All posts by C. J. Summers

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

D150: Petelle demonstrates governmental transparency

32 Comments

In stark contrast to another elected official, rookie school board member Laura Petelle demonstrates the kind of transparency and accessibility the public expects from their representatives in the 21st century. She invites dialog with her constituents, she shares pertinent information in a timely manner, and she explains her votes (proving that she has thought them through and is not making knee-jerk decisions). And she does it on the internet where the info is easily accessible to all.

That’s the way it ought to be. Even if you don’t agree with her vote, at least you understand her argument and appreciate the effort she’s gone through to make a good, conscientious decision she believes is in the best interests of her constituents and the district at large.

In today’s post, she’s talking about the closing of a high school. She’s probably going to vote to close Woodruff. Fellow board member Jim Stowell has indicated his desire to see Peoria High close instead. No doubt it will be a split vote, and who knows which way it will go? Billy Dennis is predicting Woodruff will be closed on a 4-3 vote. We’ll all find out on Monday, September 21.

In the meantime, hop over to Laura’s blog and read her reasoning. It’s a perfectly logical decision, and I applaud her for her transparency. However, I do have a couple of questions. (Don’t I always?)

  1. PBC Funds: Petelle states that one of the reasons they must close a high school is that “there are issues relating to the PBC bonds that will provide a further $25 to $30 million in bonding authority for our District.” Basically, if they don’t close a high school, they don’t get that additional funding. However, there’s another requirement in order to utilize those bonds: the supporting document Petelle provides states, “Final planning, however, is dependent upon the need for the District to identify the projects.” Yes, I too would like to know on what they plan to spend that additional funding, if they were to get it. First, I’d like to know why they need to spend it at all. If they need to cut the number of facilities, and if our building capacity exceeds our enrollment, and if the school district is in a structural deficit, I don’t see the justification for taking on more debt. Is it just so they can max out the PBC funding limit and keep our taxes high? If there is no clear project needing funds, then it looks like they’re just spending the money for the sake of spending it, and that doesn’t sound like it’s in the best interests of the taxpayers.
  2. Torts: One of Petelle’s commenters (“Jon” — who might be the same “Jon” who comments on the Chronicle) made a shocking observation. He looked at the 2009-2010 Tentative Budget that Petelle put up on her site and asked, “What is the TORT category? …It has an expected deficit of nearly $4.1MM compared to only $900k the prior year. Its expenditures increased from $6.1MM to $8.6MM while at the same time its revenue fell from $5.2MM to $4.5MM.” Laura responded that it is the “tort lawsuit fund.” I just happen to have received recently (courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act) a list of pending lawsuits against District 150. By my count, there are 83 total. I haven’t surveyed other school districts to see how this compares, but at first blush this number sounds very high to me. Given the impact this is having on the district’s bottom line, this issue really should be investigated. What is causing all these lawsuits? Is there a common thread? Can anything be done to reduce their occurrence?
City of Peoria

Quote of the Day

2 Comments

Think about that next time there’s a burglary in your neighborhood, or when you hit a huge pothole this winter. Maybe you can call council member Ryan Spain and ask him to send over an economic development specialist to help.

—Billy Dennis, in response to the City’s decision, upon Spain’s motion, to spare an Economic Development Specialist while simultaneously cutting police and public works personnel.
Museum Block, Peoria County

County takes charge of museum project

14 Comments

PRM LogoI received a copy of the following letter in the mail from an anonymous source. The letter is on State’s Attorney letterhead and is signed by Kevin Lyons. It’s not addressed to anyone in particular — in fact, it looks more like a memo than a letter:

RE: Persons and organizations vested in the Peoria Riverfront Museum project

On Thursday, August 13, 2009, the Peoria County Board certified a necessary resolution that will inform the Illinois Department of Revenue that, commencing January 1, 2010, a special sales tax shall be collected throughout the County of Peoria (County) to carry out the objectives of the March, 2009, referendum. The County is pleased to partner with your efforts, and with the fine men and women of Caterpillar, to organize and shape a superior project that, when complemented by The Caterpillar Experience, will serve well the many interests of this enterprise and all of Central Illinois.

To that end, the County of Peoria will provide the appropriate guidance for creating the organization(s) necessary to develop and to carry out the objectives of the project. As this is no time to learn as we go, I have engaged well experienced counsel at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery to help provide for this important detail and direction. I have, in part, carefully selected this reputable firm because of their long history of experience with issues relative to museums, including those public and private and blended, and their appreciation for the broad collaboration of interests that birthed and brought this project to its place today.

Because it will be largely funded by public money, through sale of non-general obligation revenue bonds, it is important that the project commence and operate in compliance with public policy and statutes. A gathering of all interested parties will be planned for September so that the County may provide detailed framework that can be followed in order to formally organize, commence, develop, construct, and carry through the project.

This will involve, but certainly not be limited to, the following items:

  1. The organization and eventual tax exempt qualification of a museum authority. The museum authority would serve as lead coordinator for the project’s space, programming, and development.
  2. A description of roles and responsibilities of a museum authority and the steps required to form a board of directors and all other necessary project components.
  3. An explanation of how funding will be delivered and how the County and the museum authority will develop and refine the project, and how entities (licensees) will occupy and operate within the project.
  4. As with any County capital development project, construction of the project would be bid, let and overseen/administered by the County.
  5. The County would engage the museum authority to operate the project pursuant to the terms of an operating agreement and, upon completion of construction of the project, and pursuant to the operating agreement, the county would deliver the project to the museum authority for operation.
  6. The museum authority would annually account to the County regarding financial performance and community benefit.
  7. A clear and partnered coordination with Caterpillar, Inc., to insure that the project and The Caterpillar Experience, and the many shared goals and responsibilities attendant thereto, are smoothly addressed and accomplished.
  8. Although licensees and entities may be otherwise self-identified, it is understood that the project will be named exclusively Peoria Riverfront Museum.

    9. Your overwhelming efforts, along with ballot box support and the work of others, can permit you and your communities to now step closer to the realization of a magnificent facility along the Peoria riverfront. A September gathering will further assist everyone in understanding, in greater detail, how this significant project can now launch and grow.

    Thank you for your meaningful contributions on behalf of the citizens of Peoria County and all of the greater Peoria area.

    Very truly yours,
    KEVIN W. LYONS
    State’s Attorney

There are a few notable things here:

  • Transfer of Power: First of all, the letter states that in order for “the project [to] commence and operate in compliance with public policy and statutes,” a tax-exempt “museum authority” would need to be organized. This is interesting because there’s already a tax-exempt umbrella organization called the Museum Collaboration Group (MCG). The MCG has, to this point, been calling the shots on everything regarding the proposed museum. But now, it appears that will be coming to an end.

    The new “museum authority,” under the guidance of a newly-established board of directors, will “serve as lead coordinator for the project’s space, programming, and development.” It will be a separate entity from the County, and will also be in charge of museum operations.

    This can be characterized as nothing less than a transfer of power. I suppose it could just be a renaming/reorganization of the MCG, but why that would be necessary (other than providing some additional billing for lawyers) is mysterious to me. It will be most interesting to see who gets a seat on the new museum authority’s board of directors . . . and who doesn’t get a seat.

  • Bidding/letting overseen by County: Museum representatives have long touted their “unprecedented agreement among Caterpillar, the Museum Collaboration Group and the Greater Peoria Area Contractors and Suppliers Association,” promising that “both the Peoria Riverfront Museum and the Caterpillar Experience would be built with 100 percent local union labor.” However, that may be a promise they can’t keep, given that Peoria County Code 6.5-21(9) requires:

    All bids and contracts for the purposes of public works, as defined and provided for by the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (Act), 820 ILCS 130/1 et seq., prohibit the prime contractor and all participating subcontractors from discriminating in employment practices. This act requires that the prevailing wage shall apply to these projects. [820 ILCS 130/2 specifies: “‘Public works’ means all fixed works constructed by any public body, other than work done directly by any public utility company, whether or not done under public supervision or direction, or paid for wholly or in part out of public funds.”]

    Clearly, under this statute, a non-local and non-union shop could very well have the winning bid, and the County would have to award it. This isn’t a new revelation. The question came up during the County’s public forums on the referendum, but the local unions continued to support the referendum anyway, and museum supporters continued to promise that local union labor would definitely be used. It will be interesting to see what bids come in, and who wins.

  • Don’t change the name: It looks they want to avoid this fiasco from happening again. Apparently the name of the Peoria Riverfront Museum is now non-negotiable.
Nation/World

Health care bill’s most powerful person: “The Commissioner”

44 Comments

I’ve started reading the health care bill (H.R.3200), and one thing that has caught my attention already is the position of “Health Choices Commissioner,” referred to throughout the bill as simply “Commissioner.” The Commissioner would be appointed by the President to head up a newly-created, “independent agency in the executive branch of the Government” called the Health Choices Administration.

The Commissioner would have broad, sweeping powers. “Commissioner” appears 203 times in the bill, so I can’t list everything, but here are just a few of the Commissioner’s powers:

  • Establish qualified health benefits plan standards, including the enforcement of those standards.
  • Establish and operate a “Health Insurance Exchange” in which private health care plans will have to participate.
  • Define the terms “employer,” “employee,” “full-time employee,” “part-time employee,” and “dependent” for the purposes of the bill.
  • Access financial records of private health insurers and companies who self-insure and report it to Congress. “Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”

There are many more things the Commissioner gets to decide. In fact, a lot of the language in the bill is vague, and the Commissioner is given the power to define the specifics. If you thought the Department of Homeland Security had too much power (and gave the Executive Branch more power than the other branches), just wait until this takes effect. It will take — what is it, something like 13% of the U.S. economy? — and put it under the direct control of the Executive Branch. And this one person, whom the President will appoint, will have nearly unfettered authority to define terms, and establish and enforce standards.

Nation/World

FactCheck.org looks at the President’s health care speech

41 Comments

You can get all the details here, but here’s a summary of President Obama’s less-than-accurate points during his health-care speech Wednesday night:

  • Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
  • The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
  • The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  • The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the “insurance market” is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that’s true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire “insurance market.”
  • Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

Regarding that third point: I have watched and read even the most liberal columnists say that the President’s promise to provide national health care without raising the deficit is totally bogus. It is going to raise the deficit. A lot.

St. Louis Cardinals

Who has the best record in the National League?

16 Comments
Answer: The St. Louis Cardinals

Cardinals Logo

Yep. They’ve been tied for first place with the Los Angeles Dodgers for a while, but that changed Wednesday. The Cardinals completed a sweep of the Milwaukee Brewers Wednesday afternoon, and the Dodgers lost to the Arizona Diamondbacks the same evening. That puts the Cardinals (84-57) a game ahead of the Dodgers (83-58), and at the top of the overall National League standings. And, I might just mention, they’re 11.5 games ahead of their nearest Central Division rival, the Chicago Cubs.

Also, the Cardinals’ magic number for clinching the Central Division title is now 12. GO CARDS!

Team W L Pct. GB
St. Louis Cardinals 84 57 .596 –
LA Dodgers 83 58 .589 1
Philadelphia Phillies 79 58 .577 3
Colorado Rockies 80 60 .571 3.5
San Francisco Giants 76 64 .543 7.5
Florida Marlins 74 65 .532 9
Chicago Cubs 71 67 .514 11.5
Atlanta Braves 71 68 .511 12
Houston Astros 68 71 .489 15
Milwaukee Brewers 66 73 .475 17
Cincinnati Reds 63 76 .453 20
San Diego Padres 63 78 .447 21
New York Mets 62 77 .446 21
Arizona Diamondbacks 62 79 .440 22
Pittsburgh 54 84 .391 28.5
Washington 47 92 .338 36
Peoria Public Schools

Moss Ave. school no longer considered for MSTA

24 Comments

Up until last night, the proposed Math, Science and Technology Academy (MSTA) charter school was to be housed at the former Washington School on Moss Avenue (currently being used for Adult Education). But it sounds like that building is no off the table, according to today’s paper:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton said the site of the former Washington School on the city’s West Bluff is not large enough to house a proposed math, science and technology academy. Instead, Hinton suggested Tuesday that such a school open at Loucks…

It’s always been established that the current building is “too small.” The original plan was to expand it. In June 2008, Hinton had this to say:

Physically, he [Hinton] envisions keeping the front facade in place, but everything else would be renovated and “look nothing like it does now.” In order to enlarge the school, he sees it expanding northward (the front of the school faces south, more or less), possibly extending to the corner of Garfield and St. James.

So, what happened to plans to enlarge the school? What’s the real reason this site was abandoned?

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois, Taxes

City Attorney says nothing more can be done to protect against erroneous sales tax collection

3 Comments

Back in July, I reported on some overtaxing that was taking place in Peoria. I discovered first-hand that when businesses erroneously charge too much sales tax, the citizen who is overcharged pretty much has to fend for himself to get reimbursed.

A communication from the city’s legal department to the city council more or less confirms that state of affairs. Councilman Gary Sandberg had requested that the city draft an ordinance that would impose penalties on businesses that collected more sales tax than they are statutorily authorized to collect. The memo to the council is in response to Sandberg’s request.

In a nutshell, the memo states that sales tax collection is handled at the state level — the city has no power to enforce collection or impose penalties for collecting the wrong amount (whether too little or too much). A plain reading of state statutes confirms this, unfortunately. However, City Legal then goes on to state:

A review of the State sales tax statutes, however, reveals that, in fact. there is a specific provision, 35 ILCS 120/2-40, which provides that purchasers are entitled to refunds from retailers who erroneously collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and further provides that any erroneously collected tax not refunded must be forwarded to the Illinois Department of Revenue. 35 ILCS 120/2-13 provides for civil and criminal penalties for those who file fraudulent returns, who collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and do not forward it to the Illinois Department of Revenue and who do not properly collect the tax. In short, the State sales tax statutes cover the field for civil and criminal penalties for sales tax violations.

The thrust of this and subsequent paragraphs, as I see it, is to assure the council that citizens are adequately protected by state law, and thus a local statute would not be needed even if it were permitted (which it’s not). But I would argue that it’s not adequate. Yes, 35 ILCS 120/2-40 does provide that, if the seller collects too much sales tax, “the purchaser shall have a legal right to claim a refund of that amount from the seller.” But this puts the onus on the purchaser to prove to the seller that they collected the wrong amount in the first place.

That might be easy if dealing with a local merchant (of course, a local merchant probably wouldn’t make that mistake in the first place), but when dealing with an out-of-town company, the local manager will generally give you a blank look and say, “the sales taxes are put in the computer by our corporate office.” So then you have to try to contact the corporate office, and the red tape only gets worse from there. Bottom line: it’s not worth your time to fight it unless you’ve purchased a big-ticket item and the difference in tax is significant.

Furthermore, the civil and criminal penalties listed under 35 ILCS 120/13 (not 35 ILCS 120/2-13, which doesn’t exist) only covers deliberately fraudulent acts and the failure to remit to the state all sales tax money collected. It doesn’t cover a situation like the one that happened in Peoria in July. We already knew that because I called the state and was basically told that as long as the business is remitting the money, the state isn’t going to do anything to correct the problem. It falls on the citizen to call the business and somehow convince them that they’re charging the wrong tax rate.

And that’s where this system falls apart. When you, Joe Citizen, complains that a business is charging the wrong tax rate, you are the one who has to prove it. From personal experience this year, I can tell you that the seller is going to defend the tax rate the store is charging. They get official documents from the home office in Chicago or Minnesota or wherever that says the tax rate is X, and by golly, the tax rate is X. Why should they listen to you? You’re probably just uninformed or a general complainer about how high taxes are.

There has to be a way for official notification to be sent to places that are charging the wrong tax rate. The city did do that this past month in order to clear up confusion with a number of businesses. But there is no policy in place that would require the city to do that. I would argue that they only did it because of the media spotlight that was put on the issue, because they certainly didn’t offer to do that for me when I complained, before the story got picked up by the local mainstream media.

If nothing else can be done (and that appears to be the case), the city should at least establish a procedure wherein citizens can notify the city of erroneous tax charges, and the city will notify the company of the correct rate. Someone needs to go to bat for the citizens of Peoria. Why shouldn’t it be the City?