Daily Archives: September 25, 2008

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Van Auken lambasted by Luciano, BU students

32 Comments

Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken is taking a beating in the press and on student internet forums over her confrontation with an allegedly noisy frat house. Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano ticks off the facts that are continuing to come out regarding the incident, then offers this advice:

I don’t know what she plans to do this weekend. But the next time she hears a crime complaint, perhaps she’d best put down the wine, leave her Superwoman outfit hanging in her closet and let the cops do their job.

And he’s right — if we were to cuss out a police officer and poke him in the shoulder while we had alcohol on our breath, you can bet we’d be sitting in the back of a squad car and taken to the pokey.

Meanwhile, Bradley University students are having a field day with this on a Bradley Basketball internet forum. Here are some of the more scathing comments:

  • I was actually on the street that night, about a block away. I can assure you their music was inaudible from half a block away. Thankfully, I left before this crazy lady could make her way down the block. Even more thankful I didn’t see those teeth in person… WHY WASN’T SHE BREATHALYZED?????????? WHY WASN’T SHE TICKETED????? I guarantee I would have been, immediately. So were members of our bball team in the past.

  • Van Auken = Bully
    She should get raked over the coals.

  • This woman has a few drinks and then decides to have a power trip in front of some important people in the neighboorhood. What does Illinois law allow when it comes to confronting trespassers? They should have taken out the hose out and sprayed her down till she left the steps.

  • Typical politician – Thinking that the rules don’t apply to them. Drunkenness and belligerence is unacceptable…unless you’re the one partaking in it, right?

  • From all accounts (except her own of course), it seems that Van Auken got a little tipsy and decided to use her ‘beer muscles’ to try and bully some college kids and impress her friends.

  • I think that the fact that this may end of being a positive for the councilwoman is disgusting, and, in comparison if I were even to handle a situation after consuming even a sip of alcohol(which, from what I understand is MUCH less the VanAucken had) in my position as an RA I would be swiftly reprimanded, and find it disheartening that the expectation of a elected official is that much lower….

  • I’m surprised she didn’t tell the police she has many leather-bound books and her apartment smells of rich mahogany after she informed them of who she was.

  • And why doesn’t she go knock on the doors of some crack house (there are plenty in her district) with her ambulance buddy? Come on big hitter. Step up to the plate.

This ought to be a big embarrassment for Van Auken, the council, and the second district. But as has been stated by various commenters, this may actually be perceived by many in the second district as a positive thing. No doubt several residents see BVA as a hero, standing up to Bradley over noise violations. The more details that come out, though, the more I think that opinion will fade.

We’re all waiting with bated breath for the video to be put up on YouTube.

General News

Johnnie Lee Savory still asking for DNA testing

Leave a comment

Here’s a letter I got in my inbox yesterday:

I’m reaching out to Peoria media about a former Peoria resident’s fight for justice against State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons.

In 1977, when Johnnie Lee Savory was 14, he was falsely accused and unjustly convicted for killing his best friend and his best friend’s sister in their hometown of Peoria, Illinois.

With the help of Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, he was paroled and released in late 2006, after spending 30 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Since Johnnie’s release from prison, he has organized a broad coalition of support from some of the most influential and respected lawyers and legal minds in the country.

With nothing to personally gain, Johnnie’s supporters all agree that his case from start to finish was grossly mishandled, and that the evidence used to convict him demands DNA testing.

And yet Kevin Lyons inexplicably refuses to hand over the evidence. You might say that Lyons is afraid to put his money where his mouth is — except the Center on Wrongful Convictions has offered to pay for the tests.

Johnnie has started a campaign called Justice for Savory to shine a light on this injustice.

The campaign’s blog just posted a story on Kevin Lyons called “‘In the palm of some fool’s hand’: the case of Johnnie Lee Savory. [Here’s the link.]

Also, we just posted a youtube video by Rob Warden, the executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions. In the video, Mr. Warden explains why Johnnie’s case demands DNA testing and addresses why Lyons is afraid of the truth. [Here’s the link to the video.]

This story was reported in the Journal Star back in April 2005. At that time, Kevin Lyons had this to say:

“The question is, as always in this case, ‘Why not? What do you have to lose? What is the harm?’ The answer is that there is no finish line in this case,” Lyons said. “They want some blood testing from a pair of pants that regardless of the result will not be a pivotal factor in this case.”

[Chicago attorney Christopher] Tompkins disputes that.

“The evidence against him is so thin. The only evidence which is the basis for Mr. Savory ‘s conviction is the testimony of three witnesses, two of whom have recanted and the physical evidence which we are seeking to test in this lawsuit,” he said. “The law evolves . . . Part of the constitutional guarantee of due process is that Mr. Savory should have access to this testing.”

Lyons disagrees.

“The most compelling part that Johnnie Lee Savory returns to the scene of the crime and related to police in conversation things that only a person in that house, prior to the discovery of the bodies, could have known,” Lyons said.

It’s being brought up again now, obviously, because Lyons is up for reelection. Despite Lyons’ explanation, I still don’t see why it would hurt anything, even if there is “no finish line.” Savory’s supporters would be paying for the testing. If it ends up not proving anything, so what? The taxpayers won’t be out any money.

Peoria Police

Police Union: No confidence in Chief

2 Comments

Monday night, the Peoria Police Benevolent Association took a vote of no confidence in Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard:

In dispute, according to police sources, is a proposal by Settingsgaard to move to staggered shifts, which would put more officers out on the streets at shift change but would tweak the hours of the three primary shifts – first, second and third – something the union says would cost the city more money, create headaches for those in charge of making the schedules and disturb the schedules of officers’ families. Also being challenged is the idea to appoint supervisors to new assignments without opening up the bid process to other qualifying supervisors with more seniority, meaning those with more time on the job would lose the ability to bid for shifts and days off.

The article also states that since May 2005, “the union has filed between 30 and 40 grievances against him for various alleged contract violations.” The vote was 187-24.

Here’s the press release of Chief Settingsgaard’s response:

As has been much publicized, the Peoria Police Benevolent Board held a No Confidence Vote on Monday, September 22, 2008. The Board has since publicized the outcome of the vote with 187 members voting against the Chief, and 24 voting in favor of the Chief. This is an important issue not only for the police and our internal operations, but for the citizens we serve as well. It is critical that both the community and the officers understand the nature of the issues, my rationale for the decisions I must make, and how they may impact police service.

The No Confidence Vote as well as many of the grievances that have been filed during my tenure are in great part related to how we as the police staff our community. As the Chief, I bear the responsibility of balancing the needs of the community against the needs of individual officers. Unfortunately there are times when the public’s need and the officer’s personal interests are in direct conflict with each other. I must then weigh these conflicting interests and decide a course of action that seeks the greatest good. Sometimes I am able to find reasonable compromise and satisfy both and sometimes I am not. Sometimes I must ask the officers to put aside their own interests and make sacrifices for the good of the people they serve. This burden comes with leadership and to lead, I must make these decisions even when I know it will make me unpopular among my own officers. I do not ask the officers to make reasonable accommodations and adjust to change because I want to; I ask this of them because I must.

I am disappointed that the Benevolent Board chose to take a No Confidence Vote rather than rely on the agreed upon processes to resolve these types of disputes. I am disappointed in the manner in which the vote was held as I am told that some officers were pressured to vote over the phone, sacrificing their right to anonymity. What is done is done and now it must be dealt with so that we can all move on.

The most critical thing for the public to understand at this point is that this dispute will have no impact on their safety nor does it reduce the commitment of our police officers to serve. Our Peoria Police Officers are the most highly skilled and highly professional officers I have ever known. They have not, and will not give anything but their very best to the community that they serve, even in circumstances like the current. While we work thorough these unfortunate but necessary conflicts, both my management team and the officers continue to serve proudly. As for my performance as the Chief, I will continue to pursue positive change and seek to improve our service, and I will not leave well enough alone because well enough is not good enough. I owe this to the community; I owe it to my officers.

Today’s Journal Star reports, “Today, the union plans to release a more detailed statement – seven to 10 pages, Skaggs said – addressing the union’s concerns.”