All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.

No lynching on West Bluff; Journal Star disappointed

Apparently the Journal Star was expecting the Moss-Bradley Association to string up Alicia Butler and bat her around like a piñata at last night’s candidates forum. The Journal Star’s coverage begins with a heavy tone of disappointment: “Despite a reputation for being a tough crowd, the Moss-Bradley Residential Neighborhood Association ignored the elephant in the room for one of its own.” Phil Luciano said on the radio today that he thought the neighborhood association had given Butler “a pass.”

I’m not quite sure what these fine members of the media were expecting. Alicia Butler was the first candidate to speak, and the first thing she said was that she wasn’t going to talk about the controversy surrounding her that night, but that a statement from her lawyer would be forthcoming. I suppose we all could have peppered her with questions about it anyway, just for sport, knowing full well all she would say is “no comment” and “my lawyer will be issuing a statement soon.” Instead, the residents took the four minutes allotted Butler for questions and answers to ask her school-related questions.

Nevertheless, I caught up with Butler after the meeting and did ask some follow-up questions. For the most part, she spoke off the record, and I always respect someone’s request for comments to be off the record. But I can tell you a couple of things. Her lawyer is Hugh Toner, and she doesn’t know exactly when he’ll be issuing a statement, but she thinks it will be next week. Her mother, who was with her at the forum last night, steadfastly stood by Alicia and believes this is all a smear campaign. And finally, I asked her if she felt a sense of urgency in getting this resolved, because it certainly appears from the outside that she’s kind of dragging her feet. She said she was working diligently to find all her documentation and is turning over everything she finds to her lawyer.

Judging from her interaction with several people who came up to her while we were talking, she continues to have a lot of supporters despite the controversy. Even Mayor Ardis expressed to me that he was still supporting her, which the Journal Star is now also reporting.

Me? I haven’t made up my mind yet. In an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show, Opie tells Andy and Barney about a friend he has named Mr. McBeevee. He explains that McBeevee walks in the trees, has twelve extra hands, and jingles when he walks like he has rings on his fingers and bells on his toes. Andy and Barney believed this fantastic person was just an invisible friend and played along until Opie claimed McBeevee had given him a quarter and a little hatchet. They then worried that Opie was stealing these items and using “Mr. McBeevee” as an excuse for his kleptomania. Andy threatened Opie with a spanking if he didn’t come clean and admit that he made up this McBeevee character, but Opie steadfastly maintained he was not lying.

Andy decided not to spank Opie, but believe him instead. Barney, of course, thought he had lost his mind. It was so obvious Opie was making all this stuff up. Then something amazing happened: Andy met Mr. McBeevee. It turned out it was a real person — a lineman for the telephone company. He walked in “trees” (telephone poles), had twelve “extra hands” (tools), and the jingling was from his tool belt. Opie was vindicated in the end.

Can that be a metaphor for what’s happening with Butler? Probably not. I talked to Bradley myself today and checked the alumni directory. There is no indication anywhere that I can find that she ever graduated. It will really be a miracle if Alicia somehow produces transcripts that prove she really did get her bachelors and masters degrees.

But that said, I still think the whole thing is fishy. Charges that this is a smear campaign are not without merit. Even if it’s true that she embellished her resume, neither her job (she’s self-employed) nor the school board position require the degrees in question, so why did the Journal Star investigate it? Yes, it reflects on her character. But then, so does this letter to Sean Matheson signed by 14 District 150 administrators in May 2004 that alleges he “physically assault[ed] the Superintendent,” among other indiscretions. Yet that letter was allegedly suppressed by the paper’s editorial board. You didn’t see a big exposé in the Journal Star about that, even though it’s clearly more egregious than padding one’s resume. Why did the Journal Star apparently protect Matheson, but skewer Butler? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.

I’m willing to suspend judgment until Butler’s lawyer issues his statement. But it needs to come before the election, and it better be good. I found Butler to be very likable, and frankly, I want to believe her. But regardless of whether this revelation was politically motivated, it is an issue of trust and integrity. If she claimed to have degrees she really doesn’t have, then she needs to go, regardless of how likable she is or whether I agreed with her voting record on the board.

Johnson: Park District will sue city if HPC recommendation is approved

Robert JohnsonAt the Moss-Bradley candidates forum last night, current park board member and candidate for board president Robert Johnson said that if the City Council approves the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation to landmark elements of Glen Oak Park, it’s the unanimous desire of the park board to sue the City for violating the Park Board’s sovereignty.

He went on to say that preservation of the parks and its historic artifacts is the responsibility of the Park Board, and if the people don’t think the board is doing an adequate job, they can vote out the current board members.

All Park Board members are running unopposed.

Johnson also stated that the Peoria Playhouse children’s museum planned for the park would not happen if that structure were to be given historic landmark status. However, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission who was present at the meeting countered that claim, explaining that the Junior League only wanted to make minor changes to the exterior of the building, and thus landmark status would not scuttle their plans for a museum.

Heights bows to public pressure

Kellar Branch Railroad“Results of two public hearings showed overwhelming support for a recreational trail, Mayor Mark Allen said Tuesday,” according to a report in today’s Journal Star. Thus, the Heights will be sending a letter expressing their renewed support for the Park District’s push to eliminate rail service to Carver Lumber and future rail-served businesses in Pioneer Park.

While disappointing, this comes as no surprise. It would be very hard for a small municipal body like the Heights to go against the Park District/RTA (Recreational Trail Advocates) machine. The Kellar Branch topic has become so politically charged and the court of public opinion so tainted by disinformation from the Park District, RTA, and Journal Star that it’s practically impossible to get a fair hearing on it anymore.

That’s why there exists a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

It’s the policy of the U. S. Government, among other things, “to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public….” So, they want to see shippers continue to be rail served, and they want them to get competitive shipping rates. Rail conserves energy, reduces the number of trucks on the streets (which saves money in highway maintenance), and is better for the environment. The government wants to encourage that.

In this case, Peoria and Peoria Heights are the owners of the railroad, and they want to replace their current carrier (Pioneer), which up until August 2005 had been providing good service at reasonable rates by all accounts, with a new carrier (Central Illinois Railroad), which has proven to provide inadequate service — if any — at exorbitant rates. The service and rates are so bad that it’s actually more economical for Carver to transload their material and truck it to their facility in Pioneer Park.

Why would the Cities want such an inferior rail carrier? Because they’re not interested in providing rail service. They want to rip out the railroad and put in a recreational trail. That flies in the face of the nation’s transportation policy.

It is true that the federal government also supports the creation of recreational trails on abandoned railroad beds. But that’s only if the rail line is not being used, and its primary purpose in many cases is to preserve the rail corridor for possible future use. In other words, it’s the government’s second choice. Its first choice is that rail service continue.

In city council and village board meetings, the fate of railroad service may be decided on the basis of a popularity contest. But it doesn’t work that way on the Surface Transportation Board. They conduct a more objective balancing test to protect shippers from arbitrary and capricious cuts in service by railroad owners.

1991 agreement: District 150 free from most city zoning laws

The Zoning Commission will be having their April meeting this Thursday, and their agenda is posted on the City’s website. One item on the agenda, however, has already been withdrawn.

Item “G” is a “public hearing on the request of Ed Barry for District 150 to…approv[e] a Special Use for a Public School…located at 2628 N Knoxville Ave, Peoria, Illinois.” If the address doesn’t ring a bell, it’s the old Social Security Administration building District 150 wants to use for an alternative school.

The item was withdrawn because, according to a 1991 intergovernmental agreement between the City of Peoria and District 150, the district doesn’t have to appear before the city’s zoning commission — in fact, the city’s zoning ordinance does not apply to the school district at all, save some minor exceptions. As the Journal Star summed up nicely on February 6, 1991:

The [school] district has agreed to adhere to zoning requirements for issues like setbacks, landscaping and building heights, but will not be required to bring its plans to the city’s Zoning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals. Neither will it have to obtain building permits or have plans reviewed by the inspections department.

Any disagreement, as per the intergovernmental agreement, will be taken to the city manager and district superintendent for final resolution. The School Board will be responsible for public hearings.

So, rather than the City conducting the public hearing, the school district will conduct one instead. No word yet on when that will be.

I looked up the proceedings of the February 5, 1991, city council meeting to see what kind of discussion there was about this agreement. I was surprised to find that, according to the minutes, there was no discussion. The motion was made, seconded, and quietly passed unanimously.

I didn’t know anything about this agreement until today. And it appears that the city and the district had forgotten about it, too — at least temporarily — since the district applied for a special use and was on the zoning commission’s agenda for a time.

Agreement

Still no franchise agreement, and now Comcast

TV iconSince April 2006, the City of Peoria and Insight Communications have been operating without a franchise agreement. The old 20-year agreement expired last year and negotiations for a new agreement have been going on ever since. The City isn’t saying what the holdup is, although it could be any number of things, including state and federal legislation designed to take local franchising authority away from home-rule communities like Peoria.

In the middle of all that, the news has been released that Comcast will be taking over Insight’s cable systems in Illinois, including Peoria. So what does that mean for Peoria’s on-going struggle to nail down a new franchise agreement?

City attorney Randy Ray had this to say: “There is a procedure whereby the City approves the transaction. Hopefully we can use that as leverage and get an agreement.” He didn’t elaborate on what the “procedure” is.

Secret negotiations with PDC?

Local resident Judy Stalling has been a vocal opponent of Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) application to increase the size of their hazardous waste landfill. This morning, she sent this message which found its way to area neighborhood associations:

Re: PDC’s Hazardous Landfill Negotiations

Staff from the Peoria County Board has been negotiating secretly with a few members of Peoria Families, Sierra Club and PDC to reach an agreement on PDC’s operation of its hazardous materials landfill.

Neither the content nor the reason for these negotiations has been made clear to the public.

Please call Bill Prather, Peoria County Board chairman, and request that a PUBLIC HEARING be held on any such agreement BEFORE the Board is asked to vote on it.

Bill Prather 274-2907 H 579-2206 W

Judy

This is a weird message, don’t you think? I don’t believe there’s any law being broken here, is there? I mean, “staff from the Peoria County Board” are not subject to the Open Meetings Act, are they? And the other parties are all private, so they have no requirement to meet openly either, right? And whatever is negotiated will have to come before the Peoria County Board, which means it will be published ahead of time on the agenda and discussed in an open meeting, right? So, why do we need another public hearing? Besides, the anti-landfill people are represented, so I’m not sure what the worry is.

Left unexplained is how Stalling knows these meetings are going on and why she objects to them.

Today’s open thread

If you’re looking for something to talk about while I take my mini-vacation from blogging, here are some ideas:

Gunshots? Aw, shucks, them things happen sometimes

The Journal Star Editorial Board is no longer fazed by violence in the streets of Peoria. It’s so ho-hum, you know. Recently, two cars sped by each other on Wisconsin Avenue — the occupants of one shooting at the other — all the while children at Glen Oak school were outside for recess. The school was on lock-down the rest of the day, and thankfully, no one was hurt.

Normally, shooting in the streets, especially around children, would be occasion for outrage. It would be occasion for the editors of a newspaper to call for greater police protection and for neighborhoods to pull together. But that’s not what the Journal Star’s editors do. No, to them this violence in our streets is nothing more than fodder to snipe at neighbors — neighbors whose children were just put at risk by gunfire — for opposing the school district’s attempt to move Glen Oak School to a corner adjacent to Glen Oak Park.

The petty response here would be to adopt the tactics used by some of those opposed to building a new school adjacent to upper Glen Oak Park and say that this proves what a dangerous neighborhood the current facility is in, that the traffic there really is bad, and that these children deserve a safer environment – perhaps close to a park, where the primary threats come from squirrels dropping acorns from centuries-old oak trees. The more mature, measured, honest stance is to acknowledge that these things happen sometimes, that they can occur anywhere, that no one was hurt and that a singular incident should not be the basis for any long-term decisions.

That’s their response. “These things happen sometimes.” What things? Shooting in the street while children are present. School children being in harm’s way during recess. Car chases with gunfire next to a school. Those things. They happen sometimes. In fact, “they can occur anywhere.” Why, just the other day an executive was chasing a chiropractor through Germantown Hills in his Jaguar while shooting at him, right? Not.

When those parents hear their children were in harm’s way, they don’t think, “oh dear, those things happen sometimes.” They think, “why am I still living here? How can I get out?”

“No one was hurt,” they say. Really? No one? The city isn’t hurt by violence in the streets? The children aren’t hurt by seeing this kind of violence and becoming numb to it? The families aren’t hurt by heartless editorials like this one that berate them for being involved, for fighting for what they feel is best for their neighborhood and their children?

This was the most heartless, mean-spirited editorial I’ve ever seen printed on the pages of the Journal Star. No compassion, just rhetorical gamesmanship. Is this the kind of civil discourse that the Journal Star considers superior to blogs?

For at-risk students, 0.87 acres will do

Former SSA Building on Knoxville

UPDATED 3/31/07 10:45 p.m. Added info underlined, deleted items struck.

School District 150 officials met with parents residents on Monday night (3/26) to share information on their plans for the old Social Security Administration building at 2628 N. Knoxville Ave. While some parents residents were taken by surprise, this has been in the works for a couple of years.

District applied for building in 2005

On June 4, 2005, Clare Jellick reported in the Peoria Journal Star, “the Social Security Administration moved out of its Knoxville building in November to a new location in North Peoria. Once a building is vacated, the federal government offers it to the local government for certain uses and groups that serve the homeless, usually for free.” She added later in the article:

In order for the district to get the building for free, it would have to be used for educational purposes. This means it couldn’t be turned into offices.

Interim Superintendent Cindy Fischer hopes to move an alternative education program there so that it can expand.

The Transition to Success Academy, housed in White Middle School [it was later moved to the Manual High School building], provides specialized education and services for students with behavioral problems who aren’t succeeding in school.

This came out just a couple of months after I started blogging, so here’s my initial reaction to that story. Today, I feel the same way. The district’s Master Facilities Plan calls for a reduction in the number of buildings, not an expansion. Why not put these kids in the old Blaine-Sumner building? It’s in a better location and was designed to be a school. Yet the district has turned that building into offices, and they’ve acquired an office building to convert it to a school. As usual, there is no logic.

District acquired building in 2006 with strings attached

On June 24, 2006, the Jellick reported that District 150 had succeeded in “receiving the building for free through a federal program that offers surplus buildings to certain organizations.” Again, the planned purpose for the building was made clear at that time:

The district intends to use the 9,000-square-foot space next school year to house programs and services for at-risk students who aren’t succeeding in school. The building will likely serve kids in kindergarten through sixth grade, said district associate superintendent Cindy Fischer….

The federal government says District 150 must use the building for education purposes for the next 30 years and cannot sell it during that time. Once 30 years pass, the district can do whatever it wants with the building, [U.S. Dept. of Education realty specialist Mary] Huges said.

District meets with parents residents to share plans in 2007

District 150 parent and nearby resident Karen Carter attended Monday’s meeting on the district’s current plans and had this to report:

The plan is to put an alternative school that will host grades 5-8 and possibly even 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders…. They are currently at Manual High School in an unused wing. They currently have 43 students with 8 staff members. In the new facility they will “hopefully” have 100 students with 1-2 staff members per every 10-12 students….

They plan to bus most of the kids in and the bus location is horrible. They have no consideration for traffic and other cars that park on the street. They want the kids to be picked up and dropped off on Gift next to the building and then enter the building on Knoxville. The street is not wide enough to accommodate their plans and everyone is saying so.

Most surprising to me is that the lot is only 300 ft. by 127 ft., or 38,100 ft.², or 0.87 acres. I thought grade schools had to have at least 10 acres, plus one acre for every 100 students. I thought kids had to have green space immediately adjacent to the school building for it to be an adequate learning environment. I thought our kids deserved “the best” and not merely “good enough.” Isn’t that the basis upon which the school board decided to reject all proposals to keep Glen Oak School in its current location? How are kids ever going to be able to observe a bee so they can draw it correctly?

Once again, the school board exhibits bald-faced hypocrisy. For the Glen Oak replacement school, they need 15 acres of green space or we’re practically abusing the students. For the alternative school students — students who are most at-risk — an 0.87-acre site with no green space on one of the busiest arterial roadways in Peoria is perfectly acceptable:

Old SSA Building on Knoxville

It appears from federal regulations that the school district is committed to using this building for educational purposes for 30 years. So while the district has all kinds of money to convert classrooms to offices and offices to classrooms, there’s no money to upgrade classrooms at Glen Oak School. Just more of the same lunacy we’ve come to expect from District 150.