DUI prosecuted aggressively; murder, not so much

State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons has arrested Sheriff Mike McCoy’s son Tyler McCoy for DUI two months after the September incident:

State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons said his case will consist mainly of observations from a motorist to stopped to assist Tyler McCoy at about 5:30 a.m. Sept. 27 as well as a deputy who responded to the crash. Absent are any field sobriety tests, Breathalyzer or blood tests, as McCoy was never asked to submit to such testing.

But the county’s top prosecutor quipped that speeders were prosecuted long before the invention of the radar gun.

So the State’s Attorney is continuing to pursue this case even in the face of scant evidence and only two witnessees — one of whom changed his story after being threatened with criminal charges by the county’s top prosecutor. But Devear Lewis, a guy who fired two guns into a crowd of people, injuring two and killing Teddy Jackson in cold blood, “struck a deal for his guilty plea to a single count of possession of a weapon by a felon.” Reason: Only two witnesses were able to pick Lewis out of a lineup, and one of them changed his story from what he originally told police.

I’m all for cops being held to the same standard of justice as the civilians they are sworn to protect. But McCoy has yet to be treated like anyone else. Not being given a Breathalyzer test at the time of the incident was extremely lenient treatment. But Lyons’ aggressive prosecution is swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. Why wasn’t Lewis prosecuted this aggressively? I would submit that Lewis is way more dangerous to society than Tyler McCoy will ever be. Why the double-standard?

In case of any issue appears contact your personal family attorney.

City to AFSCME: We have bargained in good faith

Here’s the official press release from the City of Peoria:

Subject: NEGOTIATIONS WITH BARGAINING UNITS

The budgetary problems of the City of Peoria projected for 2010 have been well publicized since June, 2009. A number of formal and informal meetings have been held with represented employee groups during the past five (5) months. Many employees and their organizations have recognized the seriousness of the City’s budget deficit. Employees understand that 17% of the metropolitan area is either unemployed or underemployed. To date, seven (7) of the nine (9) labor organizations representing City employees have agreed to reductions in their 2010 compensation package, and in doing so, are to be commended both for their consideration of their fellow members, and for the continued level of necessary services to the citizens of the City of Peoria that such reductions will permit.

The City responded to AFSCME’s request to bargain on September 21, 2009 and suggested five (5) dates during the period of October 1-9, 2009 for such purpose. On October 6, 2009 the City met with AFSCME officials and requested concessions in 2010 to avert most or all potential layoffs that could impact AFSCME-represented employees. The first negotiation meeting for regular contract negotiations was scheduled for October 26, 2009.

The City submitted a formal impact bargaining proposal to the Union on October 28, 2009. It requested a wage/step freeze in 2010 in exchange for a no layoff guarantee of twelve (12) of seventeen (17) full-time employees from November 3, 2009 – May 31, 2010. The Union rejected that proposal on November 3, 2009 and counter-proposed a comprehensive 3-year package with a no layoff guarantee through December 31, 2012, a 9.6% pay increase over the last two years, no residency requirement, adding 2 steps (5% increase) for those at the top pay range and eliminating the lowest two steps (5% increase) for new hires, extreme limitations on the right to contract outside services, and the layoff/elimination of fourteen (14) management employees. That proposal was rejected by the City.

On November 5, 2009 the City sent a notice of planned layoff to the AFSCME organization. The notice contained the names of seventeen (17) full-time positions and two (2) part-time positions.

To date, the parties have met four times in regular negotiations with two of those dates partially devoted to impact bargaining. AFSCME has been provided with relevant information necessary for the parties to bargain. The Union presented a comprehensive economic and non-economic proposal for the successor contract on November 10, 2009. The City had provided its comprehensive proposal on non-economic items on November 3, 2009. The City had advised during ground rule discussions on October 26, 2009 that it would seek resolution of most of the non-economic items first, but would provide the Union with an economic first offer in sufficient time prior to the contract deadline of December 31, 2009 to permit meaningful bargaining. That process is common in most contract negotiations, is completely legal, and does not constitute any unfair labor practice as alleged by AFSCME leadership.

The City is committed to bargaining a successor contract with AFSCME and will continue to do so in good faith. It will also consider any reasonable offers from AFSCME relative to mitigating the impact of the pending layoffs. However, it believes that negotiations are best resolved and more productive at the bargaining table. It encourages the AFSCME leadership to spend available time in that pursuit instead of unfounded threats and allegations.