Wow — I just received this press release today from the City:
As reported in Friday’s Journal Star, I recently suggested a possible site to the Director of the Library. That suggested site is not a possible site at this time. In presenting my suggestion, I said that maybe the library would gain three votes. I should not have said this. I certainly had no knowledge that any three Councilpersons’ votes would have been swayed by selection of this site. I never intended to create the impression that I knew how any Councilperson would vote. There was no backroom deal being cut.
I regret this error and hope that this error does not detract from the on-going library discussion.
Randy Ray
Corporation Counsel
As you may recall, Gary Sandberg stated in his letter of resignation as library liaison that City Attorney Randy Ray had suggested that three votes would change from “no” to “yes” if the library board would pick Elliott’s strip club as the location for the new library and use their power of eminent domain to take the property. Library board president Mike McKenzie, library director Ed Szynaka, and councilman Jim Montelongo all attested to the truth of this deal being proposed.
Ray admits that he proposed the deal, but now says that he didn’t actually know of three specific council members who would have changed their votes when he made that statement. Evidently he was speculating that if the Elliott’s site were chosen, three council members would be so happy to get rid of Elliott’s (which has been mired in controversy ever since they applied for the adult use license) that they would vote for the $35 million in bonds.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Read this account from the Journal Star again:
Library Board President Mike McKenzie said Ray asked library director Ed Szynaka to stop by his office May 16. During that meeting, Ray floated the idea about Elliott’s, eminent domain and how the idea would change the minds of three councilmen who intended to vote against the $35 million proposal, McKenzie added….
Szynaka, who would not comment for this story, repeated Ray’s idea at the board’s building committee meeting on May 19, a meeting that Sandberg attended as the council liaison. It was quickly rejected.
“I never heard about it again,” McKenzie said. “First off, the site’s too small for a library. Second, it’s not for sale and third, there’s an active business there. We do have eminent domain capabilities but we didn’t think that it was a reasonable proposal.”
McKenzie said even if three councilmen changed their minds and supported the library project on the Elliott’s site, current supporters might oppose the idea, nullifying the effect of the site change.
Now think about this scenario. Ray asked Szynaka to stop by his office. Ray suggested the Elliott’s site as a possible location for the library. Why this site? For what reason would he be suggesting it and why should the board consider it? It wasn’t chosen based on any objective criteria. Ray wasn’t in on the building committee meetings where site selection was discussed. It certainly couldn’t have been based on parcel size or price. No, Ray gave one reason for suggesting it and one reason only: they could pick up three council votes for the $35 million bond issuance if they chose that site. Then Szynaka presented Ray’s proposal at the next building committee meeting. The proposal was considered, objections were raised, and the committee decided to reject the proposal.
Now Ray is saying that he had “no knowledge that any three Councilpersons’ votes would have been swayed by selection of this site”? That undercuts the whole purpose of his pitching the idea to the board in the first place. If he didn’t really know anyone would change their vote based on that site selection, what was the reason for suggesting it? Because “maybe the library would gain three votes”? Why three? Who did he have in mind? And why is the city attorney trying to influence the site location with the library board by making false claims of council support for his idea?
Ray’s press release raises more questions than it answers. It actually makes the issue more serious. I mean, if you or I were to suggest to Szynaka that maybe he should consider such and such a site, that’s one thing. But for the city attorney to suggest that the choice of a site may be the deciding factor in how the council vote comes out based on his insider knowledge… that’s a serious attempt to influence the outcome of the process — and under false pretenses if what he’s now saying is true.
Methinks Ray has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
Is it time for Randy Ray to go?
I agree; Randy Ray’s time is up. He messed around with the Kellar Branch for years wasting lots of taxpayers bucks and now this. Resign now Randy before you are shown the door.
I’m not ready to call for Randy’s resignation. I think there’s more to this story than is being told. I suspect that Randy is covering for somebody — or three “somebodys,” as the case may be. If so, then the next questions are, “covering for whom?” and “why?”
As much as I disagree with the city’s stance on the Kellar Branch, Ray has simply been doing the Council’s bidding on that issue. You can’t really blame him for doing his job. With this Elliott’s deal, Ray is basically saying he acted alone. I think that’s really strange — what’s his interest in the issue?
Absolutely … there are waaaaaaaay too many unanswered questions here. There’s another shoe SOMEWHERE waiting to drop, I think.
Right. Ray does the Council’s bidding. Seems to me that he could have deduced on his very own (as well as any of us) which three Council Members might possibly change their minds if the Elliot’s site was chosen. Wouldn’t take a rocket scientist. Isn’t possible that Ray was taking some iniative? Killing three birds with one stone – new library, destroying Elliot’s, and impressing the Council? Moreover, Sandberg’s link to Elliot’s has been overlooked in this controversy. Remember, Gary was once paid by Elliot’s as their architect. Moreover, Sandberg cast an important vote as to whether liquor should be served at strip establishments outside of downtown while he was serving as Elloit’s architect. (At the time Randy Ray stated that legally Sandberg did not have a conflict of interest because the ordinance would be City wide, not just against Elliot’s. Although Elliot’s was the only strip club seeking an alcohol license at the time.) I like Gary, but I adamantly disagreed with him on this issue.
This is getting murkier and murkier. I see the city council swirling down the drain very fast.
Surrrre Randy.
Three was just a number you pulled out of thin air. Why would this look like a “backroom deal being cut”? Just pure speculation on your part, I’m sure.
Just “Randy being Randy”.
There is more. Sandberg is still being paid by Elliot’s. Just maybe Gary isn’t the good guy this time.
Yes Randy Ray needs to resign or be fired. If he wants to throw away his position in Peoria covering up for three part time council people. Let him.
Randall, even in Gary is still being paid by Elliot’s, does this make the “eminent domain” suggestion by Ray legal or ethically correct? That is the issue here, not about if Gary is still being paid by Elliot’s. That has absolutely no bearing on the legality of Ray’s suggestion. Now if Sandberg is found to be doing something illegal on behalf of Elliot’s, hammer away.
It’s not about who’s the “good” or “bad” guy, it’s about what is the correct way of doing council business and what isn’t.
What did Randy do that was so wrong. He suggested, either on his own, or in consultation with others, a possible way to solve the Elliots problem, while getting a library on the north side. He merely suggested it. Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape about this? If the Elliots building would be condemned, it would solve a huge pending lawsuit problem and save the city hundreds of thousands in legal fees. If Elliots were condemned the owners would get the fair market value of the property and they could go start a business somewhere else. All Ray did was make a suggestion that makes some economic sense. Whether the cons outweigh the pros is another question. I for one commend a public official who “thinks outside the box” to try to solve problems and say the City money. Fire him? I say give a raise!
Oh, come on, dd. It makes absolutely no economic sense whatsoever. You think trying to take that property and those around it via eminent domain is going to cost less than the pending lawsuit? Really? Ever heard of Eagle Cleaners? Ray was not suggesting the site based on the library board’s objective criteria. He was suggesting an arbitrary and capricious taking of controversial property by misusing eminent domain. And to woo the board, he said three council members would change their votes from no to yes if the board would choose that site.
He was thinking outside the box, alright. Outside the “ethical” box.
First, I’m not advocating taking the Elliots property to build a library. I’m just defending the thought process of considering it. Second, it does make economic sense to consider the propostion. These are the facts as I understand them: City/Library thinks it needs to build a library on the north side; Elliots is on the north side; Elliots ownership is/will cost the city big bucks to fight over its liquor licence; Elliots will be compensated for its land at fair market value if it is condemned. Now for some opinion to go along with those facts: Legal fees for condemnation will not be anywhere near what it would cost to defend the liquor licence mess. Also, Eagle Cleaners is not a good comparison for two reasons: 1) one Eagle issue was whether city could take property for private owners use – not a problem here; 2) huge fight over what was FMV of cleaners – shouldn’t be an issue here. Also, if city ends up building a library anywhere, it will probably end up spending money on condemnation proceedings. Why not spend the money condemning Elliots rather than the old K’s building? Simply put, while it may not be a better solution in the end, there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about considering putting the library where Elliots is. Also, the US Supreme Court has held that there is no misuse of eminent domain as long as the land is taken for a public benefit and the owner is justly compensated for his land. Also, I guess I have a problem with you calling Ray unethical. What was unethical about considering the propostion? What is so unethical about trying to solve two problems with one solution. If Ray even thought that putting a library on the Elliots site would benefit the taxpayers he would have an ethical duty to see to it that the idea was discussed and considered. Do not put the idea on the table would be unethical.
I agree with CJ. I think Ray is falling on his sword to protect “the three”. Kevin Lyons should ask the Attorney General’s office to appoint a special prosecutor to drain this stinky swamp, before LaHood has another campaign issue.
Really, a criminal investigation? What crime has been committed? The city attorney merely suggests that maybe eminent domain should be used to acquire private property for public use and that the owner be justly compensated for his property.
dd, we agree that there’s nothing criminal. But I still maintain it’s unethical. It’s not an ethical use of eminent domain to use it for vengeance on a private property owner who is suing the city, at least not in my book.
It doesn’t resolve the allegation that the city illegally denied Elliott’s liquor license; they’re still going to have to settle that suit whether the city buys the property or not; if it was illegal, they can sue for damages — lost revenue as a result of not having the liquor license all that time. That issue isn’t going to go away just because of eminent domain proceedings.
It’s also not ethical to suggest that you know of three council people who will change their votes (what he said then) if in fact you didn’t know of three council people who would change their votes (what he says now). Saying so could only be an effort to sway to board to his idea under false pretenses.
C.J. Ethics and politics, now there are two strange bedfellows. Lets assume for a moment that you are correct and that Randy was floating a trial balloon, or running something up the flagpole to see who salutes, or any other metaphor that I’ll tink of later. So what? This is exactly how legislative politics works. You need my vote, I need something in return. (Oh, yea – the old you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Read the recent biography of LBJ or listen to one of the great political operators of our recent past: “politics ain’t beanbag” Harold Washington. As to whether the proposed swap (3 votes for changing the site) is unethical, there are no allegations that anybody is personally gaining. Ethics requires public officials to do what they beleive is in the best interest of the public. If eminent domain is a tool that can be used to solve more than one problem, then use it. Remember, the law is clear – eminent domain can be used so long as the land is taken for public benefit and the owner is fairly compensated. No other considerations matter. As to whether vengence is a motive – so what? The Elliot owners are playing hardball, why shouldn’t our representatives do the same? Ultimately, whether the Elliot owners rights have been violated will be up to the courts to decide.
Sandberg’s letter referred to possibly “illegal” behavior. It should be looked into. If council members were essentially selling their votes in exchange for the cooperation of another public body to use its powers for the improper purpose of retaliating against an unpopular, but legal, business, that sounds like something there might be law prohibiting, doesn’t it? Have we become so accepting of these backroom shenanigans that we don’t even want to get to the facts? You dd, just don’t like Elliots, which is fine with me, but, as I’ve pointed out before, the ends don’t justify the means.
I have nothing against Elliots. They are entitled to run a legal business, just like anyone else. They are entitled to a liquor licence, just maybe not the type of licence they want. That issue will play out in another forum. The Elliot owners are playing hardball – give me the type of liquor licence that I want or I’ll sue you till you run up huge legal bills defending yourself in court. Even if your right, you’ll settle to stop the fees from mounting up. Is this wrong, or unethical or illegal? Heck no. Litigation is the American way. But Elliots, don’t cry when foul when someone suggests trying something a bit creative to counter your gameplan. The problem I have with all this is that anytime someone does something we don’t agree with we’re very quick to throw around terms like “unethical” and “illegal”. I just think we shouldn’t be so quick to use those terms. What Gary Sandberg’s letter has done is expose the kind of hardball politics that goes on all the time in legislative bodies. Harrold was right, “politics ain’t beanbag”. The vote trading and issue swapping that is suggested by Gary’s letter, is hardball politics; its not unethical and it certainly is not illegal. We just may not be used to reading about it in the Journal Star. By the way, I also respect Gary Sandberg. When I listen to the city council, he is often the only one who appears to know what he is talking about. I just wonder why he decided to go public with this. Oh yeah, policitians sometimes “go public” to stop something they don’t have the votes to stop on the council floor. That’s politics.
A conspiracy by multiple elected officials to commit an act of Tortious interference is criminal and can and should be investigated at least. To say there is no criminal act here is irresponsible, this type of thing has to be dealt with swiftly and in the most harsh manor possible. The elected officials that would engage in this type of activity would sooner eat your young and rob your grave before representing your best interests.
Tortious interference. Wow. That’s a new one on me. But it does appear to be on point. According to Wikipedia:
So maybe there is something to this.
Yep, Raoul, I agree. We need the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. dd’s “that’s just the way it is” defense didn’t work for Rezko, and it shouldn’t play in Peoria.
Raoul …. Suggesting that our state’s attorney investigate this situation? Like the authorized destruction of closed session PPD tapes? Much success.
There is more than enough here to warrant an investigation. Anything less simply puts Elliotts in a better position regarding the civil side of this thing. Hell the city should be demanding an investigation just to officially clear them of any wrong doing is in fact they believe they weather a perfunctory Lyons investigation.
Now didn’t Gary resign because the city council was going behind his back. According to the article Gary knew about what was going on.
“Szynaka, who would not comment for this story, repeated Ray’s idea at the board’s building committee meeting on May 19, a meeting that Sandberg attended as the council liaison. It was quickly rejected.”
Why did Gary resign as library liason?
His main thing was that the council went behind his back. From the looks of it Gary knew exactly what is and was going on before he put in his resignation. I think no one really knows what is going on because they are ALL telling us what they want instead of the truth!!!!!
The “suggestion” of any inpropriety on the part of the Council is wrong and should be investigated. They should want to clear this up for their own good in front of the constituents that voted them into office and will be voting again next time.
I give up. Tortious interference is not a crime. Its a tort. Governmental units are exempt for tort (its called tort immunity). Denying a liquor licence is not tortious inteference, its a governmental function. Eminent domain can be used by a govenmental entity with that authority (such as a home rule municipality) for a public benefit, so long as just compensation is paid. To suggest that this is even remotely similar to the Rezko affair, is either completely ignorant or is being done with “actual malice.” Go look that up on Wikipidia.
Thanks for the info, dd. Obviously, none of us here are lawyers.