All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
Bradley University, Peoria Journal Star

Did Bradley violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act?

3 Comments

From my research, it appears that Bradley did not violate Alicia Butler’s privacy by disclosing that she did not receive any degrees at the school. However, Butler is doing the right thing by getting a lawyer anyway. A lawyer will make sure all of Bradley’s t’s were crossed and their i’s dotted.

The U.S. Department of Education has some pretty strict privacy policies on school records. According to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA):

A school MAY disclose education records without consent when:

  • The disclosure is to school officials who have been determined to have legitimate educational interests as set forth in the institution’s annual notification of rights to students;
  • The student is seeking or intending to enroll in another school;
  • The disclosure is to state or local educational authorities auditing or enforcing Federal or State supported education programs or enforcing Federal laws which relate to those programs;
  • The disclosure is to the parents of a student who is a dependent for income tax purposes;
  • The disclosure is in connection with determining eligibility, amounts, and terms for financial aid or enforcing the terms and conditions of financial aid;
  • The disclosure is pursuant to a lawfully issued court order or subpoena; or
  • The information disclosed has been appropriately designated as directory information by the school.

The only possible category under which Bradley could have disclosed info about Alicia Butler to the press is the last bullet point, “directory information.” What is that? The FERPA FAQ answers that (emphasis mine):

FERPA defines “directory information” as information contained in the education records of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. Typically, “directory information” includes information such as name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and dates of attendance. A school may disclose “directory information” to third parties without consent if it has given public notice of the types of information which it has designated as “directory information,” the parent’s or eligible student’s right to restrict the disclosure of such information, and the period of time within which a parent or eligible student has to notify the school in writing that he or she does not want any or all of those types of information designated as “directory information.” The means of notification could include publication in various sources, including a newsletter, in a local newspaper, or in the student handbook. The school could also include the “directory information” notification as part of the general notification of rights under FERPA. The school does not have to notify a parent or eligible student individually. (34 CFR § 99.37.)

So, Bradley gets to choose what information will be designated “directory information.” And they have. According to Bradley’s website, they consider the following information “directory information,” and thus, able to be disseminated without the consent of the student (emphasis mine):

  • Name and address, including telephone listing, local, permanent, and e-mail.
  • Parent name and address, (for news releases only).
  • Major field of study.
  • Dates of attendence.
  • Class and full-time/part-time status.
  • Approved candidacy for graduation.
  • Degrees and awards received.
  • Most recent institution attended by student.
  • Participation in officially recognized activities and sports.
  • Weight and height of athletic team members.
  • Birthdate will be validated only when furnished by the person making inquiry, for positive identification of the student.

Students can sign a “Stop of Release” form to prevent this information from being disclosed without their consent, but according to the Journal Star, Butler did not sign one.

Elections, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Alicia Butler’s credentials questioned

17 Comments

Alicia ButlerThe Journal Star is accusing Alicia Butler of falsely claiming to have a bachelors and masters degree from Bradley University. Butler has not directly denied it.

Anyone know any more about this issue? I mean, Alicia has been on the school board for a while now. No one thought to check out her credentials before this? How did this come up all of sudden, right before the election?

I can’t quite understand Butler’s response as reported. Whether or not you have a degree is easy enough to prove — all you have to do is get out your diploma. If these allegations turn out to be true, it will be not only professionally, but personally devastating to Butler. I’m not a big Alicia Butler fan, but honestly I hate to see this happen to anyone; I hope the allegations are untrue.

Someone out there knows what’s going on — come on… give!

Update (3/31): Now that I’ve read the full article that ran in Saturday’s paper, I have to say this looks very bad for Alicia. All the other candidates were easily able to provide proof of their college degrees. As one commenter pointed out, this is easy to do. In fact, if anyone questioned my degree from ICC or my wife’s degree from Bradley, I could just go to my filing cabinet and pull out our diplomas — it would take me two minutes, tops. Why does Butler claim “she would not have time to verify the information before the election”? The election is 17 days away.

Worse, Bradley’s registrar (it wasn’t clear to me from the previous article that a Bradley official had actually verified this) has gone on record saying Butler does not have any degrees from Bradley. I’m not sure how Butler could “know” she has a degree from Bradley, yet Bradley could somehow not know.

It’s true, as the paper points out, that there is no educational requirement to be on the school board, so the fact that she doesn’t have these degrees does not disqualify Butler from her current seat or the present race. But her integrity and character are seriously in question now, and that doesn’t set well with voters who are already distrustful of sitting school board members. I think this sinks any chance there might have been of her being reelected.

On the one hand, and I’m assuming these allegations are true based on the testimony of the Bradley registrar and Butler’s inability to prove otherwise, Butler has no one to blame but herself. But on the other hand, I’m still bothered by this statement:

Triggered by allegations against Butler, the Journal Star asked all five District 150 School Board candidates to verify their educational credentials.

Who made the allegations against Butler? Was it another candidate? A sitting school board member? Is this political payback for a decision or vote Butler made? Again, I can’t have much sympathy for someone who lied on her resume, but the source of the allegation is still germane. Who wanted to ruin Butler’s reelection bid and why?

Peoria Public Library

Score one for the old-fashioned way

2 Comments

MicrofilmI went to the library this evening to look up two Journal Star newspaper articles — one from 2005 and one from 2006. Just to prove I’m not a Luddite, I decided to try one of the library’s computer stations and utilize their free NewsBank service to just e-mail the articles I wanted from the library’s computer to my personal e-mail address. I’ve actually done it before and it was pretty slick.

But obviously, it had been more than a month since I used their computers, because the first question I got was, “Have you gotten on a computer since we put in our new system?”

“Um, I dunno. How new is your ‘system’?”

“About a month.”

“Then, no, I guess not.”

To make a long story short, the “old system” was to have a live library staff person wait on you and assign you to a computer workstation. The “new system” is to train you, the library patron, to do the job the live library staff person used to do for you. There’s one other “new” thing. Instead of a manual reservation, the new system is computerized. So it’s not as easy as just writing your name on a clipboard.

After being duly trained on this library administration software, I was informed that workstation 21 would be available for my use at 7:00. I looked at the clock on the wall, and it was 6:25. I asked to cancel my computer reservation.

Instead, I went over to the microfilm machines where nary a soul was around, pulled out the two microfilm reels I needed, loaded them each, found the articles I wanted, and printed off a copy, all within about five minutes. I was home by 6:40.

Score one for the old-fashioned way.

Uncategorized

Forty-four

10 Comments
David and me in 1971

Happy birthday to my big brother David who turns 44 today!

Here’s a picture of us spending some quality time together in 1971 for you all to enjoy. I’m guessing my dad put those socks on me, considering they look hideous and don’t match my shirt (just kidding, Dad).

Happy birthday, bro!

Kellar Branch, Sierra Club

Apparently HOI Group Sierra Club is out of the mainstream

12 Comments

Joyce Blumenshine is the chairwoman of the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club. She has long been a proponent of removing freight rail access on the Kellar Branch and converting the corridor to a hiking/biking trail. On February 6 of this year, she wrote a letter to the Journal Star again opposing train service on the branch, plus scoffing at the idea of a trolley being run on the line:

The rehash of the mystical trolley line is a bait and switch – another attempt to derail the trail for the benefit of Pioneer Railcorp at great cost to our community….

She signed her letter, “Joyce Blumenshine, Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club.” So, she’s speaking for the Sierra Club.

The funny thing is, if you look at the Sierra Club’s website, you’ll find that Blumenshine is all alone in her criticism of trains and trolleys. The Sierra Club actually likes them. A lot. In fact, they have quite a bit of information on rail transportation, the quality of life and economic development it brings, and its positive effect on the environment.

In their 2004 Report on Sprawl (ironically titled, “Missing the Train”), the Sierra Club said, “Public transportation, particularly rail, spurs ‘transit-oriented development’ that helps create a vibrant environment where people can live, work, shop, and use public transportation with ease” (emphasis mine). Isn’t that interesting? And what’s the effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses?

In the Washington, DC area, the public transportation system (Metro) has generated nearly $15 billion in surrounding private development. Between 1980 and 1990, 40 percent of the region’s retail and office space was built within walking distance of a Metro station.17 This has led to lively corridors with plentiful restaurants, shops, offices and residences in places like Alexandria, Clarendon and Arlington, Virginia; Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland; and the heart of Washington, DC.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) notes that demand for these transit-oriented neighborhoods far outpaces the supply, and cites studies showing that 30 percent of housing demand is for such communities while less than 2 percent of new housing is put in these areas. APTA states, “Real estate experts and demographers have … concluded the supply of TOD-style living environments, focused on high-quality public transportation, lags far behind demand.”18 APTA also calculates that the retail market benefits, because for every $10 million invested in public transit, they gauge that local business sales increase by $30 million.

“But that’s a full-fledged public transit, light-rail system,” you say. Granted. But consider a situation in Santa Cruz, California, that has some similarities to our situation here. There, like here, there is a scenic rail line that snakes through their county, and local Sierra Club members want to turn it into a hiking/biking trail. And there, like here, there is controversy surrounding it. Not the same controversy, but controversy.

The disagreement begins when discussing the best way for the county to purchase the corridor from Union Pacific. There are two options for buying the corridor. The first involves accepting $11 million of State Prop. 116 money…and matching it with transportation funds already allocated by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)….

In the first option, the State will provide the $11 million only if the county moves forward with some form of passenger rail service such as the proposed recreational Trolley [emphasis mine]. For many, this is a fair trade off. In fact, many people like trains and think the idea of moving around Santa Cruz by rail attractive.

There, the Sierra Club is in favor of the trolley with a trail alongside, within the corridor, but there are some residents who live along the train track that are against the trolley. The Ventana Chapter Sierra Club dryly muses, “It isn’t clear why people who don’t like trains purchased homes next to the railroad tracks.” Some are wondering the same thing here, especially about a certain Journal Star editor who lives near the train tracks but doesn’t want to see or hear trains on them.

The report concludes by saying, “The Sierra Club favors transportation that is energy and land conserving and is the least polluting. The Trolley project and the use of the rail corridor for bicycle travel has enormous potential to reduce automobile trips in Santa Cruz County.” Isn’t that exactly what the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation is trying to do in Peoria?

So the question that needs to be asked is, why is the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club against it? Why would the Heart of Illinois Sierra Club be anti-rail and, thus, pro-oil? Why would they rather take lumber off of environmentally-friendly and fuel-efficient train consists and instead put it on multiple oil-burning trucks that tear up our roadways and pollute our air? Why would they work against attempts to lessen automobile dependence? Why would they want to kill any hope of establishing a light rail system through the heart of the city?

The Sierra Club has published Conservation Policies that I would assume would apply to all chapters. Here’s what they say about trains/public transportation:

  • “Rail systems are most effective in stimulating compact development patterns, increasing public transit patronage and reducing motor vehicle use.”
  • “Station access should be provided by foot, bicycle and public transit, with minimal, but full-priced, public parking.”
  • “Freight railroads, especially electrified, are preferred over highway or air freight to save energy and land, and cut noise and pollutant emissions.”
  • “Land use patterns should be designed to improve pedestrian access, encourage shorter trips, increase public transit use, enhance the economic viability of public transit and decrease private motor vehicle use (auto mobility).”

Why is the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club opposing club policy in regards to the Kellar Branch? Are their leaders letting their personal feelings get in the way of their mission?

Peoria County

Peoria County website out of date

4 Comments

Well, I just tried to contact my County Board member, James Thomas, based on the info on the Peoria County website and received the following response:

Your message

To: jthomas@icc.edu
Subject: County Public Safety Tax
Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:41:41 -0600

did not reach the following recipient(s):

jthomas@icc.edu on Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:40:51 -0600
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
smtp.icc.edu 5.1.1

Nice. I suppose I can call, if that’s even correct. Nevertheless, anyone have an updated e-mail address for James Thomas?

City Council, City of Pekin, City of Peoria

Dagit’s resignation does not signal similar action from Manning

11 Comments

Anyone in Peoria’s third district who read the Pekin Times’ or Peoria Journal Star’s story on Daryl Dagit’s resignation from the Pekin City Council may have had a sinking feeling in their stomach:

During [Monday’s council] meeting, Dagit explained the reason for his leaving. He is leaving his position at CitiFinancial, he said, and is moving to Smith Barney to work as a financial advisor. The two companies are both members of the financial services company Citigroup.

Dagit said Smith Barney policy mandates that employees not hold an elected position.

To some extent, that’s understandable. Smith Barney is a huge company, and they do bond underwriting. Municipalities issue bonds, of course, and if Smith Barney wants to underwrite those bonds, they may not be able to if one of their employees is on the council for that municipality — it would be a conflict of interest, and thus, the company loses the opportunity to gain that business.

But what does all that have to do with Peoria? Well, we have a councilman who works at the same company: Bob Manning. But don’t worry, he won’t be resigning.

I had the opportunity to talk to Bob about the situation. He explained that his circumstances are different from Dagit’s. Manning worked for the company first, got approval to run for office, then got on the council. Dagit was already on the council, then was offered a position, and giving up his council seat was a condition of employment. Dagit could have turned down the job offer and kept his seat.

Bottom line, Manning will continue to serve the residents of Peoria’s third district. And that’s good news for not only the third district, but all of Peoria.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup: Boots and Phase II

26 Comments

Besides the double-taxation outrage that was deferred for a month, there were two other notable items passed by the council tonight:

  • Boots for parking ticket scofflaws — The council passed the ordinance that would allow an immobilization device (commonly referred to as a “boot”) on a car that has five outstanding, unpaid parking tickets on it. There were two amendments made to the ordinance — one was to allow 48 hours (instead of 24) for the tickets to be paid before impounding the car after the boot is applied; the other was to send notice to scofflaws that their car will be booted if they don’t pay up via certified mail instead of just regular mail.
  • Phase II of Riverfront Stonehenge Village approved — Riverfront Village has not been successful. Every year for the past six years, on average, the city has taken $100,000 from the Central Business District TIF and used it to pay for Riverfront Village losses instead of using it to pay off the bonds of the TIF. That’s $600,000 it’s lost over six years.

    Nevertheless, based on the City Manager’s projections, the new three-story office building that developer Mike Wisdom wants to erect on the stilted concrete pad will make that deficit disappear. I’ll believe it when I see it. Projections don’t mean much — the original project was supposed to break even, not lose $100,000 per year. We’ll see if these new projections are any more accurate than the last ones.

    One thing they’re going to do is apparently build a new pedestrian walkway that will take visitors right down to the new museum square. Considering how much money the museum project hasn’t raised, this walkway could be our own personal “bridge to nowhere.”

Update (3/28): A couple of things about the Riverfront Village project. If I could wave a magic wand, I would get rid of it as it’s currently configured. I’m not philosophically opposed to having development along the riverfront, but I think you should be able to actually see the river and enjoy the river view from said development, that it should be pedestrian-friendly, and it should be aesthetically pleasing. But, considering the monstrosity we know as Riverfront Village is already there and we can’t feasibly tear it down, we should take this lemon and try to make lemonade if we can. Perhaps this “Phase II” is a way to do that.

Regarding the pedestrian walkway, it’s come to my attention that my post made it sound like I was saying it would span Water street and the train tracks — no, no, it doesn’t do that. It’s just that it’s supposed to “connect” (the City’s word) with Museum Square eventually. Essentially what it does is provide access to the concrete pad from the Water Street side so you don’t have to walk around to the river side to get up to the businesses on top. It’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be an improvement. But the council communication made it sound like the purpose was to poise it for connection with Museum Square, which seemed like a spurious use of city money.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria County

City needs to tell County Board we’re sick of double taxation

10 Comments

On November 6, 1996, the Journal Star reported, “Peoria County voters approved a quarter-cent public safety sales tax Tuesday to pay for jail and warning siren improvements. With 96 percent of precincts in, the measure had 61 percent of the vote. The tally was 37,194 for the tariff and 24,047 against.” The tax went into effect January 1, 1998, and was expected to generate $3.3 million every year.

I wonder how many of those voters would have voted for that tax if they knew then what we know now: it apparently only applies to that part of Peoria County outside the City of Peoria’s corporate limits.

The City Council tonight deferred for one month a request to purchase a new Outdoor Warning System control system for $160,008.15. Why wouldn’t this system be paid for by the County out of that public safety tax? That’s what the City Council would like to know. According to City staff, the county won’t pay for it because the County Administrator said they won’t.

That’s right. Even though the City has almost 62% of the County’s population (112,907 City residents out of 182,328 total residents for the County), and we’re all paying the .25% County Public Safety Tax every time we buy any general merchandise in the City, the County thinks they shouldn’t have to use that revenue to purchase a new control system for our warning sirens, even though we live in Peoria County — even though that was the stated purpose of the tax when it was approved by the voters.

So, all of us City dwellers are already paying for warning sirens, but that money is only being spent by the County Board outside our city limits. Thus, we’re being asked to pay $160K more for the same service within our city limits!

Frankly, that’s an outrage. The City of Peoria is part of Peoria County, and we should be getting the services we’re paying for. We’re not. And it’s not just the warning sirens.

Remember the other thing the public safety tax was supposed to pay for? Warning siren improvements and…. A new county jail. Right. And in addition to City of Peoria residents paying the public safety tax for that, Peoria Police have to pay the County a booking fee of $20 for every inmate they want to house in that jail — the jail that we helped pay for! This last came up in the summer of 2005 when Randy Oliver suggested the City stop paying said fee. Well, we’re still paying it.

Enough is enough. Either city residents should get to stop paying the public safety tax, or we should get some benefit from it. But the current system is broken.

I encourage all of my readers to contact their County Board representative — or all the County Board members, if you want — and ask them to start providing the City the services it deserves for the money we’re paying in sales taxes for public safety. Here is a link to the County Board members and their contact information.