Category Archives: Peoria Park District

Peoria Park District

Cassidy: “40 to 50 tapes were erased that shouldn’t have been”

4 Comments

At the Park Board meeting last night, Board President Tim Cassidy stated that “our board secretary [Joyce McLemore] was not familiar with the law” when she erased audio tapes of executive sessions that are to be kept for 18 months according to the Illinois Open Meetings Act. He added that the March 8 tape — the one requested in a lawsuit against the Board — “was not erased because of anything having to do with this [school siting] project.”

Cassidy also said that the fault for the erasures ultimately lies with the Board of Trustees, which he said “does not have a policy” on retention and disposal of executive session tapes. As a result, Cassidy revealed that “40 to 50 tapes were erased that shouldn’t have been.”

Just in case you’re wondering what the Open Meetings Act says about audio recordings, here it is from 5 ILCS 120:

Sec. 2.06. (a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings, whether open or closed, and a verbatim record of all their closed meetings in the form of an audio or video recording.

[…]

(c) The verbatim record may be destroyed without notification to or the approval of a records commission or the State Archivist under the Local Records Act or the State Records Act no less than 18 months after the completion of the meeting recorded but only after:

(1) the public body approves the destruction of a particular recording; and

(2) the public body approves minutes of the closed meeting that meet the written minutes requirements of subsection (a) of this Section.

The part of the act requiring a verbatim recording of closed sessions was signed into law by Gov. Blagojevich on August 12, 2003, and took effect January 1, 2004. This would be during McLemore’s tenure as board secretary. She has been making recordings and storing them since January 2004, according to her testimony, so she was aware of and compliant with at least section 2.06(a). She also said she thought she could destroy the tapes after the minutes were approved and released to the public, which is one of the requirements for disposal as shown in section 2.06(c)(2). However, she was unaware of the 18-month retention requirement in section 2.06(c) and the public-body-approval requirement in section 2.06(c)(1).

All I can say is, the timing and scope of this error is most unfortunate. It appears that all the executive session tapes from the effective date of the law had been kept up until June of this year. Then all the tapes of meetings with approved and released minutes (40 to 50, according to Cassidy) were destroyed, just a month after a lawsuit was filed against the Park District regarding the proceedings of one of those tapes.

So far, comments to my blog have been 100% in defense of McLemore. And I have to admit that I have no axe to grind with the board secretary. We all make mistakes, and I’m not suggesting that I want her to go to prison over this or anything. However, given the circumstances, I think a certain amount of suspicion regarding this act is justifiable. Hence, I believe it should be investigated, if for no other reason than to remove that suspicion.

Otherwise, doubts will continue to linger, such as this one from Merle Widmer: “Of course many [tapes] were [erased]; who would just erase the most damaging tape without erasing a bunch of others to make it look like just a housecleaning act? No one in the tax funded public sector erases a tape from an executive committee closed session without the approval from at least three entities: The administrator, the attorney and the full board.”

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park Board meeting review: Bee serious

3 Comments

See the beeLast night, I attended the Park Board meeting at Lincoln Middle School. The big topic of discussion, as you all know, was the school siting issue; i.e., should the Park Board enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 to build a school on a corner of Glen Oak Park, sharing some park land in the process.

The most entertaining part of the evening (for me, anyway) was the presentation by District 150 consultant Judy Harris Helm. She was brought in to present the school district’s point of view on why a school sited in the park is superior to one at the current Glen Oak School location.

Appropriate for the grade school setting, Dr. Helm started her presentation with a little “show and tell.” She showed a picture of a bee rather crudely drawn by a young student, then showed a more recognizable picture of a bee she said was drawn by the same student only 45 minutes after the first one. The difference? The student only had book-learning before drawing the first picture, but had observed a real bee before drawing the second one. Conclusion: “When children only learn through books and secondary sources, they cannot practice the application of concepts. The experiences we provide shape the brain and intelligence.”

Now, if you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself at this point, “Okay, that sounds great. What does this have to do with putting a school in a park?” Answer, according to Dr. Helm: “If that can happen with a bee, just imagine…if all this were part of a school.” She went on for at least half an hour pointing out the following:

Access to outdoors is associated with

  • Reduction of depression and aggression in children
  • Reduction of symptoms of attention deficit
  • Reduction of discipline problems
  • Environment-based education improves standarddized test scores and grade-point averages and develops skills in problem solving, critical thinking, and decision making.
  • Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that childhood experiences in nature stimulate creativity.

What does the park site offer to children and teachers?

  • Botanical gardens
  • Zoo with new Africa Exhibit
  • Children’s museum with the river exhibit, science areas, history areas
  • Fitness areas
  • Frontier playground
  • Nature access: study of biology, botany, zoology
  • Lagoon: study of aquatic life

You get the idea. That part was actually not that entertaining. The entertaining part was the question and answer period. Immediately following her presentation, one member of the audience got up and, after pointing out to Dr. Helm that all the cited benefits were programming-related, not site-related, asked if the same outcomes — the same educational benefits — could be achieved just as effectively via a field trip to the park from the current site. Answer from Dr. Helm, and I quote: “Yes.”

A half-hour-plus argument extolling the virtues of siting the school in the park completely undermined by one simple question! It was a beautiful thing. But it got funnier — trying to save face, Helm went on to say that if the school wasn’t sited in the park, such field trips wouldn’t happen because — are you ready? — it would require planning and forethought on the part of teachers (teachers can’t/don’t plan?) and money for busing (clearly, $22 million for a new facility is far more cost effective than busing the kiddies six blocks or letting them walk). She eventually stopped talking (mercifully) and handed the mic to Hinton.

Later, during the public comment period, another member of the audience asked Superintendent Hinton what programs were in place currently at Lincoln Middle School and Woodruff High School to take advantage of Glen Oak Park which is right across the street from both schools. Mr. Hinton’s answer: “I don’t know.” If being adjacent to a park is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn’t the park being utilized right now by the schools that are right across the street? If it is being used, where’s the data showing the superior student performance at these schools?

It’s worth mentioning that everyone who spoke to the board during the public comment period — everyone, to a person — spoke against the park siting for the school. Included among the commenters were representatives from the Glen Oak Park Neighborhood Association, the Serenity Neighborhood Association, and the East Bluff United Neighborhood Association.

Now that we have Dr. Helm on record as saying that the same educational objectives the school district wants at the park site can be achieved at the current site at Frye and Wisconsin, I think that should be final nail in the coffin for this plan. I’m not saying it will be, because the odds are pretty good that the school board will go through with it anyway unless the park board votes it down. But it should be.

Peoria Park District

McLemore: “I am solely responsible for this huge mistake”

11 Comments

Recently, Judge Barra ruled that the Open Meetings Act was violated when an audio tape of the March 8, 2006, closed session Park Board meeting was erased. Joyce McLemore is the Secretary of the Board for the Peoria Park District, and she was the one who erased the tape. I suggested in a comment to an earlier post that I would try to get a copy of her confession.

Here it is. In a statement filed in the Alms/Partridge court case, McLemore gives this explanation of why she erased the tape (click here for PDF of document):

Words can’t express my regret when I tell you I have made a mistake with respect to the executive meeting back-up tapes. After the June 14 release of closed minutes, I cleaned up and organized the written and tape files. Feeling I could do so, I discarded discussion tapes associated with the written released minutes. I felt I had this backlog of tapes, starting in January 2004, and I systematically worked through the list of released minutes to match up with the corresponding discussion tapes, which tapes I marked “released”. I have been Board Secretary for over 6 years, and before that I worked for the District as Recreation Secretary for 17 years. I’ve always felt confident in my handling of Park District confidential records. Until July 26th, when Attorney Konsky was updating you on the Alms/Partridge lawsuit, I had been oblivious to my mistake. Realizing the tape record you were discussing couldn’t be transcribed because of what I had done – it hit me like a ton of bricks.

On Monday, July 31st, I told Bonnie of my mistake, and Attorney Konsky. At Attorney Konsky’s request, I have inventoried the tapes in storage, to determine what records are gone.

I am solely responsible for this huge mistake and it will not happen again. Whatever I need to do to account for it, I will do.

I know the perception of bungling these tapes will be out there, and I do not want the District and Board to be blamed. Please know I would never purposely put you or the District in the position I find myself in. It was a thoughtless mistake on my part, but an honest one.

To guard against future mistakes I will:

-Use only one side of one tape, per recording
-I will inventory tapes on a semi-annual basis, as I have always done with the formal written minutes.
-At no point will I attempt to organize or clean up the back-up tapes unless directed to do so by this Board.
-I will continue to store the tape records in the safe along with the confidential minutes.
-I will ask for an outline or plan of action for release of the confidential tape records from Attorney Konsky.

August 7, 2006

V. Joyce McLemore
Secretary of the Board
Peoria Park District

Note that there’s no indication to whom the letter is addressed. I can only conjecture (based on a little deductive reasoning) that it must be to Park Board President Cassidy. Note also that it’s not an affidavit. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe one of my lawyer readers can comment on this, but this statement is not technically sworn testimony, is it? It sort of sticks out among the other legal documents in the case file. Maybe that’s not a big deal.

Now, what are we to make of this situation? On its face, it certainly sounds unbelievable. It’s quite the coincidence that just a month after a lawsuit was filed against the Park District on May 5 regarding negotiations that took place in closed session on March 8 that Secretary McLemore — a 23-year veteran with the Park District dealing with secretarial duties — would suddenly decide it was finally time to get around to systematically erasing tapes that had been backlogged since January 2004, erasing the tape of the meeting under investigation in the process, all without direction from the board. They say truth is stranger than fiction, but this really presses the limits of plausibility.

The State’s Attorney should investigate. At the very least, McLemore’s statement should be given under oath under penalty of perjury. Violating the Open Meetings Act (Class C misdemeanor) and tampering with public records (Class 4 felony) are both serious offenses.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park Board meeting tonight at 6:00

2 Comments

Park District LogoFor those of you interested in the “Community School Project” (i.e., the plan to put a replacement school for the Woodruff attendance area on a corner of Glen Oak Park), tonight’s the night to express your opinion to the Peoria Park Board. They will be meeting at Lincoln Middle School, 700 Mary St. (next to Woodruff), at 6:00 p.m.

One question that I hope comes up is, “How does this partnership help fulfill the Park District’s mission statement?” That mission statement is, “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” So, how exactly does putting a school on a corner of the park constitute “stewardship of the environment”? What “quality recreation” is being provided by the school? What “leisure opportunities”?

Peoria Park District

Judge rules that Park District violated Open Meetings Act

18 Comments

Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge allege that the Peoria Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they met in closed session on March 8 and 22 to discuss a land-sharing deal with Peoria School District 150. Judge John Barra ruled Monday that the Park District clearly violated the OMA on one of two counts.

The OMA “is designed to prohibit secret deliberations and action on matters which, due to their potential impact on the public, properly should be discussed in a public forum.” Thus, closed session meetings are only allowed under narrowly-defined exceptions. There are two exceptions regarding property that would allow the park board to go into closed session:

  • The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)
  • The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)

Alms and Partridge contend that the Park District was not purchasing, leasing, acquiring, or setting a price for the sale of publicly-owned property, and thus violated the OMA by going into closed session on March 8 and 22. The easiest way for a judge to determine if the OMA was violated is to listen to a recording of the proceedings of the closed session meeting. The OMA requires public bodies to make an audio or video recording of closed session meetings and keep those recordings for a minimum of 18 months.

However, Park Board secretary Joyce McLemore erased the recording of the March 8, 2006, closed session meeting after only six months. In lieu of that, the judge could only consider the minutes of that meeting and a sworn affidavit from the Park District that contends the Park Board did discuss purchase, sale, or lease of property in compliance with the section 2(c)(5) or (6) exceptions to the OMA.

Thus, Judge Barra ruled on Count 1 — whether the OMA was violated by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session — that the facts of the case are in dispute, and the parties would have to present further evidence to prove whether or not the OMA was violated. In other words, Alms and Partridge have a valid case and it can proceed to trial.

On Count 2 — whether the OMA was violated by Secretary McLemore’s erasure of the March 8 closed session tape — Judge Barra ruled that the facts in this instance were not in dispute, and that the Park District did indeed violate the OMA. The tape is erased and McLemore admitted to erasing it. A hearing will be held to determine the appropriate remedy for that violation.

All I can say is, thank goodness someone in this town is holding our elected officials accountable.

UPDATE: The Journal Star finally posted their report on their website.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Spin City: Journal Star editorial on school/park agreement

10 Comments

The Journal Star didn’t publish its pro-intergovernmental-agreement editorial online today, so I can’t link to it. But I’m still going to comment on it. I think everyone is aware that District 150 and the Peoria Park District on March 29, 2006, signed a Letter of Intent to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow the school district to build a new school at the corner of Frye and Prospect using a combination of acquired parcels and shared Glen Oak Park land. The Journal Star thinks the park board should stick by that agreement, despite public outcry against it.

The Journal Star editors’ thesis is summed up in the first sentence:

If the Peoria Park Board were to pull the rug out now from beneath its partnership with District 150 regarding the construction of a new school in upper Glen Oak Park, just eight months after effectively greenlighting the project, it would represent an act of bad faith not only against District 150, but against its own taxpayers.

That sentence is the epitome of spin. First of all, what represents “an act of bad faith…against its own taxpayers” is the park district violating the Open Meetings Act to hammer out an agreement with the school board in secret (there’s a lawsuit still pending on that matter), and the school board subsequently acting on a letter of intent as if it were legally binding.

Secondly, the taxpayers don’t want the school in the park! The Journal Star Editorial Board (JSEB) can’t seem to get that through their heads. If the park district were to cancel their participation in this project, it would show — contrary to the JSEB’s assertions — that they were acting in good faith, listening to the taxpayers, and making amends for their earlier errors.

The JSEB then writes this whopper:

[A]ny misgivings Park Board member Roger Allen and perhaps others had about this project should have been voiced publicly before March 29, when the two boards agreed to go forward, and before District 150 spent $877,500 purchasing eight private properties next to the park. Even if it was premature of District 150 to begin buying homes before it had the park district’s rock-solid OK, there was time for the park board to say “whoa” before it got this far.

No kidding. Apparently the park board didn’t realize this would be so unpopular with the public, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed the letter of intent in the first place. Which is why it might have been a good idea to not have secret meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act in the first place. Those laws are there for a reason — and one of them is to protect the park board from foolish mistakes like this one.

If a majority of the park board follows Allen’s lead [i.e., changing their minds] …they’ll have some real explaining to do to [the] taxpayers.

Au contraire; if a majority of the park board continues to ignore the public and act on secret deals, then they’ll have some explaining to do to taxpayers.

Despite feigned concern for taxpayers, the JSEB in the very next paragraph implies that those same taxpayers are either malicious (spreading misinformation; suing the park board), or stupid (believing misinformation), or simply ungrateful (for not embracing a new East Bluff school at any cost).

There’s more, which you can read below (just click the “show more” link to read the whole editorial), but those are the main points. |inline

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Note to Tim Cassidy: School Board has already acted

Today’s Journal Star quotes Peoria Park District Board President Tim Cassidy saying this about the upcoming park board meeting where they will be discussing District 150’s plans to build a new school building on a corner of Glen Oak Park:

“I don’t see how we could (vote). The school district hasn’t acted on anything yet. I don’t think they’ve made a final decision. I don’t think we should be preempting the decision for them,” Park Board President Tim Cassidy said last week.

Let’s see, the school board has spent $877,500 to acquire property on the proposed site, signed a letter of intent to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the park board, hired architects and planners to work on design and programming for the new building, and spurned all attempts from the public and the City of Peoria to build on the current Glen Oak School site… am I leaving anything out? If Mr. Cassidy believes that constitutes no action on the part of the school board, then he has a most bizarre definition of inaction.

Since he doesn’t want to “preempt” the school board’s decision, the park board will not vote on the matter at Wednesday’s meeting; they’ll just hear testimony from the school board, the Heart of Peoria Commission, and the public at large.

If you’d like to attend and let the park board know how you feel about the whole thing, you can! The meeting is open to the public, and will take place 6 p.m. Wednesday (Dec. 13) at Lincoln Middle School, 700 Mary St.

City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

CIRY move catches city by surprise; Pioneer offer still on table

6 Comments

I e-mailed City Counsel Randy Ray about the surprising move by Central Illinois Railroad Company yesterday. I wanted to know what the City’s response was, and he had this to say:

We will be happy to share the City’s position with you after it is developed and after the City Council has had an opportunity to consider it. We’ll be happy to share any STB filings.

So, it’s pretty clear that city staff and the council did not see this coming. Pioneer, whom I mentioned would still be interested in running the Kellar Branch instead of CIRY, also wrote the city today: “PIRY’s [Pioneer Railcorp’s] offer to buy and share the ROW [railroad right-of-way] is still open. Does the City want to talk?”

If the City and the Park District really want a trail, they will do what they should have done in the first place — take Pioneer up on their offer. The Park District will get assistance in building a trail side-by-side with the rail line, and the City will get a cool half-million dollars to help them with their new budget. Oh, and the City will also get competent rail service on the Kellar Branch and no more runaway trains.

I’ve e-mailed the Park District to hear their take on the news, but it caught them by surprise as well, so they’ll need a little time to develop a statement. I’ll let you know what it is as soon as I hear.

One last note: David P. Jordan has posted over on Billy Dennis’s blog that another potential rail user in Pioneer Park is “possibly the paper bag manufacturer that is interested in buying the Peoria Plastics building.” I hadn’t heard of that one — it’s not the one I said I couldn’t disclose. So that means there are potentially three more rail users in addition to Carver Lumber and O’Brien Steel. Total potential: 5 businesses.

UPDATE: Here is the response I received from Bonnie Noble, Peoria Park District Director: “Thanks for your inquiry and interest. Randy Oliver and I have been in contact about CIRY’s new request. We are in communication with a number of people to work through all of this so that we all can be winners. When I have something definitive, I or Dave Wheeler will be back to you.”

Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation lobbies STB to save Kellar Branch

In a recent filing (large PDF file) with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which has yet to rule on the fate of the Kellar Branch rail line, the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation (IPRRF) claims the right-of-way can be shared by the rail line and the proposed Rock Island Trail extension:

We have done extensive investigation into the situation and do believe and can support the fact that the trail and rail line can share a joint right-of-way. Very little of the trail would have to be moved over a block or two along the way to accommodate it. The actual length of the rail line is 8.29 miles and the trail advocates want less than four miles of that.

Peoria Park District officials claim that running the trail next to the rail is too expensive because the right-of-way is too narrow. They say the trail has to be built to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards, which require a 14-foot-wide paved trail, plus five feet of setback from the rail line. They further claim that avoiding narrow portions of the right-of-way by moving the trail to the street would make them ineligible for their grant money. The Illinois Bicycle Path Grant Program requires “land acquisition or trail development [be] along a single trail corridor” (emphasis in original) to be eligible for funding.

The IPRRF also says that plans are in the works to provide passenger service along the line:

We are also working with a number of groups in the area to use the Kellar Branch for a park-n-ride trolley for use as a tourist draw and also to provide commuter rail service if deemed feasible by the community. Along with its continuing use for rail freight service, the Kellar Branch right-of-way would provide three different functions.

This would be beneficial for all of Peoria and not just for a select few. It will increase economic development in the area and also assist in increasing the local tax base.

IPRRF’s filing reviews the other reasons for retaining service on the Kellar, including continued support of Carver Lumber, the ability to attract more business to Pioneer Park and Growth Cell Two, and the presence of a willing carrier and buyer/lessee (Pioneer Railcorp).

My take: If the trail is too expensive to build next to the rail line then it shouldn’t be built at all. IPRRF and others have made a compelling case for keeping rail service along the line. Greater economic benefit can come from running freight over the right-of-way and attracting new business with good-paying jobs than making it a running/biking path that would very likely cost 50 jobs.

Conventional wisdom propounded by the newspaper is that we need this linear park because the gap in the Toulon-to-Morton trail is “embarrassing.” But that supposed “need” is completely contrived. The Peoria Park District currently holds approximately 9,000 acreas of parkland — that’s more land the entire Heart of Peoria area! They also have no shortage of fitness facilities (anyone remember the RiverPlex?). They either need to figure out a different way to connect the Rock Island and Pimiteoui trails or give it up. We’ve wasted too much time and opporunity for growth already.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Reminder: Keep Dec. 13 open for the big Glen Oak meeting

1 Comment

As I was reading the Peoria Park District Board’s minutes from their Oct. 18 meeting, it reminded me to mark Dec. 13 on my calendar for the big Glen Oak Park/School discussion:

Trustee Allen requested an upcoming agenda carry a discussion for review of the non-binding Letter of Intent with District #150 on the proposed school in Glen Oak Park. Particularly, what a school site would do to Glen Oak Park Lagoon, Amphitheatre, Tri-Centennial Playground and the Zoo.

Trustee Cummings weighed in on the discussion, noting questions he has concerning cost of new school construction and the site plan, and hearing the arguments of residents.

President Cassidy stated promise made to neighbors about notifying them of any discussions material to the school issue. Perhaps a larger venue will be needed to accommodate the number of attendees. President Cassidy suggested the meeting be held at Glen Oak Primary School
Gymnasium.

TRUSTEE ALLEN MOVED TO HAVE THE DECEMBER 13, 2006 PARK BOARD AGENDA CARRY A DISCUSSION OF THE NON-BINDING AGREEMENT REGARDING THE BUILDING OF A SCHOOL ON OR NEAR GLEN OAK PARK. STAFF WILL NOTIFY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS BY MAIL OF THE MEETING. Motion seconded by Trustee Cummings and carried on
unanimous voice vote. (Results: 5 Ayes; 0 Nays)

All together now: It’s the most wonderful time of the year….