Lyons/LaHood debate civil, issues-focused

The debate last night between State’s Attorney incumbent Kevin Lyons and challenger Darin LaHood was focused completely on the issues. The format called for opening statements from each candidate, followed by questions from the audience, and then closing statements. Of the ten audience members who asked a question, including one reporter, none of them asked about the recent flare-up between the two candidates, and the candidates didn’t bring it up either.

The opening statements laid out the main talking points of each candidate. LaHood gave his qualifications, then proceeded to show a map that indicated Peoria is one of two counties with the highest crime rate in Illinois. “I’m the only one who has a plan for how we can do things differently,” he said, summing up his main issue that the State’s Attorney needs to do more to lower the crime rate. Lyons said the State’s Attorney job is about “balance” and “judgment,” a theme he came back to numerous times when answering questions. He said he rejects a cookie-cutter approach to prosecuting, preferring instead to treat each incident “one case, one face, one person at a time.” He also touted his 94% conviction rate for murder and said, “Every person I’ve put in prison for murder is still there.”

The format allowed for both candidates to answer every question, which led to some comic relief. The first question was to Mr. LaHood: “Where do you work now?” LaHood answered that he’s in private practice and has an office downtown. Lyons responded, “My rebuttal is that is indeed what Darin does… and I want him to keep doing it.”

From there, questions ranged from budgeting ability to experience in the courtroom to the perceived overuse of plea bargaining. We learned that LaHood has done 30 jury trials in the past eight years, but has not prosecuted any murder, rape, or armed robbery cases. Lyons has personally prosecuted 200 murder cases over his career, but he now only prosecutes one or two cases a year. Lyons also pointed out that he’s prosecuted two serial murderers.

LaHood stated that “the people who know the State’s Attorney the best are law enforcement,” and they’re all supporting LaHood. Lyons responded that he doesn’t take money or endorsements from police departments or unions as a matter of policy because “the State’s Attorney’s office is not for sale” and “shouldn’t be beholden to anyone, not even the police.” He said that he’s prosecuted 23 police officers in his career as well.

Regarding plea bargains, or “plea agreements” as Lyons called them, both candidates agreed that they are necessary to keep the system from grinding to a halt. “You can only push so much through the pipeline,” Lyons said. Lyons pointed out that these agreements don’t mean the perpetrator is getting off, just that the case is taken care of without a trial, and that each and every agreement is approved by a judge. Furthermore, even with all the plea agreements that are negotiated, Peoria county still has more trials than other similar-sized counties. LaHood would like to “reevaluate the whole system,” saying that “thugs aren’t scared to walk in the courthouse” because “it’s a revolving door.” A couple of things he would change: He believes that if someone gets caught with a gun, or if they’re a two-time violent felon, they should get no plea bargain.

LaHood touted his plan to establish, if elected, a “community prosecution program.” This would assign a prosecutor to a defined geographical area, such as the East Bluff. That prosecutor would partner with law enforcement, community groups, churches, etc., and try every case in that geographical area. “Everywhere it’s been tried, it brings crime down,” LaHood said. “It works.”

When asked what he would change if reelected, Lyons said the system is clogged in large part due to people who fail to appear in court; he would work to establish a greater consequence for failing to appear. He would also look for ways to use civil courtrooms and staff more efficiently, and ways to move people through the system quicker — including establishing more online resources. LaHood’s rebuttal was that none of those issues focus on how we can do a better job fighting crime. He said the State’s Attorney needs to be “the city’s number one crime fighter.”

The debate took place at West Peoria City Hall in a relatively small room considering all the media who were there. The event lasted about an hour. Lyons was a few minutes late arriving. About 50 people attended, including all local news media. The debate was moderated by West Peoria Residents Association President David Pittman.

Lyons/LaHood debate in West Peoria tonight

West Peoria Residents Association president David Pittman is faxing newsrooms around the area to let them know there’s a debate scheduled tonight between the candidates for state’s attorney. Here’s what it says:

Lyons/LaHood Debating
West Peoria City Hall
7-7:45pm
45 minute one on one debate.
West Peoria Residents Association

The Journal Star has it up on their site now. They also add that “it was scheduled before the two verbally sparred over LaHood’s visit to an alleged rape victim’s home this week.”

This promises to be one of the more entertaining debates of the campaign season. I doubt either candidate will be pulling any punches (metaphorically, that is).

Hat tip: Ian Schwartz

UPDATE: West Peoria City Hall, for those of you who don’t know (like me up until a minute ago), is located at 2506 W Rohmann Ave, West Peoria, IL 61604. Here’s a map.

Springfield also looking at restricting payday loan establishments

Peoria recently put a moratorium on opening any more so-called “convenience loan” establishments until they can develop an ordinance to limit their density. Well, it turns out that Springfield is writing just such an ordinance themselves. From the Springfield Journal-Register:

Springfield’s building and zoning commission Wednesday approved a recommendation to limit the placement and numbers of payday and title loan businesses in the city.

The amended proposal, which still has to be approved by the Springfield City Council, calls for a minimum of 1,500 feet rather than 750 feet, as previously suggested, between payday and title loan outlets. It also excludes finance companies from the new limitations.

The terminology involved, and preventing loopholes that would enable payday loan companies to call themselves something else and avoid the restrictions, took up a big part of the discussion during a public hearing Wednesday night.

If they’re not already, the city’s Planning & Growth department might benefit from interfacing with their counterparts in Springfield on this issue — not to make Peoria’s ordinance the same as the capital’s, but just for the purposes of covering all the bases and closing any conceivable loopholes.

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.

Lyons: LaHood interfering in rape investigation

Read all about it.

So far, I’ve only heard Lyons’ side of the story and a few select quotes that the paper saw fit to print. I’ve e-mailed Darin LaHood to get his official response. Once I get that, I’ll form an opinion. There are always two sides to every story, especially during campaign season.

I’d ask Lyons for his side of the story in the last post, but he never answers my e-mails.

Peoria Heights Police endorse Darin LaHood; say they’ve “lost confidence” in Lyons

From a press release:

Peoria Heights Police Unanimously Endorse Darin LaHood:
AWOL Suspect In Heights Fraud Investigation Prompts Police Union to Pronounce ‘Lost Confidence’ in State’s Attorney’s Office

Peoria Heights, IL – While Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and investigators from his office have scrambled to determine how once-detained suspect Kranthi Akula slipped out of the Country before facing prosecution for fraudulent business practices, the Peoria Heights Police Department officers who investigated, arrested and jailed the suspect are frustrated that Lyons mishandled the case and allowed Akula to avoid prosecution and flee to India.

“We have lost confidence in Kevin Lyons’ abilities as State’s Attorney,” said Detective Chris Ahart of the Peoria Heights Police Department. “Our officers in conjunction with the Correctional Officers at the County jail arrested, transported, and booked the suspect into the County jail. It’s incomprehensible to us that Lyons failed at the Court hearing to demand forfeiture of Akula’s passport to the Sheriff’s Department as a condition of his bond. This mistake allowed the suspect to flee the Country. Lyons’ mishandling of the case is an embarrassment to law enforcement in Peoria.”

Police officers in Peoria Heights are clearly frustrated with the Akula case, but came together late last month to collectively call for change in the State’s Attorney’s office. On July 21, 2008, the Peoria Heights Police Benevolent Union voted 11-0 to endorse challenger candidate Darin LaHood for the top prosecutor’s office.

“The situation in Peoria Heights continues a pattern of neglect in the State’s Attorneys office that worsens our crime problems and demoralizes law enforcement,” said LaHood. “In case after case, the officers, deputies, investigators and detectives at the local departments have done their jobs. They have arrested and detained suspects, they have imprisoned convicts and they have worked very hard on the frontlines to make Peoria County safer. The problem, time and again, has been in the prosecutor’s office. In the Peoria Heights case, the State’s Attorney did not know what to do to keep an international suspect in Peoria. In other situations, he has been too liberal with plea bargains and ultimately soft on crime. No wonder we have the highest crime rate in the state over the past five years. I am committed to working in tandem with Peoria law enforcement, I will take a hard-line on criminals and together we will make Peoria a safer place for us all. It’s time for a change in the State’s Attorneys office.”

The endorsement of Darin LaHood for State’s Attorney from officers in Peoria Heights follows numerous others throughout the County. Those include both Peoria City and County police unions, as well as unions in Bartonville, Chillicothe and the County Correctional Officers. To date, LaHood has received all of the public endorsements from law enforcement agencies in Peoria County that have been issued.

Darin LaHood, 40, was born and raised in Peoria. He is a former Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor who served four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood was also an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen, returned home to Peoria in 2005 to raise their three children: McKay, Luke, and Teddy. LaHood currently practices with the Peoria law firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Darin and Kristen are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign.