*
I especially love this part: "Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates."
Seems to me that having an old law (designed to prevent abuse) overturned so that a friend can vote with you on the council is a rather Ran$burg type thing to do.
From Today's Journal Star:
Holding your liquor (license), public office too Governor signs exemption that opens door to some Peoria council candidates
Saturday, June 4, 2005
BY MATT BUEDEL
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA - Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed legislation Friday allowing some public officials to hold liquor licenses, which would give some Peoria City Council candidates the right to retain their licenses if chosen to fill a vacant at-large seat.
Senate Bill 945 changed existing law to permit people with a "direct interest" in the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol to become members of city councils or county boards, though mayors, board presidents and law enforcing public officials still can't hold liquor licenses.
Officials who do hold licenses will be banned from voting on liquor-related matters under the new law.
Three of the 18 candidates for the City Council seat vacated by Mayor Jim Ardis after he won election in April have liquor licenses and under the old law would have had to give them up if chosen to fill the seat.
Those candidates are Mary Ardapple Dierker, owner of Apple's Bakery Northside Market, George Jacob, president of Brewer's Distributing Co., and Patrick Sullivan, a Peoria developer and owner of Kelleher's Irish Pub.
Sullivan on Friday dismissed the notion that the three received any special treatment and called the original law outdated. He said the exclusion of people who have liquor licenses from public office makes them "second-class citizens."
"I do what I'm supposed to do," he said. "Anyone in the world can run for office. . . . Why am I being punished?"
Asked if he would have given up his license if he was chosen for the vacated council seat, Sullivan said, "Yes."
"I feel that strongly about this city," he added.
Jacob and Ardapple Dierker could not be reached Friday afternoon.
Dan Gillette, who unsuccessfully ran for the 5th District Council seat in April and is vying for the open at-large seat, said the change to state law doesn't impact the selection process for a new council person.
"I don't want to say it's right and I don't want to say it's wrong," he said. "I think the best man will win the job."
Several other candidates could not be reached for comment Friday.
State Sen. Terry Link, D-Lake Bluff, proposed the Senate bill May 19. State Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria, sponsored the bill in the House and proposed an amendment that made the bill effective as soon as the governor signed it.
Leitch said Friday that he proposed the amendment at the urging of Peoria attorney and lobbyist Matt Jones on Ardis' behalf, so the mayor and other council members could enjoy the flexibility of considering all 18 candidates.
Ardis, who didn't return phone calls Friday afternoon, has said he and the council should fill the position by early July.
So... Ardis pulled Leitch's strings so he and the council could consider all 18 candidates.
I don't think so.
Try one candidate.
Good buddy Pat Sullivan.
Saturday, June 4
Friday, June 3
You've Come a Long Way Baby.... Not!
*
The statistic of the day, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
The statistic of the day, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
The median earnings of full time, year around Male workers in Peoria:What would native Peorian, Betty Freidan say? Surely not that Corporate Peoria is benefiting from exploiting its' female employees.
$40,879.00
The median earnings of full time, year around Female workers in Peoria:
$25,642.00
Thursday, June 2
Make Your Checks Payable to...
The next time you pay taxes consider the following:
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)
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.
Wednesday, June 1
If Only All Criminals Were This Stupid...
From today's Peoria Journal Star.
Peorian pleads guilty to stealing vehicle
PEORIA - When police returned a stolen Pontiac Grand Prix to a local car dealership, it didn't take them long to figure out who took the vehicle.
That's because Charles T. Fehil, 34, had left documents from his probation officer and the Illinois Department of Corrections inside.
Fehil, whose court record lists addresses in Peoria and Pekin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and was sentenced to seven years in prison.
According to Peoria County Circuit Court records, police were contacted by the OnStar satellite navigation system that the 2004 car was missing. Police found it outside a house in the 1500 block of South Western Avenue and returned it to Neil Norton Cadillac-Pontiac, 3815 N. War Memorial Drive. There a service technician found the court papers identifying Fehil.
Police found the car in front of the house Fehil was living in at the time. When questioned by police, he confessed to taking the car, court records indicate.
With credit for 18 months already served in Peoria County Jail and "good-time" credit Fehil could get out of prison in about two years.
Peorian pleads guilty to stealing vehicle
PEORIA - When police returned a stolen Pontiac Grand Prix to a local car dealership, it didn't take them long to figure out who took the vehicle.
That's because Charles T. Fehil, 34, had left documents from his probation officer and the Illinois Department of Corrections inside.
Fehil, whose court record lists addresses in Peoria and Pekin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and was sentenced to seven years in prison.
According to Peoria County Circuit Court records, police were contacted by the OnStar satellite navigation system that the 2004 car was missing. Police found it outside a house in the 1500 block of South Western Avenue and returned it to Neil Norton Cadillac-Pontiac, 3815 N. War Memorial Drive. There a service technician found the court papers identifying Fehil.
Police found the car in front of the house Fehil was living in at the time. When questioned by police, he confessed to taking the car, court records indicate.
With credit for 18 months already served in Peoria County Jail and "good-time" credit Fehil could get out of prison in about two years.
Supreme Court: Too Little, WAY too late.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously over turned the conviction of accounting/consulting firm Arthur Andersen. Three years after the original verdict, The Court concedes serious errors were made.
Andersen used to employ 28,000 people. Today they employ about 200 (most of them are involved with litigation). Ironically, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, when the SEC decided to finally do something about Enron. The conviction came after it was revealed Andersen shredded documents from its Enron files. About one ton's worth. One ton. At first, that seems like a whole lot of paper. However, Enron was Andersen's biggest client and Enron was, at the time, the world's seventh largest energy company. One ton is the equivalent to a small two door compact sports car. Moreover, the charges were alleged against a few managers in Andersen's Houston office, not the entire company, which had firms nationwide. Surely prosecutors knew that a conviction would put Andersen as a whole out of business, as so many people were financially devastated when Enron collapsed. Enron resulted in America's biggest bankruptcy, which took down even more than just the company, its 5,000 employees, and investors when it went belly up.
We still anxiously await the convictions of Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling.
Personally, I think Andersen was guilty as hell in its relationship with Enron. That isn't the point. The point is that the wheels of justice can turn so slowly in this country that justice doesn't arrive until the defendant no longer exists. I know we are talking about one court, 12 people, deciding a multitude of the nation's most important cases. However, when the financial well being of nearly 28,000 people are involved, you would think it could get bumped up on the court's "To Do" list.
Even more troubling is the fact that there was not one dissenting vote in overturning the conviction, the decision came only one month after finally hearing the case, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was apparently so appalled with the original verdict that he wrote the eleven page decision himself.
Remember when Bush and Gore were whining about whose turn it was to play president after the 2000 election? The Supreme Court reaction back then was quite swift. In fact, the arguments and decision were carried live, over radio, which before had never been done.
I haven't thought of the 12 top justices in this country as just another pack of glory hound politicians, but now I'm starting wonder.
Andersen used to employ 28,000 people. Today they employ about 200 (most of them are involved with litigation). Ironically, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, when the SEC decided to finally do something about Enron. The conviction came after it was revealed Andersen shredded documents from its Enron files. About one ton's worth. One ton. At first, that seems like a whole lot of paper. However, Enron was Andersen's biggest client and Enron was, at the time, the world's seventh largest energy company. One ton is the equivalent to a small two door compact sports car. Moreover, the charges were alleged against a few managers in Andersen's Houston office, not the entire company, which had firms nationwide. Surely prosecutors knew that a conviction would put Andersen as a whole out of business, as so many people were financially devastated when Enron collapsed. Enron resulted in America's biggest bankruptcy, which took down even more than just the company, its 5,000 employees, and investors when it went belly up.
We still anxiously await the convictions of Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling.
Personally, I think Andersen was guilty as hell in its relationship with Enron. That isn't the point. The point is that the wheels of justice can turn so slowly in this country that justice doesn't arrive until the defendant no longer exists. I know we are talking about one court, 12 people, deciding a multitude of the nation's most important cases. However, when the financial well being of nearly 28,000 people are involved, you would think it could get bumped up on the court's "To Do" list.
Even more troubling is the fact that there was not one dissenting vote in overturning the conviction, the decision came only one month after finally hearing the case, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was apparently so appalled with the original verdict that he wrote the eleven page decision himself.
Remember when Bush and Gore were whining about whose turn it was to play president after the 2000 election? The Supreme Court reaction back then was quite swift. In fact, the arguments and decision were carried live, over radio, which before had never been done.
I haven't thought of the 12 top justices in this country as just another pack of glory hound politicians, but now I'm starting wonder.
Pam Adams Just Doesn't Get It
Journal Star columnist Pam Adams can't decide if she likes Oprah. She can't figure if she is a sellout or an inspiration. She can't decide if, by interviewing celebrities and covering topics such as "The Best Apron, The Best Cookie, The Best Sandwich" Oprah is betraying her background by primarily using her powerful platform to cater to white women.
In the whole race and equality debate there is one event that seems to be overlooked. Victory. Not complete, 100% victory, no. There are still stupid, hateful people on the planet. There are still some who are simply "ignorant" and have not been educated as how to best judge a person's worth. (Hint, it isn't the content of pigment in their skin, Jackass.)
Yet, ugly, overt racism has taken a huge beating. Not just in words, but in deeds. Many (no, not all) white people think nothing unusual in having a black boss, professor, doctor, or Secretary of State. But in this country the real proof is in the pocketbook. White women want to be like Oprah.
They want to wear the same clothes, eat the same food, read the same books and they are ready and more than willing to spend a lot of money in order to do so. In this country, that is power. White women take Oprah's advice, and embrace her wisdom. Mothers flock to the television, baby in one arm, basket of laundry in another, to listen to child rearing and marital advice from someone who has no children and isn't married. They buy cookbooks, diet books, and exercise advice from someone who isn't a size two. There is no white counterpart.
However, Pam Adams remains ambivalent about Oprah. Is a black talk show host that promotes recipes and celebrities really furthering the cause?
Are you kidding me?
It isn't like Oprah hasn't taken on many tough issues, including race, during her reign as America's talk show diva. If her show was comprised only of make overs, movie clips, and fashion shows it would still have a lot of value. The Oprah Show is proof that huge strides have been made.
I am part of a generation and socio-economic class that was raised to not to judge people by their color. It was as inherent in our upbringing as "brush your teeth", "eat your vegetables", and "look both ways before crossing the street." It was further enforced in the media and by Hollywood, watching hit shows like Sesame Street, Different Strokes, and The Cosby Show. Claire Huxtable was the ideal for many preteen girls. She was a successful lawyer, a great mom, beautiful, and yes, wealthy. The fact that she was black and rich didn't seem improbable.
After leaving the nest it has been frustrating, to say the least, to learn that many of my African American contemporaries have been raised to distrust and seemingly isolate themselves whenever possible from whites. It often feels like one side is anxious to embrace the other, while the other side is saying, "Lets keep to ourselves. We've been burned before." I can't say that such feelings are not justified, I know they most certainly are. I question their productivity.
I can already hear the voices of protest. "How do you like it?" Well, "What goes around comes around." And, of course, "You haven't experienced near the hurt and rejection we have." All valid. All true. To some extent, even deserved.
My biggest concern is what the future holds for the children that Generation X is now raising. If one side wants to embrace the other only to be rebuffed with hurt and bitterness, what will the rejected side teach today's children? I don't believe today's thirtysomething white Mothers will be teaching overt racism, but something more along the lines of, "Well, Honey, they just don't like us, and there's not a lot we can do about it."
If this nightmare becomes reality, won't that preclude the possibility of anymore black talk show hosts, secretaries of state, bosses, or newspaper columnists? I believe there are dangers by not claiming and not celebrating hard won victories. By not declaring victory in the war against overt racism, subversive racism will flourish.
Regarding Oprah's immense popularity, Adams asks, "why and why now?" Simple. Oprah Winfrey is honest, funny, strong, charming, entertaining and smart as hell. The fact that she is black does not dampen our admiration and respect for her. Frankly, if Oprah says an apron is good, I believe her. I am more willing to fork over extra money for an apron she recommends than one, say, Peter Jennings might recommend.
Pam, the wealthiest and arguably the most powerful woman in America is black. Rejoice!
In the whole race and equality debate there is one event that seems to be overlooked. Victory. Not complete, 100% victory, no. There are still stupid, hateful people on the planet. There are still some who are simply "ignorant" and have not been educated as how to best judge a person's worth. (Hint, it isn't the content of pigment in their skin, Jackass.)
Yet, ugly, overt racism has taken a huge beating. Not just in words, but in deeds. Many (no, not all) white people think nothing unusual in having a black boss, professor, doctor, or Secretary of State. But in this country the real proof is in the pocketbook. White women want to be like Oprah.
They want to wear the same clothes, eat the same food, read the same books and they are ready and more than willing to spend a lot of money in order to do so. In this country, that is power. White women take Oprah's advice, and embrace her wisdom. Mothers flock to the television, baby in one arm, basket of laundry in another, to listen to child rearing and marital advice from someone who has no children and isn't married. They buy cookbooks, diet books, and exercise advice from someone who isn't a size two. There is no white counterpart.
However, Pam Adams remains ambivalent about Oprah. Is a black talk show host that promotes recipes and celebrities really furthering the cause?
Are you kidding me?
It isn't like Oprah hasn't taken on many tough issues, including race, during her reign as America's talk show diva. If her show was comprised only of make overs, movie clips, and fashion shows it would still have a lot of value. The Oprah Show is proof that huge strides have been made.
I am part of a generation and socio-economic class that was raised to not to judge people by their color. It was as inherent in our upbringing as "brush your teeth", "eat your vegetables", and "look both ways before crossing the street." It was further enforced in the media and by Hollywood, watching hit shows like Sesame Street, Different Strokes, and The Cosby Show. Claire Huxtable was the ideal for many preteen girls. She was a successful lawyer, a great mom, beautiful, and yes, wealthy. The fact that she was black and rich didn't seem improbable.
After leaving the nest it has been frustrating, to say the least, to learn that many of my African American contemporaries have been raised to distrust and seemingly isolate themselves whenever possible from whites. It often feels like one side is anxious to embrace the other, while the other side is saying, "Lets keep to ourselves. We've been burned before." I can't say that such feelings are not justified, I know they most certainly are. I question their productivity.
I can already hear the voices of protest. "How do you like it?" Well, "What goes around comes around." And, of course, "You haven't experienced near the hurt and rejection we have." All valid. All true. To some extent, even deserved.
My biggest concern is what the future holds for the children that Generation X is now raising. If one side wants to embrace the other only to be rebuffed with hurt and bitterness, what will the rejected side teach today's children? I don't believe today's thirtysomething white Mothers will be teaching overt racism, but something more along the lines of, "Well, Honey, they just don't like us, and there's not a lot we can do about it."
If this nightmare becomes reality, won't that preclude the possibility of anymore black talk show hosts, secretaries of state, bosses, or newspaper columnists? I believe there are dangers by not claiming and not celebrating hard won victories. By not declaring victory in the war against overt racism, subversive racism will flourish.
Regarding Oprah's immense popularity, Adams asks, "why and why now?" Simple. Oprah Winfrey is honest, funny, strong, charming, entertaining and smart as hell. The fact that she is black does not dampen our admiration and respect for her. Frankly, if Oprah says an apron is good, I believe her. I am more willing to fork over extra money for an apron she recommends than one, say, Peter Jennings might recommend.
Pam, the wealthiest and arguably the most powerful woman in America is black. Rejoice!
Sunday, May 29
Something to Consider
If Peoria buys the water company, does that mean the water that comes from my tap will stop tasting like cow dung?
Does anyone buy the "There's too much harmless algae in the river" story? Shouldn't the chlorine added to the water supply kill the algae? Something doesn't smell, or taste, right.
I think there might be too much harmful pesticide, chemical drain off from manufacturers, or cow dung in the river.
If Council still wants to buy the water company, start pledging better quality.
Does anyone buy the "There's too much harmless algae in the river" story? Shouldn't the chlorine added to the water supply kill the algae? Something doesn't smell, or taste, right.
I think there might be too much harmful pesticide, chemical drain off from manufacturers, or cow dung in the river.
If Council still wants to buy the water company, start pledging better quality.
Simple Truths
There seems to be some confusion in this area, so I'm going to try to clarify.
Listed below are establishments no one wants to live next to or near by. Fair or not, these establishments are considered low brow, tacky, or dangerous. They are associated with a declining neighborhood and/or crime. Residents have a problem with the actual establishments themselves. Residents don't care so much who owns or runs them (i.e., Male/Female, White/Minority, Slum lord/Landlord, Taxpayer/Tax evader, Clean/Recovered/Recovering/Addict).
So that there will be no surprises, please know that if you intend to open any of the following, people will complain. Loudly. While your future neighbors may whine about parking, personal safety, and the well being of their children, their main concern is likely money.
In all fairness, should any of the following move in... bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your property values goodbye.
Porn/Adult Book Shop
Pawn Shop
House of Hubcaps
Strip Club
Gas stations that sell booze
Bar
Low rent hotel
Homes rented by college students
Recovery/12 Step House
Yet another ugly strip mall
Used Car Lot
Homeless shelter
Teen dance club
Cash Store
Tattoo Parlor
Crack House
Pig Farm
Nuclear Power Plant
Poorly cared for rental properties
While any of the above may actually make money, they will also make you a lot of enemies. Please don't act surpised when it happens.
Listed below are establishments no one wants to live next to or near by. Fair or not, these establishments are considered low brow, tacky, or dangerous. They are associated with a declining neighborhood and/or crime. Residents have a problem with the actual establishments themselves. Residents don't care so much who owns or runs them (i.e., Male/Female, White/Minority, Slum lord/Landlord, Taxpayer/Tax evader, Clean/Recovered/Recovering/Addict).
So that there will be no surprises, please know that if you intend to open any of the following, people will complain. Loudly. While your future neighbors may whine about parking, personal safety, and the well being of their children, their main concern is likely money.
In all fairness, should any of the following move in... bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your property values goodbye.
Porn/Adult Book Shop
Pawn Shop
House of Hubcaps
Strip Club
Gas stations that sell booze
Bar
Low rent hotel
Homes rented by college students
Recovery/12 Step House
Yet another ugly strip mall
Used Car Lot
Homeless shelter
Teen dance club
Cash Store
Tattoo Parlor
Crack House
Pig Farm
Nuclear Power Plant
Poorly cared for rental properties
While any of the above may actually make money, they will also make you a lot of enemies. Please don't act surpised when it happens.
Peoria, Illinois: The Next Banana Republic?
It looks like Peoria's "new generation of leadership" may be taking its cues from the old one. Candidates have lined up, asking to be gifted Mayor Ardis' former At-large seat on the City Council.
Three of the candidates have liquor licenses. Mary Ardapple (Apples Bakery), Pat Sullivan (Kellehers) and George Jacobs (Brewers Distributing). These candidates all knew that those having a liquor license could not be on the Council as mandated by state law.
Behold! Legislation is introduced to overturn the law.
Behold! An amendment is added so that said legislation will take effect upon Blago's signature.
The law may be arcane. After all, its roots begin in the Al Capone days. Nonetheless, a old law is being overturned. You gotta ask. Why now?
I frequently see Ardis and Sullivan weekday mornings at Big Easy Coffee. Most of the fire department drinks at Kellehers. Sandburg is at Kellehers at least a few nights a week. I've seen Van Auken having lunch there too. Clearly, Pat Sullivan is a dear friend of the council. He has a big "in." Getting laws overturned at your convenience to serve on the Council with your buddies strikes me as a Ransburg type tactic. Or a banana republic tactic. I like Sullivan. I like Ardis. But this maneuver smells. Bad.
State Rep. Leitch asked for the amendment so that Ardis, "Could consider a beer distributor for the City Council." Huh?! Apparently Jacob has a pretty big "in" too. By asking for the amendment Jacob has hurt his buddy Leitch. The public just might remember that he pulls strings for social elite.
So what about the other eleven who applied for the job? You gotta feel a bit sorry for them. The mayor ran on a theme of "inclusive government" and these applicants believed it. It's amazing to me that its seemingly easier to overturn a law than run a campaign.
Maybe we need another new law. No appointments.
It was well known that Ardis' seat would be vacant if he won the Mayor's race. Perhaps we should have elected a first runners up or an alternate in the last election. Had Sullivan run he probably would have won. Instead, he has hurt his friend the Mayor by pulling strings and producing the first mini scandal of his administration.
Three of the candidates have liquor licenses. Mary Ardapple (Apples Bakery), Pat Sullivan (Kellehers) and George Jacobs (Brewers Distributing). These candidates all knew that those having a liquor license could not be on the Council as mandated by state law.
Behold! Legislation is introduced to overturn the law.
Behold! An amendment is added so that said legislation will take effect upon Blago's signature.
The law may be arcane. After all, its roots begin in the Al Capone days. Nonetheless, a old law is being overturned. You gotta ask. Why now?
I frequently see Ardis and Sullivan weekday mornings at Big Easy Coffee. Most of the fire department drinks at Kellehers. Sandburg is at Kellehers at least a few nights a week. I've seen Van Auken having lunch there too. Clearly, Pat Sullivan is a dear friend of the council. He has a big "in." Getting laws overturned at your convenience to serve on the Council with your buddies strikes me as a Ransburg type tactic. Or a banana republic tactic. I like Sullivan. I like Ardis. But this maneuver smells. Bad.
State Rep. Leitch asked for the amendment so that Ardis, "Could consider a beer distributor for the City Council." Huh?! Apparently Jacob has a pretty big "in" too. By asking for the amendment Jacob has hurt his buddy Leitch. The public just might remember that he pulls strings for social elite.
So what about the other eleven who applied for the job? You gotta feel a bit sorry for them. The mayor ran on a theme of "inclusive government" and these applicants believed it. It's amazing to me that its seemingly easier to overturn a law than run a campaign.
Maybe we need another new law. No appointments.
It was well known that Ardis' seat would be vacant if he won the Mayor's race. Perhaps we should have elected a first runners up or an alternate in the last election. Had Sullivan run he probably would have won. Instead, he has hurt his friend the Mayor by pulling strings and producing the first mini scandal of his administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)