Thursday night at the Civic Center, the Peoria Charter School Initiative brought in students, parents, and teachers from the Chicago Math & Science Academy to talk about the benefits of charter schools. Here’s a portion of the presentation:
UPDATE: As promised, 
here is the document.
It was mentioned during the city council meeting that City Manager Scott Moore asked the council to restore 22 critical positions with the city. The list was projected on the wall briefly, but wasn’t included in the packet on the city’s website (at least, I couldn’t find it). I was able to get a copy after the meeting — here are the positions:
Manager Recommendations for Operations
Positions Restored
In Priority Order6 Police officers (PPBA)
2 ECC Communicators (AFSCME)
Network Specialist (AFSCME)
Computer Operator (AFSCME)
Legal Administration Coordinator (AFSCME)
1 Animal Control Officer (AFSCME)
Police Records Manager (Exempt)
1 Animal Control Officer (AFSCME)
2 Part-Time Kennel Technicians (AFSCME)
1 ECC Supervisor (Exempt)
Public Safety Coordinator (Exempt)
1 Accountant (Exempt)
1 Code Enforcement Inspector (AFSCME)
2 Police Info Tech for 3rd Shift (AFSCME)Subtotal (22 Positions)
Note: “ECC” stands for Emergency Communications Center. According to the city’s website, “The ECC provides dispatching services to Peoria Police, Peoria Fire, Peoria County Sheriff, Emergency Medical Services, Peoria County Fire & EMS agencies and other City departments as part of the Peoria City/County Enhanced 9-1-1 system.”
After the Tuesday night City Council meeting, I caught up with Troy Skaggs, president of the Peoria Police Benevolent, and asked him why the police union had not agreed to any wage concessions. He said there were basically three reasons.
He told me that the union met Monday night, and that City Manager Scott Moore gave a presentation. During that presentation, Moore said this wasn’t going to be a one-year concession. It was likely that the city would be back next year asking for concessions again. And probably the year after that. This was the first time the city had come out and said these requests for concessions would be ongoing and not a one-time deal. That’s the first reason the union was uneasy with agreeing to wage concessions.
Secondly, Skaggs pointed out that the police department is already down 16 positions. Seven positions are vacancies from the beginning of the year that they simply haven’t filled, and an additional nine positions are officers who took advantage of the Voluntary Separation Initiative (VSI) recently offered by the city. They’re not going to fill any of those positions, yet the council wants to cut the department by an additional 17 positions. At the same time, according to Skaggs, the fire department is “back-filling” ten positions, eight of which were vacated due to VSI. So the police union doesn’t see the equity in these two situations.
Finally, the city wouldn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t lay off more officers anyway, even if the union did agree to wage concessions. That really made the union uncomfortable, since they could give up wage increases and lose a bunch of additional officers anyway, meaning they’d be doing more work for no additional pay. Before I talked to Skaggs, I had asked Mayor Ardis about negotiations with the police union, and while he directed me to talk to the union president, he did mention that the police department had wanted some guarantees but the city didn’t feel comfortable with the offer having strings attached.
My take: I can understand, on the one hand, the city not wanting its hands tied in case the forecasted (or actual) deficit gets worse. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for the police union to expect some sort of commitment from the city in return for wage concessions.
Bottom line, though, we need police protection. We can’t balance the budget at the expense of public safety. If we “punish” the police union for not taking wage concessions by laying off more police officers, we’re only hurting ourselves.
The council needs to face the music and raise revenue somehow. They simply can’t balance the budget by reducing expenses because the cuts are too deep. Even the City Manager recognizes this — he identified 22 positions that have been cut so far that he’d like to see restored because they’re critical for the city. Those positions include restoring six police officers and several support personnel in the police department.
The real mystery is why the council is so reticent to raise taxes for public safety when they’re so quick to raise taxes for private development schemes like the proposed downtown Marriott hotel deal. Nobody wants higher taxes, but if we’re going to be paying higher taxes anyway, the proceeds should go toward the highest public benefit. As it stands now, we’re paying higher taxes and getting less police protection in return.
Not only is that bad public policy on its face, it only exacerbates the city’s predicament because it drives residents and business out of Peoria. Nobody wants to live where it’s unsafe — whether perceived or actual — and nobody is going to want to shop and dine in Peoria when they can get the same goods and services at a much cheaper tax rate just over the river, or in Peoria Heights, or in any of the other surrounding communities. The city is cutting its own throat.
I’m here, but a little late, so I’m afraid I missed the beginning of the meeting. It’s 6:48 now.
Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting the Council to PROVIDE DIRECTION to STAFF Regarding the PRELIMINARY FY2010 – FY2014 FIVE-YEAR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP).
There apparently was a relatively large handout given to the council before the meeting which I don’t have, which makes it difficult to follow the discussion.
Regarding the Community Investment Plan (CIP):
Motion to receive and file by Van Auken; seconded by Turner. Motion passes unanimously.
Communication from the City Manager Requesting the Council to PROVIDE FINAL DIRECTION to STAFF on CLOSING the REMAINING FY2010 BUDGET DEFICIT.
No wage concession agreement reached with Police Benevolent union or AFSCME. So, there’s still a budget gap of $642,597. The City Manager is recommending that 22 positions be restored at a cost of $1.1 million, creating a larger deficit. Floor is open for deliberation.
Floor is open for comments concerning the budget.
Ardis announces that this is the last meeting for Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger. Recognizes Hullinger for what he’s done for Peoria, and praises him for living in Peoria, and he looks forward to working with him in the future. Ardis also recognizes Captain Baer (sp?) who retired. Recognizes newest captain, Captian Mitchell, and welcomes him to their administrative team.
No executive session. Van Auken/Irving move to adjourn. That’s it. Short and sweet.
Generally speaking, small businesses are exempt from employment discrimination statutes. “For example,” says one state publication, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, gender, disability and national origin, only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. These threshold limits are designed to protect small employers from the considerable financial and time costs associated with compliance with the statutes.”
Peoria’s city code reflected that same threshold for filing a discrimination complaint with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. A few weeks ago, the City Council decided to change the code, so now a discrimination complaint can be filed against any employer, even those with 1-14 employees. If you find yourself in situations like this, then make sure to consult a qualified disability attorney to help you build your case.
During the discussion, the official minutes of the meeting state: “Senior Staff Attorney King said neighboring areas such as West Peoria and Peoria Heights did not have such an ordinance to her knowledge…. Council Member Sandberg expressed concern that Peoria was putting itself at a disadvantage when being competitive to bring in new business. He said he felt the resolution that was passed at the State level had the responsibility to govern these issues.” His concerns were roundly pooh-poohed by the mayor and several council members:
Mayor Ardis answers: “We shouldn’t not do the right thing because our neighbors aren’t doing it.” Turner says Peoria should show some leadership in this area. Gulley says he hopes this ordinance will drive every business out of Peoria that wants to discriminate. Privilege of the floor given to Don Jackson, President of [Illinois] NAACP. He speaks in favor of the motion “in the spirit of Everett Dirksen.”
The ordinance passed unanimously.
Then, a couple of days after this council meeting, the Pekin Chamber of Commerce announced (emphasis mine): “The 48th Annual Peoria Branch Freedom Fund Banquet will be held on Saturday, November 14th at the Par-A-Dice Hotel and Conference Center in East Peoria.” Wait a minute…. Why is the NAACP holding their Freedom Fund Banquet in a community that (using the logic displayed at the Peoria City Council meeting on Oct. 13) tolerates discrimination? Why don’t they hold their banquet in Peoria — a city that has the stricter anti-discrimination policy?
Peoria City Council members were all invited to the banquet. Will they attend an event being held in a community that is not doing “the right thing,” according to Peoria’s Mayor? Will all those who spoke out so forcefully on the council floor on October 13 stick to their principles of “showing leadership” against discrimination on November 14? We’ll see.
The proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum is poised to get $5 million more of our tax dollars if Gov. Quinn signs Senate Bill 1181 into law. It includes this provision:
Sec. 213. The sum of $5,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the Capital Development Fund to the Department of Natural Resources for capital grants to Peoria County for costs associated with construction and development of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.
Now, based on a July 21 Journal Star report, “Officials are trying to bridge a $5 million gap in public and private dollars still needed.” So, this $5 million infusion of cash from the state should finally get the museum fully funded, right?
Surprisingly, no. According to this new Journal Star report, “The museum project presently has a funding gap of about $6 million, and $5 million from the state would nearly close that, he [Jim Richerson] said.” How can we explain this discrepancy? Was the report in July incorrect? Or did the museum lose $1 million between July and October? If the latter, how was the money lost?
It’s worth pointing out again that during the time leading up to April’s referendum, museum officials assured everyone that the remaining $11 million would be raised through private donations, aided largely by the CEO Roundtable. Now they are seeking to plug these gaps with more public money — that is, more of our tax money.
At the same time, according to yet another Journal Star report, the state’s spending plan “reduces or eliminates funding for dozens of other [educational] programs. Agricultural education, for instance, will lose half of the funding it got last year, leaving it with almost $1.7 million. Funding for early childhood education is being cut by a third, and bilingual education programs will see a 25 percent reduction.”
But they’ve got $5 million for a museum in Peoria! Priorities, you know.