Local: Council afterthoughts
I hope everyone enjoyed the Peoria City Council meeting today. It was both short, AND boring. Here are the bullet items:
- The council punted on what was to be the big story, a new attempt to pass an ordinance mirroring the state law banning smoking inside commercial establishments. The goal is supposedly to “capture” 100 percent of the ticket revenue. But council member Ryan Spain asked to table the vote until the state comes up with rules on how the state law is supposed to be enforced. Gee, if only the state would do that before they pass legislation like this.
- Council member Barbara Van Auken seemed a little frustrated that no one seconded her motion to table a measure to contact state legislatures to urge them to reconsider future changes in state police and firefighter pensions that put burdens on city governments. She said she needed more time to study the issue, but Mayor Jim Ardis said it’s well established that the state legislature has a habit of increasing pension benefits to these workers, forcing municipal governments to foot the bill. Van Auken is probably the most outspoken advocate for police and firefighters on the council these days. Mayor Ardis is brother to a firefighter, but doesn’t seem to be having any problems behaving as a member of management.
- Council members Gary Sandberg and Pat Nichting have been sniping at each other a bit recently. So it was a little funny to see them unite on the losing side of the 8-2 vote to approve the “agreement and release” that effectively ends Randy Oliver’s tenure at Peoria City Manager. Nichting didn’t discuss his reasons. But Sandberg opposed a section of the agreement that states neither party will “engage in any derogatory statements or discussions concerning the actions of or performance of the other, recognizing that the resignation submitted is intended to be for the best interests of the city and the residents.” Sandberg complained that the term “derogatory” is subjective. “I don’t want to be derogatory. I want to be candid. [The agreement} will not allow for transparency.”
- Council member Clyde Gulley can be a bit long winded and more than a little meandering when he speaks on an issue. But I agree with his request for an explanation why members of the Peoria Police Department sometimes ticket cars for violating the snow ban on roads that have already been plowed from curb to curb. That seems like a really good question to me, too. The ban exists only to get cars off the snow routes so crews can plow. Once the snow is plowed away, ticketing cars that park on cleared roads seems rather, well, abusive.
- This being Peoria, there’s no way simply tabling an issue keeps it from being discussed anyway. There was some discussion at the end of the meeting about how the police plan to enforce the state’s smoking ban. Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard said his department plans to visit some establishments suspected of ignoring law. It’s only fair, he said, because other establishments are obeying the law and shouldn’t have to compete against those that do not. Violators are reported to the Peoria Liquor Commission. Sandberg said that in his experience bars and restaurant tend to be obeying the rules more than other businesses, so it makes no sense to target them. Council member Bill Spears asked what the police were doing to enforce state law in businesses that don’t have liquor licenses. Settingsgaard said other agencies might have to take care of enforcement elsewhere. Police traditionally have a role in making sure liquor license holders follow the rules. But because there’s no enforcement rules in effect, the fact is that some businesses will get away with it, while others will not. Funny, I thought there’s something in the U.S. Constitution requiring equal protection under the law. Apparently not in Illinois and not if you have a liquor license.
- Sandberg, Gully and George Jacob voted against the city’s new sidewalk policy. It seems they didn’t like an amendment that requires the city use Tax Increment Finance funds on all new sidewalks in areas inside a TIF district. There was some debate on whether or not this rule would be too restrictive.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Seems like if there were something to be said regarding the City Manager’s departure, then both Nichting and Sandberg were free to say it before they voted on the contract. The provision regarding no derogatory remarks (which factual statements are not) only went into effect AFTER the vote was taken. So it looks to me that they had the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say but chose not to.
ON BVA, I have to agree with you Billy. Her “advocacy” has gone far beyond what is appropriate and the fact that no one would second her motion should let her know that will a council that is VERY supportive of police and fire, she’s way to far out there on the subject. Let alone the fact that she would even need more time to “study” a motion that simple tells the state to stop passing unfunded mandates!
Consistant with my position during the policy discussion, I do not think that the 80%-20% for sidewalk replacement is high enough especially on major streets. The public sidewalks are public, in the City right of way, and if there is an injury, the City is responsible for damages or injury, therefore the percentage should be higher. The amendment requiring (shall) TIF moneys to be used in TIF areas was of secondary concern of mine.
Gary: Thanks for the clarity.
Peoria Proud: You are putting words in my mouth regarding Van Auken. If you want to talk about someone whose advocacy for city employees goes to far, you may look no further than former council member Chuck Grayeb. Van Auken takes her role as a “boss” very seriously, and has on many occasions help staffers feet to the fire to demand better services for the taxpayers.
“Betting” words in your mouth?
Sorry if I stuffed your mouth Billy. Strike my first sentence that says “ON BVA, I have to agree with you Billy.”. I still believe the rest. This is a no brainer issue. The City can’t afford to pay for benefits increased by the state. No matter how good the cause.
Just to clarify my position on the other item regarding the severance. I understand that the two councilmembers that voted against the package are still bound by the agreement now that it is in effect, I just wished we had heard more facts about why they didn’t think it was appropriate. The only opportunity for those to come out was before a vote was taken when there was no obligation on the parties not to speak about it. Now we’re stuck wondering what happened.
From the time of Randy Oliver’s announcement of his departure from the City of Peoria, I received and talked with seven citizens about that departure regarding both the conditions of the initial employment contract as well as the dynamics associated with the situations without disclosing specifics of executive session. To each of those citizens, (no media) I explained as best I could without breaching the confidentuality of the executive session. Needless to say, others on the City Council felt comfortable sharing executive session specifics as that information became fodder for news articles.
The time for full disclosure is not when executive session confidentiality is at issue, but after the public vote.
Item 4 was NOT part of the original employment contract nor was it any part of the final executive session discussions. It appeared in the Council packet received 5 Feb. On 07 Feb upon reviewing the items in the packet and finding the item 4 issue included in addition to the items covered by the original employment agreement as discussed in executive session, I immediately notified Mayor Ardis that I would NOT be able to support the severance agreement as it included the “Hush Up” condition.
As I said earlier, The time for full disclosure is not when executive session confidentiality is at issue, but after the public vote. No public interest was served by adding Item 4.
No, but it sure benefits Mr. Oliver! Like it or not, he’s no dummy. He knew how to play the council from the minute he wrote his own employment contract in 2003 until his final meeting Tuesday night. I’m sure many a city manager will look up to him with admiration.
Oliver’s contract is much like other contracts in other cities, from what I understand.
Thanks for the insight Gary and I agree that the public interest wasn’t served by the way it was handled throughout. While it’s nice not to air dirty laundry in public (or even clean laundry), a reasonable explanation would have added credibility to the action taken from the public perspective.
Billy – yeah it’s not that different from the standard contract utilized by most City Managers since it’s basis is a “model contract” designed for city managers. However, the severance component was must more lucrative than any previous Peoria City Manager contract as I understand. My concern is less with the amount of the severance but the continuing comments that he wasn’t asked to resign (a key condition of eligibility for the severance) but is being treated under the contract as if he was asked to resign. My pea-brain can’t follow that logic.