The Peoria Times-Observer reports:
The use of a photograph in political ads for Darin LaHood, the Republican candidate for Peoria County State’s Attorney, has promoted an inquiry by the office of the Peoria County State’s Attorney’s office at the request of Peoria Heights Police chief Dustin Sutton.
Sutton requested the state’s attorney’s office look into the matter after the Peoria Times-Observer brought elections ethics law to Sutton’s attention.
Click on the link to read the whole article. The law that the Times-Observer cited is essentially the state government’s version of the local ordinance Gary Sandberg used to insist that Aaron Schock should pay back the City of Peoria for costs related to Schock’s fundraiser with President Bush. A couple of things to note:
- Any violation of this law would be against the “governmental entity” — in this case the Peoria Heights Police Department — and not Darin LaHood.
- Clearly, Kevin Lyons needs to recuse himself from this case immediately since a more obvious conflict of interest could not be conceived. Lyons is running against LaHood for State’s Attorney. The Peoria Heights Police endorsed LaHood for State’s Attorney. If Lyons takes action against their appearance in his opponent’s political ad, it would be perceived as nothing less than political payback.
If there’s been a violation of the law, it should definitely be dealt with, the sooner the better — but NOT by the Peoria County State’s Attorney office. They should recuse themselves because of conflict of interest and have a neighboring county’s State’s Attorney (e.g., Stewart Umholtz in Tazewell County) take care of this.
First he draws bad attention to himself by intervening in that rape trial, now this? LaHood is running a very sloppy campaign!
Jesus. How petty can this election cycle get? Nothing will come from this photo.
I’m really getting tired of all the diversions from discussions of real issues in the campaigns. However, I am interested in seeing which side of the fence our esteemed Councilmember ends up on regarding this issue since it:
1) Relies on similar legislation that he utilized (inappropriately in my opinion) on the reimbursement issue; and
2) Impacts a candidate he supports.
Of course, since it involves the Heights, he can try to sidestep the issue since it doesn’t impact the “City of Peoria” – however, when you straddle the fence like that too long you get splinters where you don’t necessarily want them.
This stupid “problem” isn’t worth the computer space it’s taking up. Another one in the long line of DeWayne’s “stories out of nothing.” There’s a reason why he’s still busting his chops for a paper that most people just drive over.
DeWayne Bartels is one of the best journalists in Peoria. He still at the PTO because he likes the job. It offers him more independence than he could get as yet another cog in the PJS.
Billy, you’re full of sh*t. That has to be the most asinine statement I’ve ever read from you… and you’ve put out plenty. This “story” is just more of the same from a tired dude who probably wanted to be at the Tribune back in ’88.
And, he never made it for a reason. Anyone who reads the quasi-“sensational” crap he puts out, and thinks that he’s a “great” journalist, needs serious brain injections.
The Observer is barely worthy of being canary cage liner. It’s not even worth the piss from my dog. It should go back to the fluff it shot out back around 20 years ago. The junk that passes for news now in it, particularly from DeWayne, just shows his weird political bent. He might be able to put sentences together just fine, but that’s only part of the game. The most important is integrity. This sham of a story shows that all he wants to do is cause a stir. Forget about newsworthiness…
Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeech.
When I worked with DeWayne as his “boss” (mostly, I just turned him loose) and he came back with stuff that no one else seemed to notice.
I recall “Strippergate,” in which Assistant Chief Button basically arranged for a visiting performer to be subject to a fake arrest and an interview with a lawyer who was actually a stripper. Naturally the whole thing was arrested. Harmless fun? Well, not if the city was subject to a lawsuit. Then police chief Stenson gave permission, although he later claimed to not have been fully informed.
And then there was the story DeWayne covered about how Peoria Police officers were being paid to perform private security guard duties while wearing the uniform of the PPD. This was another apparent violation of the law. It turned out that Chief Button was the go-to guy for businesses wanting to pay for this. One of the officers who raked in huge amounts of cash? Chief Stenson. Who did Stenson work for? The Peoria Journal Star.
You didn’t see ANY follow up by the PJS. I wonder why.
If you want to complain about how the PTO’s focus sometimes seems to be the ass crack of what passes for High Society in Peoria, you will get no argument from me.
That DeWayne can do good work despite this environment is testament to his street cred. That and the4 fact that he pisses off a lot of people.
Peo Proud,
For the record, I received the contents of this email on Friday 26 Sept 2008 at 6:28:14 PM.
“I just saw a LaHood for State’s Attorney television advertisement that included a segment showing what is readily recognizable as a posed view of three uniformed City of Peoria police officers, one of whom was seated in a marked City of Peoria squad car, with Darin standing at the door. The audio refers to crime in Peoria being high, a new approach to prosecution being necessary, and that all police union organizations in the county support Darin in the SA race.
Should I take it from the ad that the City of Peoria Police Department also therefore supports him and has authorized the use of uniformed officers together with the squad car for that political advertising purpose? I suspect not, but, that will be the impression created for many.”
This was the first person who had contacted me regarding the ad. As I was out for an adult beverage at the time I replied with this email at 6:31:34 PM with a Blackberry response.
“No. I will pursue with same vigar as the Schock event even tho I support Darren. Thanks for bringing to my attention.
g”
At 7:33:22, I received a follow up email from the person that initially emailed me
“My apologies – a subsequent viewing of the LaHood commercial showed the personnel and car to NOT be City of Peoria, but a different municipality…so as the saying goes – never mind….”
Since Friday over the weekend, I have observed the ad twice and the squad car in question is clearly not one of the City of Peoria’s, so I did not follow up with City Administration.
The local ordinance which clarified earlier prohibited political activity in Peoria that was adopted on May 18, 2004 by 11-0 vote including Mayor Jim Ardis (then Councilperson), W. Eric Turner, Patrick Nichting, Bill Spears, Clyde Gulley and myself was, in fact the state statute that governs the ethical and legal activities of government employees, much in the same way as the Federal “Hatch Act” governs political activity of Federal employees.
If the ad would have appeared to use City equipment, I would have followed up regardless of whom I think would make the better Peoria County States Attorney. I would have done it, like the actions I took for the two earlier citizens with respect for the rule of law and in response to their call.
As an elected representative I know of no other action to take on behalf of the call or email. All who wish to impune my motivation to no doubt their own behavior, I am sorry that I don’t believe citizens that seek redress should have their elected representatives blow them off because they agree or dis-agree with the focus of their concern. If “sidestepping” includes now being responsible for other municipalities when I have my hands full with Peoria as well as, believe it or not, trying to earn a living, I am guilty as I did nothing after receiving the initial concern and subsequent verification that appears to suggest equipment may have been Peoria Heights. I also did NOT contact Darren or Darren’s campaign. He is responsible for his campaign and I would expect him to respond in a professional way and, if the equipment, car, clothing, etc as well as the ad made on “compensated time” by the law enforcement officers (if they are and not just actors, then the State law was violated as would have been the City ordinance, if the facts would have led to City employees using City equipment or if those emplyees were on “city time”.
Gary, while I disagree with you on alot of things,I appreciate the fact that you try to be consistent. Clearly the ad depicts a peoria heights police vehicle, as has now been acknowledge by the Peo Heights chief of police. While the final decision does not rest with you, do I take it from your post that if the equipment were actually owned by peoria heights and not an actor’s prop, that you believe the statute would be violated even if the officers were on their off time?
Yes, that is my reading of the state statute. Employees can involve themselves in “political activity” when NOT “on duty”, but they can NOT use public owned equiptment whether they are on or off duty………….. without compensating the jurisdiction for the cost of the equipment.
Government employees can not be denied their right to have political positions or to involve themselves in political activity when they are NOT working or being compensated, but even if they are NOT working, they still can NOT use equiptment, material, property that belongs to the jurisdiction.
On that point, I agree with you 100% Mr. Sandberg.
(Jesus. How petty can this election cycle get? Nothing will come from this photo.
Left by Fran on October 2nd, 2008)
… as long as people like you ignore it and by doing so encourage politicians like LaHood to continue thinking they are above the law.
Actually the State’s Attorney General would be the proper arm to step in and investigate this.