinny:

The state legislature last year changed the requirements for when a primary election has to be held in municipal nonpartisan elections — things like mayor, councilman, clerk, etc. Under the old rules, you had to have a primary election if there were more than two candidates for each office.

For example, in the mayor’s race, if there were three or four people running for mayor, there had to be a primary to narrow the field to two. Then those two would face off in the general election. In the case of at-large council seats, the issue is simply multiplied. There are five at-large seats, and there can’t be more than two candidates per seat — that means that ten (5 x 2) is the magic number. If there are more than ten candidates for at-large seats, then a primary election must be held.

Clear as mud? Okay, so now the state legislature has gone and changed the numbers. You now have to have a primary election only if there are more than four candidates for each office.

So now, using the same examples above, if there are three or four people running for mayor, no primary needed. They’ll all face off in the general election. That means, of course, that one could win with a mere plurality of voters. And considering how low voter turnout is these days, that means a pretty small number of people could be deciding who the next mayor is. In the case of at-large seats, there can’t be more than four candidates per seat, and there are still five seats, which means twenty (5 x 4) is the new magic number. If there are more than twenty candidates for at-large seats, then a primary election must be held.

Peoria is a home-rule municipality, which means it can set its own rules for holding a primary election. But there’s a catch: they can only do it by referendum. So, on the council agenda for Tuesday (8/26) is resolution that would put that referendum on the November ballot. The question on the ballot would read as follows:

Shall the City of Peoria hold nonpartisan primary elections, to reduce the field of candidates to 2, when more than 2 persons have filed valid nominating papers and/or notice of intent to become a write-in candidate for the office of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer or District Councilman; and, in the case of At-Large Councilmen, to 10, when more than 10 persons have filed valid nominating papers and/or notice of intent to become a write-in candidate?

YES or NO

My suggestion would be to vote yes. I don’t think we want a mayor to be elected by plurality. A win by plurality would arguably weaken that mayor’s administration. Same for the district council members.

Furthermore, this system seems to me to favor the incumbent. Imagine, for instance, if this had been in place when Gale Thetford, Bob Manning, and Angela Anderson were running in the third district, and Thetford was the incumbent. She probably would have won because the votes against her would have been split. That right there is enough reason to change it back!

UPDATE: I knew I was going to write on this, so I deliberately didn’t read Billy’s post on it until after I wrote my own. I’m amazed at how similar our conclusions were. He’s smarter than I thought…. 😛

Public hearings for D150 school designs

I haven’t heard this promoted much, but also in the Issues Update this week was a notice that District 150 will be having public hearings starting tomorrow on several building projects (I’ve put some of the text in boldface for emphasis):

The District has scheduled the following public hearings:

  1. August 21, 2008 RHS and Elementary School [Lindbergh, Kellar, Northmooor] Additions Public Hearing @ 1:00 – 3:00. Hearing at Richwoods High School, 6301 North University, Complex Gym – West Front Entrance
  2. August 22, 2008 New Harrison School Public Hearing @ 1:00 – 3:00. Hearing at Harrison School, 2702 West Krause, Gym
  3. August 25, 2008 New Glen Oak School Public Hearing @ 1:00 – 3:00. Hearing at Glen Oak School, 809 East Frye Avenue

The District has also scheduled August 27, 2008 for a Special Session for Action Items that will be submitted August 28, 2008 – Public Building Commission for Schematic Design Approvals.

Previous meetings involving all review departments have brought about positive safety and design outcomes and will allow a more expedient review, while still meeting all deadlines. Josh Naven, Senior Urban Planner, Planning Department is the Review Project Manager for the City of Peoria if there are any questions and can be contacted at extension 8657 or jnaven@ci.peoria.il.us.

I know that several of my readers will want to comment on the design of the buildings, especially Harrison and Glen Oak. Here’s your chance.

City of Peoria saving money on fuel

It’s easy to pick on the City for poor policy decisions, but it’s only fair to point out that the City has its fair share of good policy decisions as well. Case in point (from the most recent Issues Update from the City Manager’s office):

In June the field crews for Public Works started working 10-hour days to help conserve fuel. In all, 96 staff members have made this change in working hours. Public Works has been monitoring fuel consumption this year and has compared this to the same period in 2007. Fuel consumption on the equipment used by Public Works has dropped from 13,538 gallons in 2007 to 12,351 gallons in 2008. This is a reduction of 1,187 gallons, or 8.77%. Using a wholesale gas price of about $3.50, this is a savings of about $4,155 in fuel costs.

In addition to City savings, our employees have also been saving by only driving to and from work, four days per week. Each week we estimate our employees did not have to drive about 1,100 miles. Using 20 miles per gallon and $3.80 per gallon for the price of gas and eight weeks of operation, the resulting savings to our employees is estimated at about $2,300 for this same period, or about $25 per employee. During this period we have not observed any reduction in productivity by staff in completing assignments.

Good for the city, and good for city employees. Good job!

Victim being exploited by both candidates

Here’s my take: I think visiting a rape victim’s family to talk about a case that is set to go to trial soon was a terrible misstep for LaHood, and Lyons is using it to his political advantage. To that extent, both LaHood and Lyons are exploiting the victim and her family.

As for the specific accusations, they are all based on hearsay. Lyons says that the victim and her mother say that LaHood said this or that to the Child Advocacy Center and to someone in Lyons’ office who then reported it to Lyons. This is like the game of “telephone,” and I don’t find it particularly reliable, since it’s in Lyons’ interests to paint LaHood in the worst possible light. What information is he leaving out? Are the statements being taken out of context?

I don’t believe hearsay is admissible in court, so perhaps that’s why Lyons decided to try this “case” against LaHood in the court of public opinion. LaHood has denied the charges of improper conduct. Right now, it’s nothing more than he-said/he-said. Lyons isn’t taking questions or offering any further information.

That said, LaHood’s reaction has been a little overly-defensive in television and radio reports. He’s visibly agitated, talking fast and loud, and stumbling a bit over answers — saying at one point that he met with the father, then in the next breath saying he never met with the father. In other words, he acts as if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

There’s probably something to this, but it’s hard to sort out fact from fiction in the absence of clear and unbiased information about the incident. How serious it is will be left up to the speculation of the voters. My guess is that those who favor LaHood will find plenty of reason to discount Lyons’ accusations, and those who favor Lyons will find plenty of ammunition here to blast LaHood.

Welcome to politics. Let the games begin.

Darin LaHood’s response to Lyons’ accusations

From a press release:

STATEMENT FROM DARIN LAHOOD

Peoria, IL – Darin LaHood, candidate for Peoria County State’s Attorney has issued the following statement in response to Kevin Lyons’ statement yesterday:

“Five children between the ages of 13 and 16 were allegedly raped by a convicted felon out on parole over the course of 13 months leading up to January of this year. Monterius Hinkle was arrested at least three times by law enforcement, and was never charged for any rape by the State’s Attorney Office until the fifth rape. He should have been charged the first time. Instead, Hinkle left five rape victims and their devastated families. Concerned citizens of this community want answers as to why Hinkle was walking the streets of Peoria after four alleged rapes.”

Kevin Lyons has reduced the criminal justice system – particularly in this case – to political expediency; he has made false accusations against me, and he is ultimately responsible that Hinkle was free, on the streets of Peoria to allegedly commit these multiple rapes. I am a candidate for the office of State’s Attorney and yesterday the Peoria Heights police officers endorsed my candidacy by giving me the unanimous support of police organizations throughout the County. Law enforcement has collectively said that Lyons offers them no support as they tirelessly work to keep our streets safe.

I make no apologies for continuing to ascertain how families who have been victimized by unspeakable crimes feel about their treatment in our criminal justice system. I have this responsibility as a candidate for State’s Attorney This is crucial because the safety and security of our community depends it. At the very least, citizens should expect that violent criminals are sent to prison the first time and not allowed to roam the streets and commit further crimes. My commitment to the citizens of Peoria County is to put violent criminals where they belong–behind bars.”

The report on WCBU this morning had sound bites from LaHood saying he never identified himself as “the new prosecutor” on the case, and that he wasn’t there to see the rape victim, but rather the rape victim’s father. He further said that he went to see the victim’s father at the request of police officers familiar with the case.