Tag Archives: State’s Attorney

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 and the Open Meetings Act

47 Comments

District 150 may have violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act when they held their erroneously-titled “meet and greet” (it was more like a “talk and walk” or “read it and beat it”) this past Tuesday.

There’s a two-part test in the Open Meetings Act to determine when a gathering of board members becomes a “meeting” for purposes of the Act. First, there has to be a majority of a quorum. In District 150’s case, that would be three board members. Four board members were in attendance at the gathering in question: Debbie Wolfmeyer, Laura Petelle, Linda Butler, and Martha Ross. That constitutes not only a majority of a quorum, but a majority of the seven-member Board of Education. Second, the gathering has to be “held for the purpose of discussing public business.” It’s on this point that opinions vary.

District 150 officials, Billy Dennis of the Peoria Pundit, and many commenters on my blog insist that this gathering was not for the purpose of discussing public business. The superintendent candidate read a statement and the board members took questions from the press, but they didn’t discuss public business with each other — thus, no violation. Billy Dennis’ recent post indicates that the Attorney General’s office may be siding with District 150 on this matter. He quotes an e-mail he received from district spokesperson Stacey Shangraw where she says:

While we did not believe we were in violation of the Open Meetings Act, a few concerns were raised from external parties regarding our compliance of the OMA at our media event where we introduced Dr. Lathan. To ensure that our interpretation of the Act was accurate, I followed up with the Public Access Counselor.

This is the response I received today from Sarah Kaplan, a law clerk at the AG’s Chicago office, who told me she conferred with Lola Dada-Olley, an attorney in the AG’s Chicago office.

“After reviewing the information you provided us, it does not sound like the press conference (or future press conferences of this nature) violated the OMA….”

The key phrase here is: “After reviewing the information you provided us.” Of course, we don’t know what information was provided. Furthermore, we don’t know much about who’s giving the opinion. Lola Dada-Olley has been with the Attorney General’s office a little over a month, having started in January of this year according to LinkedIn. Can’t find anything on Sarah Kaplan the law clerk. However, the Public Access Counselor for Illinois is Cara Smith, and she’s in Springfield, not Chicago.

Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons thinks they did, in fact, violate the Open Meetings Act, according to the Journal Star:

“Violations of this act always involve quirky levels, and this one is no different,” Lyons said in an e-mail response, “. . . the meeting was clearly a public meeting with notification deficits and exclusion problems. The members present were in noncompliance of the act and the (State’s Attorney’s Office) could sanction, charge, or otherwise seek any level of ‘penalty’ or remedy available.” […]

“Even a casual gathering, such as a dinner party or coincidental meeting on the sidewalk, becomes a public meeting if a majority of a quorum of a public body (or a committee, etc. thereof) is present, and discussion occurs regarding business that is before, or is likely to come before, that public body,” Lyons said….

“A public body, no matter how well-intentioned, may not hold a public meeting and define for itself who may and may not attend the meeting. Public means everyone unless they, for cause, have been ejected or barred (disruption, etc.). Posting and distribution of notices for all public meetings are set out in the act and may not be narrowed by the public body.”

Lyons wasn’t relying on information he received from District 150 in writing his opinion, and he apparently thinks what was talked about during the gathering constituted a “discussion” of public business for purposes of the Act.

But whether or not you think they violated the Act, the big question is: Does it matter in this case? After all, the press was there, and nothing was done in secret, so isn’t this much ado about nothing?

And the answer is “yes and no.” If District 150 had built up trust and credibility with the public over a number of years, I’m sure everyone would give them the benefit of the doubt and just say it was an honest mistake. But District 150 hasn’t done that. It wasn’t that long ago that District 150 agreed in closed session to purchase properties on Prospect Road adjacent to Glen Oak Park, and then actually bought the properties, all in clear violation of the Open Meetings Act. They never apologized or admitted any fault. They subsequently approved the purchases in open session, something lawyers call post-action ratification. That did tremendous damage to the public’s trust. Since then, controversial votes based on questionable information (e.g., shortening school days supposedly to improve classroom instruction, closing Woodruff supposedly to save $2.7 million) have further eroded the board’s credibility. So when an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act occurs now, even if it’s a little thing, it’s a big deal.

The public has every right to suspect that this latest gathering violated the Open Meetings Act, and that the violation was because of either (a) ignorance or (b) wanton disregard. The public wonders, “if they’ll abuse the Act in a little thing like this, what’s to stop them from abusing it in big things when nobody’s looking?”

2010 Election

Reasons not to vote for Umholtz for judge

16 Comments

Valerie Umholtz is running for judge in the 10th Judicial Circuit. The 10th Judicial Circuit in Illinois covers five counties: Peoria, Marshall, Putnam, Stark, and Tazewell. Her husband is the State’s Attorney for Tazewell County, Stewart Umholtz. He’s also her campaign manager. He’s also a big monetary contributor to her campaign:

[Valerie] Umholtz raised roughly $48,500. That includes more than $10,000 transferred from the previous campaign for attorney general of her husband, Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stewart Umholtz. She also received a recent $20,000 loan from him.

The Journal Star Editorial Board has endorsed her over her Republican primary challengers, John Vespa and Bruce Thiemann. The board acknowledges the relationship, but ultimately feels it’s “manageable”:

Voters should know that Umholtz is married to Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stu Umholtz, which could pose a conflict in those courtrooms in which the state’s attorney has a presence – felony, misdemeanor, traffic court, potentially some others. Her election would reduce the chief judge’s flexibility somewhat in assigning courtrooms, but from where we sit it’s a manageable situation – Umholtz could be placed in Peoria County, for example – and therefore not disqualifying. That said, it’s fair for voters to factor it into their decision.

A couple thoughts about this situation:

First, when the paper says it “could pose a conflict in those courtrooms in which the state’s attorney has a presence,” that doesn’t just mean Stewart Umholtz himself, but anyone in the Tazewell County State’s Attorney’s office. Mr. Umholtz’s conflict of interest is imputed to the entire prosecutor’s office. While it may be “manageable,” it’s not optimal. Tazewell County is the second-largest county in the 10th circuit with a little over 38% of the five-county population. It seems to me that the only reason to vote for a judicial candidate with such a huge potential for conflict of interest within the circuit is if there’s some compelling reason to vote against her challengers. The Journal Star offers only one reason to vote against Vespa — his low grade by his peers on the Illinois State Bar Association’s bar poll. No reason is given to vote against Thiemann. (Incidentally, Thiemann received higher ratings than Umholtz on the bar poll.)

Secondly, the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct says, “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities.” It goes on to elaborate: “A judge should . . . conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Lawyers are able to slice ethical nuance with a scalpel, but laymen will look at Umholtz the judge married to Umholtz the State’s Attorney and see plenty of “appearance of impropriety,” even if any real conflict is “managed.” And when it comes to promoting “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” it’s the laymen that count, not the lawyers.

In the end, voters should ask themselves why they would want a Republican judicial candidate in the general election (and ultimately, a potential judge) who is disqualified from presiding over so much in Tazewell County when the other candidates have no such conflicts. Despite the Journal Star’s endorsement, I don’t see any good reason to vote for Umholtz.

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

State’s attorney closes Schock notary case

3 Comments

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.

2008 Campaign

LaHood photo under scrutiny

14 Comments

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:

  1. Any violation of this law would be against the “governmental entity” — in this case the Peoria Heights Police Department — and not Darin LaHood.

  2. 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.

2008 Campaign

Peoria Chamber PAC endorses LaHood for State’s Attorney (UPDATED)

2 Comments

From a press release:

Peoria Chamber Backs LaHood for State’s Attorney
Economic development, home sales, quality of life all tied to sprawling crime problem

Peoria, IL – The Peoria Chamber of Commerce is the latest organization to announce public support for Darin LaHood in the Peoria County State’s Attorney race. This news came after a live-broadcast debate the business group hosted for LaHood and his opponent, an incumbent State’s Attorney of 20 years.

“Addressing crime in Peoria is the number one issue in this race. I have put forth a 5-point plan to combat this problem while my opponent has indicated his office would only offer more of the same,” explained Peoria County State’s Attorney candidate Darin LaHood during a live debate Wednesday morning at the Heartland Partnership office. “Every police organization – including six unions – has endorsed my candidacy along with eight members of the City Council and numerous community leaders. People understand that we need a new approach to fighting crime.”

Immediately following a spirited debate between the two contenders for the State’s Attorney’s office, the Peoria Chamber of Commerce announced that they, too, were behind LaHood in this race, calling for change in the top prosecutor’s office.

“The endorsement from the Chamber means a great deal to my campaign,” said LaHood. “I am thankful for all of my supporters – who may not always agree with one another on all the issues – but do agree that we need a change. The Peoria Chamber has flourished in the last ten years and understands that even better days are ahead if we can effectively combat crime. “I’ll restate it. As State’s Attorney, I will work with all citizens of Peoria and collaborate with groups and leaders from all sectors to make Peoria a safe place for our families.”

Before Chamber members present for the debate, LaHood discussed how the business community can continue to grow, greater economic development can take place, the City of Peoria can become the destination for home buyers in the area rather than more suburban developments and an overall quality of life can be achieved if crime is effectively addressed. That, said LaHood, has to be a priority of the County’s top prosecutor, something that has been lacking in the office for the last 20 years.

Forty-year old Darin LaHood presently practices law with the Peoria firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Prior to that, he served as Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor for four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood gained experience as a county prosecutor during the years he spent as an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen, are both Peoria natives and are raising three children. They are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations, and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. To learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign, visit Darin’s website.

Update: The LaHood campaign issued this correction to their earlier press release:

Previous release from October 1 was in error when referring to the Peoria Area Chamber Political Action Committee as the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce. We apologize for the inconvenience and any misunderstanding the oversight may have cause.