Recently, Peoria County did a web-based survey regarding the proposed downtown museum with this explanation:
Your Peoria County Government is interested in your opinion regarding public funding of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Museum partners have requested public funding to complete the project, so the County Board must decide whether to proceed with a referendum to increase the sales tax rate one quarter of one percent. Your participation in this brief survey will help with that decision.
And as part of its “National Citizen Survey” in 2008, it asked this question:
The Peoria Riverfront Museum project – with a focus on education, history, arts, and sciences – has fallen short of its public and private fundraising goals. To what degree would you support or oppose a voter referendum to increase the sales tax rate by .25 percent (for example, from 8.0% to 8.25% for the City of Peoria) to fund the remaining cost of constructing money?
The question is, can the county do this — legally? The municipal code (as required by state law under 5 ILCS 430) appears to prohibit this kind of political activity. Sec. 2-29(b)(1) and (2) states, “No officer or employee shall intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time, as defined herein.” There’s a whole list of what is considered “prohibited political activity,” but here’s the one about surveys from Sec. 2-29(a) [emphasis mine]:
Prohibited political activity means [. . .] (5) Surveying or gathering information from potential or actual voters in an election to determine probable vote outcome in connection with a campaign for elective office or on behalf of a political organization for political purposes or for or against any referendum question.
Isn’t this precisely what the county has done? The web survey and the National Citizen Survey question are clear attempts to determine the probable vote outcome of a sales tax referendum for the museum. They were both done at county expense, on county time, by county employees. What service does this provide citizens of the county? None that I can see. The only thing it appears to provide is taxpayer-funded market research for the museum group.
Have you thought about taking this to the state Attorney General for review?
Since the Journal Star and the State’s Attorney are now doing extracurricular investigating into random issues (for example the General Parker investigation), maybe they will look into this ethics violation.
I think you’re stretching here, C.J. While I’m not an attorney, what the County did was collect information regarding the public’s desires — to determine whether they were for or against the increase in sales tax. They were not advocating “for or against any referendum question”. The County Board had a legitimate interest in determining whether they should place the issue before the public and gathering background info to use in making a decision is not the same as advocating a position.
It seems somewhat ludicrous that our elected and appointed representatives would be able to poll the citizens to determine their desires. If they were advocating a particular position, I think that the issue might be different but I don’t see it here.
Peo Proud — I’m no attorney either, so I’m just taking the code at face value. But, a plain reading of the code shows that it doesn’t say anything about advocating one way or the other (that word doesn’t appear at all); rather it speaks of “gathering information.” It says that prohibited political activity means “Surveying or gathering information from potential or actual voters in an election to determine probable vote outcome . . . for or against any referendum question.” That sounds to me like what they did: gather information to determine probable vote outcome for or against a referendum question.
You say “The County Board had a legitimate interest in determining whether they should place the issue before the public….” How so? I’m not seeing the logic of conducting a survey to see if a referendum should be put on the ballot. Doesn’t that sort of short-circuit the whole referendum process? Isn’t the referendum itself supposed to be the mechanism for determining the public’s favor/disfavor? It seems to me that doing these surveys is nothing more than a fishing expedition for the best wording to ensure the outcome desired — whether for or against. Do you see the potential conflict here?
Oh, and I do understand your parsing of words (i.e., “for or against the increase in sales tax” vs. “for or against any referendum question”). But their survey questions both reference a referendum specifically, not merely a sales tax increase. So I believe the issue is still germane.
I don’t think you need to be an attorney to understand English.
This “oversight” by the county board seems to be a trend with governmental bodies. These boards (same with 150) really do not investigate codes, laws, contracts, etc., before they make decisions. They just assume because they think it’s a good idea that it’s also permissible, legal, etc.. Nobody reads the fine print before they take action–and apparently they do not not have legal advisors that warn them. This is why Terry Knapp gets up at board meetings so often–he reads the fine print to them. Was it always this way or have elected officials just become too cavalier?
Sharon — the boards do have legal counsel. I would think that it is a difficult job being versed in the everchanging matrix of Illinois state statutes. Nevertheless, you are correct that there should be compliance.
The same State’s Attorney that would not do anything to the Peoria Park District , Why should he change now.
Sharon is correct. The reason Terry (communication style aside) was (is) so effective is that he did his homework and he was extremely persistent. The same cannot be said about some Board members and government administrators. I do think that fellow blogger, Mr. Stowell, is an exception to that statement. Some of you might not agree with his position, but my impression is that he devotes a lot of time and energy to trying to be informed. I do not think that is the easiest of tasks, when you are on the Board of Education, as some of the information you are feed by key administrators (as we have now learned) is tainted.
Frustrated: I agree about both Terry and Jim. Terry proved (as Frustrated indicated with the use of the present tense “is”) at the last board meeting that he is still reading the fine print when he made his comments about Valeska Hinton. I believe Jim has discovered the importance of asking for information from administrative offices, etc., before he makes decisions–instead of just “receiving” the information that the administration chooses to provide. Sean Matheson was good at that, also. He gathered his own information. Other board members may do the same–if not, they should start. Frankly, I think that when the public asks for FOIA information, it helps them out, too. I believe they do see all the resulting information (at least the president does and I hope he shares it).
I’m not nearly as down on District 150 board members as others are. There is no on-the-job training for board members–and they have been much too trusting with regard to the “training” that they get. Until the last few years, the board didn’t have to make as many momentous and controversial decisions as they are now asked to make. Other boards haven’t had to deal with this much transparency or criticism–FOIA requests, blogs, etc., have changed everything. I think some of them are beginning to catch on–Wolfmeyer and Ross certainly proved that at the last meeting. Also, I have confidence that Parker and Butler–who are just getting their “feet wet”–will come along. Instead of talk about ousting the board, I think they just need to be challenged and even encouraged a bit more often. Spangler, who will soon be gone, has a tendency to look on the bright side all the time–and it hasn’t always served her well. I haven’t figured Gorenz out–I haven’t ever heard him disagree or question Hinton’s proposals; I just don’t regard that as a good stance for a board president–maybe he does in private, but the public needs to know that the board is not a rubber stamp. I don’t think I’ve written to board members in quite some time–I was getting to be a broken record. But I hope they
“peek” at the blogs to gain insight through the dialogue that occurs in cyberspace–I know it makes them angry but it can also make them stronger board members.
Yes, Karrie, they do have legal counsel and they are paid a handsome sum to know the changes in the law and codes, etc.
this is just the latest example of how mishandled this whole museum project has been mishandled, both in design and in promoting it. a few insiders are making a killing off the PR of the project and the referendum. and it has all been a waste. hardly anyone I know favors this poorly planned money pit. the PR flacks who comment in the press in favor of the museum dig a deeper hole every time they open their elitist mouths. their persuasive ability is counterproductive.
my limited support crashed when they took the planetarium dome out of the plan. a cheap version with no retail and other urban mixed use will not draw enough people to pay for it. and it won’t be an interesting facility anyone would want to visit more than once.
the promoters, most of whom have financial interests in the project just want us to hurry up and vote for it, then when attendance doesn’t meet projections, too bad, we just have to pay. they will have gotten their salaries, commissions and consulting fees.
this whole group is either on the payroll, getting contracts, commissions, or consulting fees and there is little accounting for all the money spent on promotion. hell, they should have just used the consulting fees for the building so they could ask for less taxes. in the end they will spend at least a half million dollars to one million dollars to put this promotional plan together, both the official promotional campaign and the campaign to get people to vote yes in the referendum.
let’s get a listing of everyone on the referendum organization and what they stand to benefit and how much they get paid or what their fees have been.
how much are taxpayers paying this firm Symantel that came up with “build the block” ” be a blockhead.”??? someone gets paid for that? where is the campaign cash coming from? we deserve some sunlight on this operation. how much is being wasted on promotion? who decides who gets how much of the promotional money?
Blagojvich compared himself to Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King. these yokels actually are using a quote from Nelson Mandela on their brochures. calculated pandering to African Americans. Shameless. .. as sociopathic as Blago.
We have a winner!!!!!!
Great job Roger.
Can anyone continue to support this nonsense? Sharon; you asked if this was a trend… I think so, I think people in power think no one will question them. They think we are idiots and the few that informed enough to ask the right questions are marginalized.
Look at some of responses of our informed public:
I have been telling all of my friends to vote “yes” I guess we will see who has more friends : ) …………………………… what, is it a tug of war?
I vote for and this project. ………………………..?
Be positive and help make Peoria the place to come to.
The warehouse district will be enhanced by this project, as well as, the other businesses waiting for something to happen that would bring people down there, instead of across the river. …………………………….Let’s enhance the warehouse district so people will want to come from all over the state and nation to visit it?
It is the Rush Limbaugh syndrome… throw enough information out there, sound authoritative and ridicule criticism, and people will think you know what you are talking about. Ever wonder why Rush doesn’t have people with opposing views (other than 1 minute phone conversations with callers or sound bites) on his show?
You have to control the flow of information.
Oh yeah… look at Blagojevich and Burris. Step down? Resign? Admit I did something wrong?
“Make me! I’ll wait to see if you have the legal support and expertise to make me step down.”
Or as Glinda says to the Wicked Witch of the West in Munchkinland:
“Begone! You have no power here!”
roger-like in MONROE? Good job, now if someone will offer the facts and answer his questions. A good one on one debate for a half hour on TV would be enlightening-it is necessary to be a legitimate referendum. Otherwise, the power of advertising will win out. If you oppose this museum tax or museum idea, you better get out and get going.
Does the “municipal code” govern the county since they are not a municipality? Isn’t that the same municipal code that won’t let a convicted felon hold municipal office (mayor, council) but does not apply to county (or state) elected officials?
i am an attorney and so is the poster “matt” in the following link and this was discussed some time ago here:
http://pundit.blogpeoria.com/2008/12/20/3rd-district-candidate-riggenbach-supports-museum-tax/#comments
I still believe the polls were conducted improperly. That the County Board decided to support the tax, then used the poll to “gather information” to make the policy decision on how to best word/craft the referendum question, prior to the passage of an ordinance to officially make it a ballot question seems to turn the notion of a referendum on its head. Silly me, I thought referendum’s were designed to allow the public to decide issues. Apparently they are designed to determine the number of people suckered into agreeing with the royal court of the County Board by nifty wording and special project goodies attached to the Board’s pet project.
Again, I question the connections between those benefitting from all the “advocacy,” advertising and fundraising and the servants of the public trust.
Dr. Thompson– Thank you for linking to that post; I knew I had discussed this issue before at least in part, but I couldn’t remember where. Doing these surveys before placing a referendum on the ballot seems like the equivalent of gerrymandering a district, in that the public body is choosing the voters in both instances. It does indeed turn the whole process on its head.
I know them as well as anyone, and I suspect that Terry Knapp and Karrie E. Alms were separated at birth.
Chase: That’s a hoot! Thank you for the chuckle! 🙂
Yes, we all enjoyed it, Chase–including Terry who got a good laugh.
CJ — Just wondering: Did you ever ask the county for their position on this?
Yes.
Um, OK, thanks.
Curious about the blogging process. You are easily the most well researched blog in town, bordering on actual journalism. But you obviously have an opinion that skews your “reporting.” In a case like this, where you seem to be accusing someone of an evidently big deal, do you seek first to get “their side,” or do you post and then ask?
Thank you for the compliment. My guess is the “blogging process” in general is to just post whatever pops into your head without asking anyone anything. I generally try not to do that, but as embarrassing as it is to admit, that’s exactly what I did in this case. I did ask for a response from the county, which I got, but I’m asking some follow-up questions before posting it.
Also, on another post, I called and e-mailed Schock’s office for comment (on whether he advocates the same earmarks as his predecessor), but have received no response to my question.
I appreciate your response. Keep up the good work.