Peoria's current total amount of financed debt: $119,833,038.00No small bills, please.
Your share: $1,061.07
Your family's share
(assumes a household of 2 adults, 2 children): $4,244
If Peoria buys the water company:
Peoria's debt: $371,833,038.00*
(*Assumes purchase price of $220,000,000.00 + financing cost of $32,000,000.00)
Your share: $3,294.42
Your family's share
(assumes a household of 2 adults, 2 children): $13,169.69
(figures based upon 2000 census info)
Thursday, June 2
Make Your Checks Payable to...
The next time you pay taxes consider the following:
Who's The Boss? Local 50, Of Course!
*
I thought the firefighters' take over of Peoria was complete upon the recent elections of Ardis, Manning, and Van Auken to City Council. I was naive. Why stop at the City Council when you can take make your boss whine like a little girl? Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that will allow firefighters to run for city elections.
From today's Journal Star:
The article goes on to state that the people wetting themselves at the prospect of this bill becoming law are firefighters themselves, specifically, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association.
From the same article:
I have two questions:
Why couldn't an elected firefighter just abstain from all votes involving the Fire Department? After all, Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that would allow liquor license holders to be elected to city council as long as they abstain from votes involving liquor. There are A LOT of votes involving liquor. There are not nearly as many as votes before the council regarding the Fire Department.
Secondly, why does Chief Modglin fear the prospect of his subordinates having a seat on the Council? Aren't these guys all brothers? Why would a firefighter vote for anything that could jeopardize the safety, well being, and salaries of his fellow firefighters? Makes one wonder about the relationship between the guys fighting the fires and the guys in the administration. Is it possible firefighters view the Chief as someone more in the City's pocket than on their side?
My concern with having city employees or liquor license holders in public office is the same. What if more than one gets elected? In the case of those with liquor licenses it is a real possibility that more than one could be elected. Alcohol issues come before the council at every session. If more than one member has to abstain, ties and deadlocks become likely.
What if you have a ascme city employee, a police officer, and a firefighter on the council? That would be a lot of abstentions and result in a lot of odd votes and decisions - ones that do not reflect the views or the best interests of average Peorians. If you think this possibility is far fetched, think again.
Remember that Unions are very involved in elections. Ask Ardis, Manning and Van Auken how crucial it is to have the firefighters in your (campaign) corner. It is in the realm of possibility that Unions would have their very own members holding office as well as the support of those on the council whose campaigns they financed.
I like the idea of cops, city employees and firefighters in local government. I prefer the idea of the "Average Joe" in office than another MBA or lawyer. However, the council was specifically designed with eleven members, in part, to keep ties and deadlocks to a minimum. If we want to allow any citizen (regardless of his day job) an opportunity to run for office, great, all the better. But serious thought must be given to the re-structuring of local government. In the current legislation under consideration, I don't see anything that would counter potential new abuses.
I thought the firefighters' take over of Peoria was complete upon the recent elections of Ardis, Manning, and Van Auken to City Council. I was naive. Why stop at the City Council when you can take make your boss whine like a little girl? Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that will allow firefighters to run for city elections.
From today's Journal Star:
If Gov. Rod Blagojevich signs House Bill 1338, Tony Ardis, president of Peoria's firefighters union, could run for a seat on the City Council alongside his brother, Mayor Jim Ardis. But he wouldn't.
"First off, one Ardis on the council is plenty," Tony Ardis says jokingly.
The article goes on to state that the people wetting themselves at the prospect of this bill becoming law are firefighters themselves, specifically, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association.
From the same article:
"Technically, the city manager is my boss, but the council is his boss," said Peoria Fire Chief Roy Modglin, who opposes the bill.
I have two questions:
Why couldn't an elected firefighter just abstain from all votes involving the Fire Department? After all, Blago is getting ready to sign a bill that would allow liquor license holders to be elected to city council as long as they abstain from votes involving liquor. There are A LOT of votes involving liquor. There are not nearly as many as votes before the council regarding the Fire Department.
Secondly, why does Chief Modglin fear the prospect of his subordinates having a seat on the Council? Aren't these guys all brothers? Why would a firefighter vote for anything that could jeopardize the safety, well being, and salaries of his fellow firefighters? Makes one wonder about the relationship between the guys fighting the fires and the guys in the administration. Is it possible firefighters view the Chief as someone more in the City's pocket than on their side?
My concern with having city employees or liquor license holders in public office is the same. What if more than one gets elected? In the case of those with liquor licenses it is a real possibility that more than one could be elected. Alcohol issues come before the council at every session. If more than one member has to abstain, ties and deadlocks become likely.
What if you have a ascme city employee, a police officer, and a firefighter on the council? That would be a lot of abstentions and result in a lot of odd votes and decisions - ones that do not reflect the views or the best interests of average Peorians. If you think this possibility is far fetched, think again.
Remember that Unions are very involved in elections. Ask Ardis, Manning and Van Auken how crucial it is to have the firefighters in your (campaign) corner. It is in the realm of possibility that Unions would have their very own members holding office as well as the support of those on the council whose campaigns they financed.
I like the idea of cops, city employees and firefighters in local government. I prefer the idea of the "Average Joe" in office than another MBA or lawyer. However, the council was specifically designed with eleven members, in part, to keep ties and deadlocks to a minimum. If we want to allow any citizen (regardless of his day job) an opportunity to run for office, great, all the better. But serious thought must be given to the re-structuring of local government. In the current legislation under consideration, I don't see anything that would counter potential new abuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)