Monthly Archives: September 2008

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

Schock says he’ll follow Obama

28 Comments

Is Schock a leader or a follower? A Republican or a Democrat? A man or a mouse?

All are valid questions as Schock continues to dig in his heels against paying back the taxpaying citizens of his district. The Journal Star reports today:

State Rep. Aaron Schock’s campaign manager said Friday that if U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign pays the local costs of police and fire protection during a visit to Springfield last month, then they might consider doing the same for Peoria.

“If (Obama) ends up paying for it, things might change,” Steve Shearer said, referring to $38,000 in city of Peoria costs for police, fire and public works services on July 25, when President George W. Bush visited for a private fundraiser for Schock, R-Peoria.

The article goes on to explain that Springfield is getting ready to bill the Obama campaign about $50,000 for services the city provided when Obama announced Biden as his running mate. Shearer’s quote to the paper: “We’ll see if Obama breaks precedent (of not paying for local police protection).”

So for Schock, it’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about doing what everybody else is doing. If all the other candidates are sticking it to their constituents, well then it’s okay with Schock. Keep that gravy train a-comin’! He’s not going to take the lead and break a precedent of soaking taxpayers for private political events and fundraisers. Let someone else do it. Otherwise, he might be the only one standing on principle, and wouldn’t that be horrible? People might accuse him of being… responsible. Or fiscally conservative. Heaven forbid!

Is this the way Schock is going to make decisions once he gets into office? First find out what everyone else is doing, then follow? Fantastic. And he’s following Obama, no less. You know, Obama — the Democratic presidential nominee? He’s going to follow that guy.

Oh well. No one ever accused Schock of being an independent thinker…. Well, except maybe that “nukes-to-Taiwan” idea. That was original.

2008 Campaign

Facts trip up Gordon

3 Comments

92nd District Representative hopeful Jehan Gordon sent out a press release a few days ago accusing her opponent Joan Krupa of being “absent from 25% of the [Peoria County Board] meetings held between April 14, 1992 and April 13, 1993.” Since Krupa had recently accused Gordon of being absent from too many school board meetings, Gordon criticized Krupa for “living in a glass house.”

Great sound bite. Unfortunately for Gordon, county board attendance records are relatively easy to verify.

The Journal Star fact-checked Gordon’s claim, and guess what?

[In] the minutes issued by the Peoria County Clerk’s Office on Friday, the actual attendance records show that of the 86 meetings held during Krupa’s tenure on the board, she attended 84 of them.

Krupa was late to a couple of meetings, including one in January 1993, which the Gordon campaign cited as one in which she was absent.

Krupa “missed only two meetings during her approximately six years with the Peoria County Board and had a 98 percent attendance rate.”

In contrast, HOI News has checked on Gordon’s attendance record on the Pleasant Hill school board:

According to District 69 Superintendent John Bute, there have been 19 Pleasant Hill school board meetings since June of 2007 when Gordon joined the board.

According to school records, since June, Gordon has missed a total of six of the 19 meetings-missing 32 percent.

Of the seven board members, on average, they missed three of the 19 meetings-missing 17 percent.

So, let’s recap:

  • Krupa: Missed 2 out of 86 meetings in six years.
  • Gordon: Missed 6 out of 19 meetings in 16 months.

In the words of the second President of the United States, John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

“She believes in what she’s saying,” Sen. Shadid says. Pretty soon, she’ll be the only one who believes in what she’s saying.

City of Peoria

Citizen input on budget report released

2 Comments

The City of Peoria has been trying to get residents’ input on the city’s 2009 budget. They had some public meetings and an internet survey soliciting our ideas on what the city’s budget priorities should be. The results of those efforts are available now in a new report from the City:

Dear Citizen of Peoria:

Late this summer, you helped the Council and staff of the City of Peoria better understand your feelings about the FY2009 budget by answering a brief questionnaire. Thank you for all of your hard work, thoughtfulness and creativity in giving us your input on budget priorities, revenue sources and cost cuts. In total, 116 citizens completed the questionnaire, resulting in:

  • 391 suggestions on where City tax dollars should be invested;
  • 203 recommendations concerning additional or increased revenue sources;
  • 182 idea regarding ways the City could reduce costs; and
  • 78 additional comments.

City staff has prepared an analysis of your comments, and this report was received by the City Council at its September 9, 2008 meeting. You can view a copy of this report by visiting www.peoriabudget.com.

You are also invited to provide public comment at any City Council meeting regarding the budget. Upcoming meetings, all held in Council Chambers on the 4th Floor of City Hall, are October 7 (5 pm), October 14 (6:15 pm) and October 21 (5 pm).

Thank you again for your participation in this process. We look forward to your continued input, both this year and in years to come.

Sincerely,

Christopher Setti
6 Sigma Black Belt
City of Peoria

Not surprisingly, basic services — public works and public safety — topped the list of budget priorities:

[C]itizens appear most interested in investing in Public Works projects. Of 340 responses, 129 involved this department in some fashion. […] The next most frequently involved unit (83 responses) was the Peoria Police Department, which is generally reflective of the community’s concern about crime. The Police Department was followed by Economic Development (63 responses), Planning and Growth Management (53) and the Fire Department (35).

Residents were asked for their suggestions on how to increase revenue for the city. The result:

Overwhelmingly, citizens felt the best method to increase revenue was to improve on the City’s ability to collect fees and fines (46 responses). […]the next largest category was “Government”. This was really more of a “catch-all” category for those responses that involve better governance. One theme that emerged within this category was finding ways of providing City services to other municipalities. Citizens also discussed increasing tourism to Peoria and creating a new alcohol and tobacco tax.

Finally, residents’ suggestions for cost savings:

The largest category involved creating a more efficient City government (28 responses). These suggestions ranged from broad appeals for greater productivity to specific ideas for certain departments.

Other responses involved reducing staff (16 responses) or eliminating/re-organizing certain programs (14). Some citizens (15) also felt strongly that the City would save money if it stopped offering incentives to businesses. Many within this category specifically mentioned eliminating TIF Districts. Finally, 14 responses fell into the category of “energy efficiency.”

The report includes all the responses received — about 50 pages worth — including an essay submitted by Paul Wilkinson.

2008 Campaign

Darin LaHood releases new TV ad

Leave a comment

From a press release:

Peoria, IL – “Peoria has unacceptable levels of crime…we need a new approach for prosecuting criminals…that’s why we need Darin LaHood as State’s Attorney.” So begins the first paid television advertisement of the election season for the Peoria County race for top prosecutor.

Darin LaHood, the challenger candidate who has secured endorsements from every police organization in Peoria County began airing this commercial today (Friday, September 26th).

“The stakes are high in the State’s Attorney’s race,” said LaHood.

“Over the past year I’ve been campaigning and people have repeatedly told me that they’re feeling less and less secure in their own neighborhoods. I maintain that our present system of criminal justice in Peoria County is falling short of what we expect and deserve and it is my goal to win the State’s Attorney’s race to make Peoria County safer for all of us.”

Thanks to widespread support and hundreds upon hundreds of individual donors, LaHood has worked hard to be in a position to wage a television advertising campaign. LaHood expects to maintain a television presence throughout the campaign season.

“I am thankful to the hundreds of people who believe enough in this campaign to help us fund our operations. This is yet another clear signal that folks in Peoria are tired of having the dubious distinction of the highest crime rate in the state and that my plans for reversing this trend are gaining a lot of attention.”

LaHood has earned the support of all nine police organizations in the County; the collective reasoning amongst the different bureaus is that the present State’s Attorney has not done enough to keep repeat, violent criminals off Peoria Streets and it is time for a change.

Police unions representing the City and County of Peoria, Bartonville, Chillicothe, Peoria Heights and the Correctional Officers, as well as departments in Elmwood, Glasford and Norwood have all publicly announced support for LaHood.

Forty-year old Darin LaHood presently practices law with the Peoria Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Prior to that, he served as Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor for four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood gained experience as a county prosecutor during years spent as an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen are both Peoria natives and are raising their three children in their hometown. They 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.

Bradley University

Pamphlet over the top, but not “first volley”

33 Comments

Phil Luciano has another article today about the strained relations between Bradley frat houses and surrounding neighborhood associations, especially the Moss-Bradley Neighborhood Association. The story states that Moss-Bradley distributed pamphlets to student housing in the neighborhood, including Greek row, welcoming them to the neighborhood and letting them know what the expectations were from neighbors. Some of the statements in the pamphlet were a bit excessive:

For instance, there is this dart: “Red plastic cups or similar containers will be presumed to be disguising alcohol by underage drinkers. These activities will be reported to the Peoria Police Department.” Further, another line barks, “The presence of a beer keg at a student party indicates underage drinking and excessive consumption. We … Immediately will report such suspected activities to the Peoria Police Department and Bradley University officials.”

I think statements like these go too far. They’re paternalistic, not neighborly. It’s not the neighbors’ responsibility to ensure that underage college students are not drinking, anymore than it’s the neighbors’ responsibility to ensure that city council members are not drinking to excess at dinner parties. It’s fair to point out that excessive noise, littering, etc., will not be tolerated because these are the things that affect neighborhood quality of life. The presence of red plastic cups or kegs do not; calling the police over their mere presence is picking a fight.

However, I’m not buying the victim mentality of the students and their parents as presented in Luciano’s article, especially this idea that the neighborhood “fired the first volley” with this pamphlet. Pamphlets like these do not materialize in a vacuum. They were created because the student noise and littering problems came first. If we’re looking for a first cause here, it’s years of inconsiderate student behavior that has caused residents to organize and become more proactive. It reflects the frustration residents have with recurring problems they feel have not been adequately dealt with by the university and police enforcement.

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.”

Peoria Public Schools

Wacky Wednesday #1

26 Comments

Today, most, but not all, District 150 primary school students will be getting out of school 90 minutes early (1:45 instead of 3:15) as part of the School Board’s new “Wacky Wednesday” plan. During the 90 minutes of school the children will be missing, the teachers are supposed to be collaborating, learning from each other, making alterations to their curriculum and instructional techniques as a result, with the end goal of being more effective teachers. This is supposed to translate into better student performance — enough improvement to more than compensate for the lost instructional time during Wacky Wednesdays.

I encourage all parents to ask their children’s teachers tomorrow what they did during their teacher collaboration time this afternoon, what new techniques they learned, and how they’re altering their teaching styles as a result. I’d also like to find out what metrics the district is using to determine if this effort is successful or not. Are they going to base it on the rise or fall of standardized test scores?

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock, City Council, City of Peoria

Schock fundraising cost keeps rising

92 Comments

The original city council agenda reported that President Bush’s visit to Peoria to raise funds for congressional candidate Aaron Schock cost taxpayers $13,195.63. That included police overtime and some miscellaneous expenses.

At last night’s council meeting, we learned that the tab is now $38,252. Adding to the cost are public works costs ($11,538 for 30 public works trucks used “for security purposes”) and fire department manpower ($3,218). I’ll try to get a copy of all the costs and post it.

But we may not be done tabulating the costs. Even the $38,000 figure doesn’t include the hours that police, public works, and other departments spent planning for the event. All this money comes out of Peoria taxpayers’ pockets.

One more thing — it violates city code:

Sec. 2-335(c). Employees shall not use city stationery, office equipment or other city resources for personal or political purposes.

Sec. 2-336. Prohibited political activities.

(a) City employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). City employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.

(b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties, (ii) as a condition of city employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the city (such as vacation, personal, or compensatory time off).

Sec. 2-337. Prohibited political activity defined.

Prohibited political activity means:
(1) Preparing for, organizing, or participating in any political meeting, political rally, political demonstration or other political event.

I don’t know how the codes could be any clearer. A July 24, 2008, Journal Star article states that Schock’s fundraising event was “purely political,” which is the reason why Schock’s campaign had to pay back “costs associated with flying into Peoria on Air Force One and all costs for food, flowers and rentals at the Weaver Farm event.”

So let’s recap — the fundraising event was undeniably political in nature. The preparation, organization, and execution of city services for such a political event is prohibited according to city codes. However, the city has provided those services anyway (in violation of its own code) at a cost of $38,000+ without even asking the Schock campaign to reimburse the taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the Schock campaign isn’t offering to reimburse the taxpayers either. Is this an example of the kind of “service” a Congressman Schock will be providing to his district? Sticking local taxpayers with the bill for an event that personally benefits him, even as he reimburses the federal government for the same event?

A motion to bill Schock’s campaign for these costs was deferred until the next council meeting. Voting against the deferral: Councilmen Eric Turner, Patrick Nichting and Jim Montelongo.