Have you seen the latest Joan Krupa ad? Krupa’s first four ads were positive, then she released a defensive ad in response to negative attacks from her opponent, Jehan Gordon. Now she’s taken all the negative things we know about Gordon and rolled them into one 30-second ad:
Ouch!
A press release from the State’s Attorney’s office via the Schock campaign:
NOTICE TO THE MEDIA
Last week our office was asked by a congressional candidate to review allegations that an opposing congressional candidate had notarized but wrongly or improperly dated a document in early 2000. Commendably, both candidates seem to agree that it would be best for any such review to be conducted and concluded as timely as possible. Accordingly, the State’s Attorney has asked me to conduct such a review and I have done so.
Any potential violation here under the Notary Public Act would be a misdemeanor called “official misconduct by a notary public”. This is not to be confused with the more common felony of Official Misconduct which involves criminal conduct during the performance of a duty in a public office (no such allegation of that has been made here).
One level of this type of misdemeanor requires the notary’s infraction to be “knowing and willful”. A lower level misdemeanor occurs if the notary’s infraction is merely “reckless or negligent”. No information is presented in this matter to show whether any of these descriptions occurred.
This area of law has its own section for extended limitations that somewhat lengthens the usual period that misdemeanors be filed within 18 months of their commission. However, under the most generous interpretation available, any such statute of limitations for filing an infraction on allegations such as these. would have expired approximately three years ago.
Therefore, this completes the review requested of our office.
Seth P. Uphoff
Assistant State’s Attorney
Case closed.
I reported recently on some historic preservation requests that are wending their way through the system. One of those is the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe. That building got some criticism in the comments section of my blog. And according to another reader who e-mailed me over the weekend, there’s an effort underway to kill the proposed historic designation without even so much as a hearing:
Dear Sir
I saw your article about preserving the AMVETS building and wanted to inform you of the following: This upcoming Wednesday the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will decide if the AMVETS application will receive a public hearing. I am afraid that they are being swayed, for the wrong reasons, to vote against a public hearing.
The building’s application, which can be obtained from the city, to make it historical was put together very well. There are nine criteria to make a building historic and only one of the nine needs to be met to make a designation. The application cites that the building meets 4 of the nine criteria and lists details why, providing pictures and proper research.
Key (although not all) members within the AMVETS do not want this to happen because they are in the process of trying to move the post location and a historic landmark of the building could prevent this. Certain AMVETS officers of the corporation are not sharing this information with the organization’s membership and lobbying the HPC to vote it down on Wednesday.
The point I am trying to make is that the Historic Preservation Commission has an obligation to permit a public hearing on applications that have merit. This building obviously has merit and deserves a public hearing. This will not guarantee the building is land-marked but will ensure its case is heard, as it should be. The buyer of AMVETS has made its intentions clear to eventual raze the building and it would be a shame to see a possible historic landmark torn down without a public hearing.
I request you make this known so that the commission feels pressure to do their job of ensuring applications get a fair public hearing. You may email me with questions and I understand if you do not want to get involved.
Thank you
A concerned citizen and veteran
I still haven’t seen the application, but it does seem reasonable to have a public hearing if the building indeed meets four of the nine criteria for historic designation. It’s not listed on the October agenda published on the city’s website, but this week’s “Issues Update” confirms, “The Historic Preservation Commission will be conducting a preliminary review of an application to Landmark property at 237 NE Monroe on October 22, 2008 instead of November 26, 2008.”
The Historic Preservation Commission meets at 8:30 a.m. this Wednesday.
We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
—John McCain
Ever since I posted an article on ethanol, I was put on a pro-ethanol mailing list (Renewable Fuels Association). Recently, I received this press release:
Ethanol and renewable fuels have received attention in this year’s presidential debates and in the campaign. Specifically, the assertion has been made that one way to balance the federal budget and help solve the economic crisis is to eliminate the tax incentives that have helped to build America’s domestic renewable fuels industry. Such an assertion fails to account for ethanol’s role in reducing our dependence on imported oil, lowering gas prices at the pump, stimulating investment in rural America, creating millions of green jobs, and lowering federal farm program costs. The claim that cutting these programs will save taxpayer dollars is wrong. Federal incentives for ethanol generate revenue for federal and state governments and are saving American consumers money.
Below are just some of the economic benefits realized by an increasingly robust American ethanol industry:
- In 2007, the ethanol industry added nearly $48 billion to the nation’s GDP and generated $4.6 billion in federal tax revenues and nearly $3.6 billion in tax revenues for state and local governments.
- According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the increased demand for grain used in ethanol production reduced federal farm program costs by more than $6 billion.
- With clean burning ethanol blended into 70% of the nation’s gasoline, domestic ethanol production has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil by over 400,000 barrels a day. Several independent analyses have recently concluded the use of ethanol in the U.S. is saving consumers between $0.25 and $0.50 a gallon.
- The production and use of 6.5 billion gallons of domestic ethanol in 2007 reduced oil imports by 228 million barrels, saving $16 billion of taxpayer dollars.
These increases in tax revenues and savings in federal program payments and oil imports totals more than $30 billion. That compares to the $3.4 billion that oil companies received for blending ethanol in 2007.
By a factor of nearly 10, the investment in America’s ethanol industry is producing economic and energy security benefits that are unmatched by any other renewable fuel technology today.
Some critics, on the other hand, don’t have a problem with ethanol getting some subsidies, but believe they have been over-subsidized:
Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That’s $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM.
Still others think ethanol should be dumped completely because it’s not the eco-friendly solution it purports to be:
Scientists now believe that the production of ethanol actually creates more harmful emissions than it prevents. Indeed, Princeton University professor Timothy Searchinger and other researchers have concluded that “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.” (Their findings were published earlier this year in Science magazine.) The reason is that converting undeveloped land to cropland—in order to grow more corn and facilitate biofuel production—releases a massive amount of carbon dioxide. Only if biofuels are made from waste products or grown on abandoned agricultural lands does the production process actually reduce GHG emissions.
It’s enough to make a midwesterner’s head spin. Good, bad, neutral — who knows for sure?
From a press release:
Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce’s Candidate School
Date: November 8 & 15
Time: 8:00-12:30pm
Location: Peoria Area Chamber Office
100 SW Water St (Formerly Damon’s Restaurant)
Cost: $90
Includes: Light breakfast & class materialsAre you interested in running for political office? Do you want to be involved in a campaign? Would you like to learn more about this process? Register today for the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce’s Candidate School. This is non partisan program facilitated by experienced people in this area. You will learn about the following topics.
Some of the topics in the campaign logistics will include information on campaign plans, timelines, yard sign strategy, precinct walking and meet and greets. Fundraising will include direct mail, PAC support, event based fundraising and campaign expenditures. Financial reporting will feature past campaign treasurers and details about required reporting. Polling, Internet research, meeting agendas, minutes and the importance of a kitchen cabinet will be reviewed in the session on research. Media opportunities, paid advertisements, candidate forums, creating an effective campaign brochure and the various types of political mailings will be discussed in the messaging segment of the School.
If you would like more information or would like to register for the Candidate School, please call Susan Stenger at 495-5907 or e-mail sstenger@chamber.h-p.org.
PeoriaIllinoisan doesn’t mince words:
The Reader’s Choice Awards are a joke. A tool. A way to bring in and reward advertisers. It has nothing to do with the readers and there is hardly much choice involved.
He’s got a point. After reading his post, I took a look at the Journal Star Readers’ Choice Award ballot, and out of 56 categories, 38 (68%!) had only one business from which to “choose.” Looks like a sham to me.
From a press release:
Masquerade Ball
Friday October 31, 2008
8 pm- 12 am
Packard Plaza-225 NE Adams Peoria, IL 61602
Cost: $25.00
hors d’oeuvres by One World CateringEntertainment by Extreme DJ’s
Ticket outlets:
Party World
3441 N University (University Plaza)
Peoria, IL 61614
(309) 679-2100Costume Trunk
710 W Main
Peoria, IL 61606
(309) 637-4234Evening wear is requested, please wear a mask, Jaycees will have some available at the door.
After the Chicago White Sox were eliminated, the City Council decided to put a hold on renaming Peoria “Thome Town” after slugger and hometown boy Jim Thome.
Now that the Tampa Bay Rays are going to the World Series, will the council consider renaming the city “Zobrist Town” after shortstop and hometown boy Ben Zobrist? Don’t let the fact that he’s actually from Eureka bother you, Thome isn’t actually from Peoria either, and that didn’t seem to bother anyone.
Regardless, congrats to the Tampa Bay Rays on beating the wildcard Boston Red Sox. They’ll be going on to play the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series.
But as a notary public, Schock was required to provide accurate information about witnessing documents being signed. Schock declared that he witnessed the documents being signed on Jan. 1, 2000, but they weren’t actually signed until more than a year later.
“I can honestly tell you I don’t remember signing anything. I’m sure I did,” he said. “But to ask me what day I signed a document eight years ago, I’m sorry to tell you I don’t remember.”
Schock […] commented on the subject while meeting with the (Springfield) State Journal-Register editorial board. He said he had notarized the document when he was 19, before he held elective office. “So I mean, the question of what I would be like if I was elected to office can be answered, has been answered,” he said, reciting his experience of being elected to the District 150 School Board and later to the Illinois House of Representatives. “I stand by my record in public office.”
These quotes prompted me to try to construct a timeline. I went back in the archives and determined that Schock decided to run for school board in December of 2000. In February of 2001, his petitions were challenged and he was ultimately removed from the ballot. He then mounted a write-in campaign and won on April 3, 2001. He started his term on July 2, 2001.
Based on published statements that the document that was dated Jan. 1, 2000 was actually signed “more than a year later,” that means it was signed after Jan.1, 2001. If it was signed before Schock “held elective office,” then that would mean it was signed before July 2, 2001.
So, I guess what we’re being asked to believe is that, in the less than six months between when Schock notarized a back-dated document and when he was elected and installed on the school board, he… changed. That stuff in early 2001 was a youthful indiscretion. But once he took office, he proved himself more mature, and not like that guy mere weeks before who engaged in professional misconduct.
Well, first of all, I think he’s splitting hairs. But secondly, Schock’s “record in public office” shows that he never really lost his inclination to playing fast and loose with the facts.
In 2006, when Senate Bill 2477 was being debated in the House, Schock told the lawmakers in Springfield a whopper. SB2477 was the bill that authorized District 150 to access funding through the Public Building Commission for their new school buildings. He told his colleagues, “This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.” But the city council never took a position on the bill, nor were all the council members in favor of its passage. But the legislators in Springfield didn’t know that. They only know what our representative tells them.
Don’t forget what his support of that measure meant to Peoria: keeping our property taxes high without a binding referendum. If that bill hadn’t passed, the school board still could have gotten funding — they just would have had to ask the citizens of Peoria to approve the funding via referendum. Instead, the school board was able to go forward with their plans without any accountability to the voters at all.
I guess the common thread among all of Schock’s controversies of late is this: Can we trust him? Can we trust him to make the right decisions? To accurately represent our interests? To support the best policies? To do the right thing when he thinks no one is looking?
That will be up to the voters to decide next month.
If you’ve read today’s Journal Star article on the amount of money raised and spent by candidates for the 18th Congressional District, I thought you might like to see a visual representation:
All I can say is, “Wow!”