I’ve been noticing lately that Billy Dennis has really stepped up his citizen journalism. He’s always been the “blogfather,” of course, but I’ve noticed an increase in his first-hand reporting lately. He’s doing an especially good job of covering the 18th congressional district race.
I frankly can’t keep up with him anymore. If he keeps this up, I may give up my blog and just occasionally post guest commentary on his site. 🙂
I was all set to praise the District 150 school board for being open-minded about the two-school option in the East Bluff/North Valley area, and reconsidering their plans to remodel the district offices… and then I read this:
District 150’s newly named deputy superintendents will receive temporary pay raises until Superintendent Ken Hinton recovers from back surgery and returns to work.
The School Board approved 15 percent raises for deputy superintendents Cindy Fischer and Herschel Hannah. Their pay will return to normal when Hinton comes back.
What is the matter with these people? Let’s review. Royster is fired. Board wants Hinton to replace her, but Hinton doesn’t have certification to be a superintendent. They hire him anyway (as “deputy” superintendent) and hire Fischer and Hannah as co-interim superintendents. Then Hinton gets his certification and becomes Superintendent.
Then the board decides to keep Fischer and Hannah on anyway, even though these positions are unnecessary now because the Superintendent position is filled. They call them “Associate Superintendents” and gave them a huge pay increase just a few months ago.
Now that Hinton is out on medical leave, they give them both another huge pay increase (albeit “temporary”) while he’s out of the office. These two superfluous positions already pay over $114,000 a year before the increase. Fifteen percent of that is over $17,000 (annually).
I can find no other school district the size of District 150 that has as many superintendents as District 150. This is the district that is always complaining about not having money, using the Chamber of Commerce to get donations to keep the truancy center open, considering outsourcing the lunch ladies, negotiating low or no raises for teachers, etc., etc. Yet they can spend gobs of money on superfluous administrative positions and give them mammoth raises without batting an eye.
Priorities?
I was amused by this headline in today’s paper: “School struggle with meaning of law: Administrators say moment of silence rule is still unclear.”
I know there’s a lot of controversy over this law, and frankly I don’t think it’s the state government’s responsibility to mandate a moment of silence (shouldn’t they be working on other things, like overriding Blagojevich’s veto on education funding?), but hearing school administrators profess their confusion over what “a moment of silence” means makes me fear for public education.
Really? They’re “struggling” with the meaning of the law? They’re not quite sure what constitutes a “moment”? Here’s what the law (called “The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act”) says:
In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall
mayobserve a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.
The act itself isn’t new; what’s new is that they changed the word “may” to “shall” as noted above, making it mandatory. Incidentally, the legislature had to override the governor’s veto to pass it. There didn’t seem to be any confusion about the act when it was optional, but now that it’s mandatory administrators are suddenly befuddled. Maybe they should look up the words in a dictionary, or even online with one of those computers they put in classrooms nowadays.
But here’s my favorite line from the paper:
“At least as it stands now, it’s not costing us any money,” [Don Beard, superintendent of Tremont Community Unit School District 702] said.
Yeah, that’s a good point. This legislation isn’t costing any school any money. Unlike another recent piece of legislation that will cost District 150 taxpayers millions of dollars. Sorry if I’m not more sympathetic with the plight of schools having to muddle through the “trouble” of being quiet for ten seconds a day.
Tossing a brick from an overpass onto a passing car was a senseless act, and the perpetrator should definitely be brought to justice. But charging Rakiem Campbell with first-degree murder was excessive. I’m pleased that Campbell will be punished by being sent to prison for 15 years, and that his charge was reduced to the proper one: vehicular endangerment.
He plead guilty to a couple other crimes in the process, and will also do time for those. The Journal Star reports, “In total, [his sentence is] 22 years, but with credit for time served and day-for-day ‘good-time’ credit, he could be released in slightly more than 10 years, said Kevin Lowe, one of his attorneys.”
I think justice was served as far as the charge and the sentence, but I do question a system that lets criminals out after serving less than half their sentence. Is this just to free up prison space? What is the reason for not requiring a full sentence to be served?
Penny for your thoughts…. (No, I’m not really giving out pennies.)
On Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2006, police ticketed thirteen pedestrians and two motorists for jaywalking and crosswalk violations downtown around Jefferson, Adams, and Main streets. There was the usual hue and cry with calls for police to focus on “real crime,” but the police and the city (rightly) stood firm.
Not so the State’s Attorney’s office. On Feb. 14 that year, prosecutors dropped the charges, sending all the scofflaws letters that stated, “Our office joins Peoria police in its interest to raise public awareness regarding pedestrian safety…. We have chosen not to pursue this as a prosecution in court, and no payment nor further action is necessary on your part. No mark of any kind will appear against your license or name regarding this matter.” Kevin Lyons declined to comment at the time.
So I would expect the State’s Attorney’s office do the same for the children who were recently ticketed for similar pedestrian violations. Since they’ve set a precedent for dismissing these infractions, it would be inconsistent for them to take a different course of action here, wouldn’t it?
As I see it, this will put the State’s Attorney between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn’t prosecute these tickets, he’ll be perceived by many as soft on crime at the worst possible time for him: during an election cycle (won’t LaHood have fun with that one?). But if he does prosecute, he’ll have, at best, a large number of people demanding an explanation for his inconsistency — at worst, charges of racism.
I’ll bet he regrets not prosecuting those tickets last year.
Unless the council asks staff to put it back in, the Heart of Peoria Commission will receive none of the $145,000 it requested from the 2008 capital budget.
Plans were to use the money to bring in a transportation expert to help the city develop a comprehensive transportation policy for the Heart of Peoria area (the process would include all stakeholders through the use of charrettes), a comprehensive marketing strategy for the Heart of Peoria Area with materials to raise awareness of the opportunities that exist for residential and commercial investment, and grant writing to get more non-city funding for projects.
Earlier this year, the mayor suggested changing the Heart of Peoria Commission from a city commission to a private advocacy group similar to Peoria City Beautiful. After further negotiation, a compromise was reached where HOPC would remain a city commission, but would meet less frequently (six times per year instead of twelve).
The council accepted the commission’s work plan, except for the capital budget items because they needed to go through the budget process with all other projects. We’re now in that process, and HOPC’s requested funding is not in the budget recommendation from city staff. Since the budget is currently balanced, a council member who wants to see HOPC’s funding restored will have to find an equal amount of money to cut elsewhere.
Probably. After all, the Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 2477 at the end of 2006 in order to give District 150 the ability to access the Public Building Commission for five years.
Or did they?
They did amend the Public Building Commission Act, but they didn’t specifically name District 150. Instead, they changed the definition of “municipal corporation” so that it made an exception for any school that met certain criteria. This amended definition would “include a school district that (i) was organized prior to 1860, (ii) is located partly within a city originally incorporated prior to 1840, and (iii) entered into a lease with a Public Building Commission prior to 1993, and its board of education.”
The idea here was to write the definition so narrowly that only District 150 would qualify. That means District 150 would have to meet all three criteria in the legislation. Peoria’s public school system was chartered by the state in 1855, so the first criterion is met. And of course District 150 most recently entered into a lease with the PBC about 1991-1992 for Lincoln Middle School ($5 million) and Valeska-Hinton Early Learning Center ($7 million), so criterion number three is met.
But what about the second criterion: a school district that “is located partly within a city originally incorporated prior to 1840”? Well, now that’s an interesting question. The City of Peoria was incorporated April 21, 1845. 1845 is obviously not “prior to 1840.” So some have made the case to me that District 150 is therefore not eligible for PBC funding under SB2477.
On the other hand, the Village of Peoria was incorporated on March 11, 1835. Perhaps this is the date of which the bill writers were thinking. But the legislation doesn’t say anything about a “village.” It says “a city originally incorporated prior to 1840.” Cities and villages are two separate and distinct municipal corporations in Illinois.
Splitting hairs? Maybe. But then again, maybe that split hair could save the taxpayers upwards of $60 million they would be forced to pay without a referendum. So, perhaps it’s not such a crazy question after all: Is District 150 authorized to use PBC bonding authority?
Time for an update on the Peoria Riverfront Museum project.
New Markets Tax Credits
On October 5, the U. S. Department of the Treasury awarded $3.9 billion in New Markets Tax Credits to 61 organizations. The Peoria Riverfront Museum will now try to get some of that funding for their museum project.
According to an August 29 Journal Star article, Lakeview Board Chairman Jim Vergon told the city council that “officials are waiting to hear if they can secure $100 million in New Market Tax Credits, which will generate the necessary $22 million needed for construction to begin.” It looks like they’ll have their work cut out for them.
Awards ranged from $12 million to $133 million for each organization. Each organization gives a brief description of the kinds of programs it’s interested in funding. A couple look like good candidates for the museum project: the Urban Development Fund, LLC (which was allocated $60 million), and USBCDE, LLC (which was allocated $125 million). However, I’m not sure how likely it is that the museum will get the $100 million they’re seeking, since it would mean getting a significant portion of one or more organizations’ allocations — and there is fierce competition for these funds.
The organizations have several months to dole out their New Market Tax Credit money, so the museum group doesn’t know when they’ll find out how much, if any, money they will receive.
If they don’t get enough of the New Market Tax Credit funds, they’ll be looking for other public funding. I’ve heard an unsubstantiated rumor that they’ve approached Illinois Central College about possibly using their bonding authority, but were turned down. Rumors persist that they’re looking for a way to access the Public Building Commission.
IMAX still a possibility
Last month, museum officials met with the folks from IMAX to talk about bringing the big screen theater to Peoria. Kathleen Woith, Vice President of Communications and Community Relations for Lakeview, had this to say about their progress:
Our visit to Toronto to talk with IMAX and see some of their new digital technology went very well. Negotiations continue, also, and we are very optimistic that the theater at the Peoria Riverfront Museum will be an IMAX.
As we continue negotiations with IMAX on leasing costs for their projectors and films, we are working with our architects and consultants to integrate the IMAX technology into the theater design. This is a very complicated process. Among the thing we are looking at are: how many seats and how far away from the screen, what angle will the seats be, how big will the screen be, what will be the projector location, how does digital technology affect 3-D films, and even how much do we pay for the hundreds of 3-D glasses we will purchase and how much will the 18-foot glass washing machine cost?
Operations costs also are being negotiated. How much will we pay for the IMAX digital movies? And how much will leasing costs be for the first-run movies at night.
Will it happen? If we successfully fund and build the Peoria Riverfront Museum, yes, we will have a “giant-screen” theater and it most likely will be an IMAX. Will it not happen? If we don’t fund and build the Peoria Riverfront Museum, we won’t have the theater.
We are very pleased with our progress with IMAX and are looking to a long and entertaining relationship with them.
Having an IMAX in Peoria would be awesome. I hope that becomes a reality, whether it’s the museum or someone else who brings it to town.
Clare Jellick, intrepid education reporter for the Journal Star, followed up on my previous post. She spoke to “Illinois State Board of Education spokesman Matt Vanover.” He gave her a different answer than the one I got from Lou Ferratier in the Illinois State Board of Education’s School Business and Support Services division. Now the State Board of Education says that District 150 does indeed have to close the school buildings.
I have no quarrel with Jellick’s post or with the new information provided by the ISBE, per se. But I am irritated that I was evidently given false information by the Illinois State Board of Education.
Jellick says, “Vanover said the state official quoted in C.J. Summers’ blog was likely speaking in generalities.” Well he shouldn’t have been. When I called, I identified myself, where I was calling from, that this was regarding School District 150, and I referred specifically to the certificates I had received through a Freedom of Information Act request from the district. I told Mr. Ferratier that I had a copy of the HLS documentation in front of me — I don’t know how much more specific or pointed I could have been in asking my question. I quoted verbatim from the certificate, told him that school board officials have been claiming the state requires them to close schools, and asked Mr. Ferratier if that was true. Answer: No; they don’t have to close them. They can close or repair them. If Mr. Ferratier was “speaking in generalities,” it wasn’t for lack of me asking for specific information.
Bottom line, though, Jellick and I agree:
All that being said, I’m not arguing that the closures were a decision handed down by the state, and District 150 was a helpless bystander. District 150 picked the schools that it wanted to replace. It knew full well that the schools would have to close if the replacement funding was granted.
And that was my main point anyway — that it really wasn’t a state decision, but a District 150 decision, and that the school board is trying to use the state as a scapegoat. The ISBE’s flip-flop doesn’t change that.