Local: Sigma Nu plans to file lawsuit against City Council member (UPDATED)
From a press release:
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Planning Purposes
March 4, 2009
Contact: Jeffrey R. Hall, Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser L.L.C.
(309-231-9980)
News Conference TomorrowAttorneys file civil lawsuit against Peoria Councilwoman
Barbara Van Auken for drunken abuse of power last fall
Peoria…Attorneys for the Sigma Nu fraternity are filing a civil lawsuit against Peoria City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken for her drunken escapade last fall abusing her power, insulting Bradley University police and willful trespassing on the property of the Sigma Nu fraternity.
At the news conference the attorneys and leaders of the fraternity will discuss the particulars of the lawsuit and hand out supporting evidence to members of the media. The incident occurred on September 29, 2008 and now that the process of discovery—which was made difficult by the City of Peoria—is complete, the lawsuit is being filed.
News Conference:
Location: Sigma Nu Fraternity
(1300 W. Fredonia), Peoria
10:30 am
Thursday, March 5, 2009
And after I received the above “media advisory,” I received the following email:
This is also a request to not report this story tonight as we have yet to file the lawsuit today. Please embargo the story until our news conference tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the Sigma Nu Fraternity house as reported in my previous email.
Jeffrey R. Hall
Sorry. Both emails arrived in my inbox unsolicited. I didn’t agree ahead of time to not report on it. This is news, and I’m reporting on it.
And yes, I know that I’ll be criticized for it. And I know some folks will say that I’m just protecting a friend. So be it. And I’m sure that folks will assume that this lawsuit was filed a month before the election just to hurt Van Auken’s el-election chances, So be it.
My earlier posts about the issue:
Local: Van Auken fights for neighborhood, hands foes an issue
Local: Sigma Nu incident was simmering for months
Local: A few new details about Sigma Nu incident
UPDATE: From the lawfirm:
On the media advisory, the date given for the incident occurring was September 29, 2008. That is incorrect. The incident began around11:33 on September 19, and continued into September 20, 2008.
Regarding embargoes, from PRWeek:
“(Embargoes) are not a particularly ethical arrangement from a media standpoint, argues Gary Hill, head of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists, and an broadcast investigative reporter in the Twin Cities. “People will just kind of feed you the information and slap something on the top of it that says this is embargoed until such and such a time. We didn’t ask for the information; they just ship the information, and then they ask us to act in a certain fashion, when our ethics say we should act in a different fashion. Its not necessarily ethical on our part to honor the embargo.”
The best journalists will tell you their first loyalty lies with the public. If information is viewed as important for safety or welfare, embargoing can come across as self-serving. And honoring the embargo becomes a greater ethical breach than publishing the information.
“The embargo may be illegitimate if it is merely serving the interests of the organization releasing the information, points out Bob Steele, head of the ethics program at The Poynter Institute. “The ethical issue of embargoes has to do with the importance of the information to the public.
If what’s being withheld is of value to the public, then journalists could very well be unethical by failing to serve the citizens to whom they owe primary allegiance.”
This is one of my concerns with the mainstream press. It tends to define what is ethical by what makesw their job easier to do.
Am I worried that somehow I’m gonna stop getting press releases. Not really. But if I would have to lower my standards to g3et press releases, I’d just as soon stop anyway.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Loose lips sink ships, Bill. I think you might lose some credibility as a trustworthy confidante over this. I don’t disagree with your reasons for declining to be discreet until a certain time, you’re right: they didn’t ask you ahead of time. Still, I can’t imagine it encourages others who have a story which requires discretion to hit you up. :/
March 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Billy, better know who your friends are and what they say behind your back. BVA does not deserve your “protecting”. Of course once again, the city will probably have to pay in this case but other than that…ILMAO!!!
March 4th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I agree with Postsimian but it’s your business.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Gee, isn’t the timing of this a strange cooincidence? (Sarcasm). BTW, I know if you agree to embargo a story, you’ll stick your word. You’re under no obligation here. Thanks for keeping us informed.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Interesting…. so the Sigma Nu frat boys didn’t have the balls to run against her directly, so they are going to play court games instead. Should be telling. I better get some popcorn, this is going to be entertaining.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Yep…agree with everything the other commenters have said and understand your rationale. However, it’s obvious to me that your view is also clouded due to other factors…. Billy, I’ll let you in on a not-so-secret secret – she puts her hands on EVERY man!
You’ve recently held back information on other stories that were (in my opinion) far less newsworthy than this one because your confidential source asked you to. I think you’ll lose more than you gain from this action – but as Diane says – it’s your call.
Did anyone really expect that this issue wouldn’t come up again during the election? I’m anxious to see if they have any real evidence to share during the news conference or if it’ll be a let down.
Emtronics – I don’t think the City will have to pay anything — whatever she did wasn’t being done (in my opinion) in her official capacity of a City Councilwoman and I think that is the legal approach that the City should take.
Sigma Nu should have used the same phrase as Glenda did to the Wicked Witch of the West: “You have no power here. Be gone before somebody drops a house on you, too!” Not sure why that quote keeps coming to mind in this situation!
March 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Please. The press release is a joke.
“Drunken escapade?”
“which was made more difficult by the city”
If they expect to be taken seriously they should use more standard language for a press release.
Thanks, Bill. You did the right thing.
But, I also think that’s what they wanted you to do. Create a buzz.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It is kind of humorous when you think about it… expecting Billy to keep a secret.. ha ha…
March 4th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I wonder if the boys at Sigma Nu ever have underage drinking in their “house” Maybe the PPD should start going through the house whenever there is a party and start checking ID’s. I wonder if the International Fraternity is aware of the lawsuit? Usually International Fraternity leadership encourages chapters to get along with the campus and the municipality in which they are located. Poor timing on their part. I would imagine that many that live in the Second District would feel little sympathy for drunken frat boys, they are more concerned with keeping their jobs/ paying the mortgage/ caring for the kids.
Milton C “Curphy” Smith II, the frat boy from Eastern (Diane’s words) gains the support of drunken frat boys that pay $30,000 per year to attend Bradley University. I feel a real connection to Milton C Smith II already.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
It shouldn’t matter whether they asked you to embargo it 5 seconds or 5 hours after they sent you the release. If they wanted it embargoed, it should have said so from the beginning. Just like on the playground, no take-backsies.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Broken, it isn’t an issue of whether or not anyone has sympathy for frat boys its whether or not a city council person abused her powers in a drunken fit. And I don’t see how this press release shows that Curphy has gained the support of this organization. As a matter of fact it has nothing to do with Mr. Smith.
“so the Sigma Nu frat boys didn’t have the balls to run against her directly” – so anytime some has a disagreement with an elected official they need to run for office against them to make their point? I guess everyone posting here should start collecting petitions then…
March 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Bravo, the timing seems odd to me. i would be willing to bet Milton C Smith II will be courting the frat boy vote, by tapping into their dislike of BVA. The International HQ of Sigma Nu will most likely have a say whether or not this suit goes forward.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Broken, wouldn’t that fall under the heading of “campaigning”?
March 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Is it possible that you just posted it early because you wanted to be the first to break the story and get more traffic to your site because you knew everyone else would respect the embargo, not for any of the high-minded reasons you stated?
March 4th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Two things:
1. The top of the press release says “For Planning Purposes Only.” I’ve never been invited to press conference before, but I would gather they were trying to just invite you, not get the word out. I think you should have respected that.
2. That said, I’m no lawyer, but what damages would they have claim to? Did BVA trample some roses? You can’t sue on behalf of the Bradley cops she “insulted” if Bradley doesn’t file suit jointly, right? As for abuse of power, again I’d wonder what the damages were.
Sounds like well-timed publicity stunt to me (and I’m no BVA fan).
March 4th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
New media means new rules. Adapt or die.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Sigma Nu almost certainly launched this at this time to damage BVA’s chances at winning the race. It’s really a smart move on their part if they don’t want to deal with her in a position of power. What should scare them, however, are the drunken rampages she’ll go on once she doesn’t have to maintain a modicum of civilized behavior to keep her office.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Broken Windows, you’re kind of a prick, aren’t you?
March 4th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Broken is a campaign troll, wait until April they’ll be gone…as well as their party-line bullet points.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
It’s a lawsuit about nothing. Most folks that post complain that the msm takes too long to get stories up for them to read. Bill posts a press release about a frivolous lawsuit that will tie up court time (if it is actually filed) and you guys carp.
Good for you Bravo, I will leave in April after BVA defeats Milton C Smith II.
You can have the last word, you get off on being superior to most folks, have at it.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
coupla points –
broken windows, the PPD can’t just go through any house checking IDs whenever they feel like it. while you and the PPD might be surprised to hear of it, we here less smarter folks than you gots a constitution and warrant requirements to protect us.
sud o nym, intentional torts, like trespass do not require actual damages but do allow for punitive damages, and maybe the suit isn’t about money (shocking but attorneys sometimes do pro bono work).but about exposing a politician drunk on power and also just drunk!
March 4th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Well, pretty much anyone who posts anonymously just so they can hide behind these here interwebs when they make personal attacks on someone is a prick.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Bill,
Citizendependant Reportalism strikes again!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
omg sigma nu needs to grow up!!!!! I worry about them going into the real world!!! Way to go BVA you are there for your the real people who count. And for Curpy Kirby whatever you are How dirty!!!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Isn’t there another prominent politician missing from this little drama fest?
March 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Bradley has a biggggggg problem and someones eyes are closed. These boys dont have much to do but get drunk. I really think this is going to help her winning again. Think about it … someone calls her..instead of her telling them she will handle it the next day, she drops what she is doing to take care of the problem kudos bva more should be like that!! kiby dont be jealous you cant amount to that, she went out of her way. And people she is a ADULT and does have a life outside of the city but seems she is always on duty!!!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Mamba- if you think that responding like a vigilante while intoxicated is good service to the voters of the 2nd District, then god help us all. I have called BVA many times about thugs in my neighborhood selling drugs and I have never seen her show up, let alone confront them. Why show up so quickly for the wealthy area of the district?
I have a feeling by the time all the facts are out on this, it will prove to be embarassing not only for BVA, but also for the city of Peoria as a whole.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I need a drink! Cheers! I live far away from Barbara Van Auken, so I can get drunk without the fear of her showing up on my stoop. I win again!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
2nd District Observer: “I have a feeling by the time all the facts are out on this, it will prove to be embarassing not only for BVA, but also for the city of Peoria as a whole.”
I call bullshit. This was one of the most covered topics in the blogosphere when it happened. There has been plenty of opportunities for everyone involved to have their say.
2DO: If YOU have any special knowledge of this incident, then state it. Preferably, do it on the record using your real name.
I am quite familiar with this tactic of claiming, anonymously of course, that there are damaging facts about someone in office or running for office that are somehow being kept from the public.
I call bullshit. Put us or shut up.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
here’s the link back to a pjstar article about the matter:
http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x72908225/Report-Van-Auken-tried-to-use-position
March 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Billy:
I am assuming that if these lawyers are to the stage of filing a lawsuit, they have gone through at least some kind of discovery process to even take the case on. (Although I’m not a lawyer, so maybe that comes next?)
In any case, they must be pretty sure of themselves to risk a case like this. If it was indeed so covered by the blogosphere, please feel free to post any info. the “blogosphere” got in their FOIA requests- if it was so well covered that must be a step the “blogosphere” took, right? Maybe I missed it? (if so, please feel free to correct me)
I’ll definitely be tuning in tomorrow to see if the lawyers in this case “put up or shut up.”
March 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
So, you are saying that you have no first hand knowledge of any additional embarrassing facts? Are you saying that you have no second-hand-knowledge?
And I am not so naive as to think that lawfirms don’t file frivolous lawsuits. I have had enough experience with lawyers to know that one doesn’t ethically send out press releases about lawsuits one plans to file the next day.
And I myself linked to three posts I wrote about this. One of my commenters linked to a PJS article about it.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Billy:
You made a fair point- I went back and read all of the article on this- I’d like to ammend my comments to say this is already an embrassment to BVA and the city of Peoria as a whole. How is this acceptable behavior from a councilperson? That’s the question I still don’t have a clear answer to…
March 5th, 2009 at 12:35 am
This is Billy again:
I have several questions that I would like to ask, but cannot since I will not be able to attend:
Since the purpose of ANY lawsuit of this type is to seek money, why isn’t Sigmu Nu suing the City of Peoria? Van Auken is hardly rich. The deep pockets here belong to the City of Peoria. And I am almost certain the city of Peoria will almost certainly step in to defend her, since she was acting in her capacity as a member of the council.
If the Sigma Nu isn’t going after someone who can pay, are we to assume that the lawfirm is getting paid up front? If so, who is paying for the cost of filing this lawsuit?
What ethical restrictions exist, if any, that would prohibit members of the bar from notifying the press about lawsuits that promise they will file the next day?
March 5th, 2009 at 12:58 am
2DO-discovery begins after suit is filed; however, FOIA requests can be used prior to filing as a method of investigating claims.
Admin/BD-always the cynic. the premise that the purpose of any suit of ‘this’ type is to seek money is flawed (and btw of what type are you referring?). Um, justice and the vindication of property rights? bringing into the sunshine the behavior of public servants (gee, don’t journalists also aspire to that?)?
Why assume the City will defend her? maybe they’ll toss her under the proverbial bus and say she was in no way acting in her official capacity. And maybe the case is pro bono.
As for rules of ethics (too much to type or paraphrase):
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/art_viii/ArtVIII.htm#3.6
March 5th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Why should the city step in and defend her if they don’t have to? Wouldn’t that be an inrresponsible use of taxpayer money?
And anyone who accuses Curphy Smith of having anything to do with this should either put up the evidence or refrain from making the claim.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:36 am
An embargo is an agreement between a newsmaker and media outlets. You can’t assume an agreement is place because one side issues the terms unilaterally. I think Billy is well within his rights here. If the embargo was that important, the frat should have made contact with media sources and found out who would honor the embargo.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:56 am
I think everytime these so called students break another law they should be sued, and a matter of fact so should Bradley…..now thats deep pockets!!
March 5th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Why would you send out an e-mail in advance and hope, that against your wishes, that someone wouldn’t use that information, ESPECIALLY if you don’t ask them first beforehand? That is about as irresponsible as having parties that keep the neighbors up and cause a tipsy councilperson to show up at your doorstep.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Folks: it;s just a struggling law firm looking for publicity. This will never come to a head-when the election os over, it will disappear. That girl fraternity should be ashamed of themselves!
March 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
That makes sense, Jonathon. In fact one could anticipate someone who doesn’t want something to get out claiming the use of an embargo agreement just to keep things quiet for awhile…
Is it possible Billy was right on this one?
March 5th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Ahl has a point. At the same time, these guys aren’t exactly professionals who know the ropes.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
ROFLMAO….Simi, do you mean the law firm/lawyer that released the “Media Advisory – For Planning Purposes” or the frat that aren’t exactly professionals who know the ropes?
(Afterall, it was the firm that sent out the email, no?)
March 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You are crazy to think this has nothing to do with the campaign. The Smith campaign has been courting the fraternities for a bit now. Think about it…who announces a press conference to say they are suing someone?
When the media gets a call there are other motives. Just look back to the Gordon/Krupa and Lyons Lahood races. Wouldn’t surprise me if Steve Sheer (spelling) was consulted about this.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Themis: yes?
March 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
John T: put up or shut up.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Get off my lawn.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, all frat boys are drunks. Yeah BVA wasn’t drunk nor did she violate any laws by poking a cop in the chest. Her friend, the LT from PPD let her off the hook against many of the officers there better wishes. He has since retired so that card can’t be played anymore. Will this cost the city money? Maybe, maybe not but yet another black eye for the council.
I hope the frat house wins a judgement and consdiering the “other” 2 people involved in the suit, one being the owner of AMT, I’ll bet there is a quite settlement.
BVA was wrong in her actions that night and maybe so were the frat boys, but it was the frat that called the police, it was BVA that made an ass of herself on behalf of the city.
Billy will defend her here as he always does but I will tell you up front, BVA is two faced. Get on her wrong side and she’ll flush you like a turd. I hope she gets beat in the 2nd but she probably won’t because the blue blood types in her district love this sort of sh*t.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I am in a frat myself and we HATE the sigs…. GO PEORIA!!!!!They ruin it for the rest of us!
March 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The hospitals own and control AMT. He is their puppet CEO…remember AMT is a “non-for-profit” company.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Spoiled frat babys just want a good cry
March 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
check out the eye popin police reports yourself at this website
http://www.barbaravanauken.com
March 5th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
It should be noted that while these reports are written on Peoria Police Department forms, they are signed by Bradley University security employees, Sgt. Nora Fales and Sgt. Rick Hutchison. Van Auken disputes the facts as written in these reports.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Admin:
You might want to check that statement out- Bradley Cops are licensed police officers, not security employees- ask any local LEO and they will verify that fact.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Billy:
The question also comes to mind that if you are saying that, “Van Auken disputes the facts as written in these reports,” does that mean she went on the record with you in response to these allegations?
Is she again calling REAL police officers “Liars”?
I find it to be more than a little ironic that a councilwoman supposedly championing full police and fire resources to the district would have no problem calling police officers liars…
March 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Once again, I remind you that this post includes links to earlier posts about this incident, including this one: http://pundit.blogpeoria.com/2008/09/23/local-sigma-nu-incident-was-simmering-for-months/
March 6th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Wow. This stuff is golden.
http://barbaravanauken.com/
March 6th, 2009 at 4:38 am
So you, too, are saying Bradley cops are not the “real police”? Even if they weren’t, are you suggesting that they filed false reports? Or that they are less trustworthy because they’re Bradley officers? I guess what I’m saying is, your statement is a distinction without a difference.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
No. What I am saying is that someone reading these reports might get the impression they were written bymembers of the Peoria Police Department. They are not. And I am saying that the accuracy of the reports is being questioned.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:15 am
That flyer in the barbaravanauken.com website is priceless. The only thing it is missing is a F*ck you.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Well, I am going to use today’s news as a reminder that I need to make a donation to the Van Auken campaign.
The blunt truth is while most of the Bradley students are ok as neighbors, some are not and simply won’t listen to reason.
Bottom line: if you live in a neighborhood, you aren’t exempt from the neighborhood rules.
Also, Bradley is limited as to what it can do and it is also limited by enrollment pressures.
So, the one advocate our neighborhood has is our city council person.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Priceless,
About that flyer… the information in it is pretty standard stuff that has been given out at other universities in the state. That some people in Peoria have a problem with it, is telling.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’d like to see the Peoria Police reports on this also. If Barbara is disputing the facts, why didn’t she submit a signed statement to the police regarding her side? Easy to dispute “off the record” or after the fact, a whole different thing to do it under oath or the potential for being charged with filing a false police report.
I think the whole thing is somewhat overblown in terms of importance. I could have respected her if she’d acknowledged that she was out of line and said things while drunk that she shouldn’t have. Been there and done that in my past. Unfortunately, I never had the authority to abuse that would enable me to command the Police to my rescue and to issue a ticket to the other party. Not sure how the Peoria Police Department could legally issue a ticket without having observed the “violation” – what basis did they have? the word of a drunk councilwoman?
I think the video may shed some light on this…..looking forward to viewing.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
i guarantee that bradley police are a unit of the peoria police department. that is why they write reports on peoria pd forms. anyone not believe me? call the peoria police department.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
The lawyers are doing it Pro-Bono (FREE)
March 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The impact of this lawsuit on the election, if any, will be favorable to BVA. If Sigma Nu really wants new representation in the 2nd District, it will take a serious, organized effort to get the Bradley students to the voting booth. I doubt they can do that.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
How in the hell is anyone sticking up for the drunk old lady? What bizarro world are we living in?
So bascially wha’t i’m reading is that the Bradley students deserve it, and apparently anyone can become a police officer when they are mad about something.
what is going on ?
March 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Is that THE Larry Horse?
March 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Of course, who else would it be ?
March 7th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Doc Thompson — I’ll correct you here, too. Bradley cops are not part of the Peoria PD. They are REAL cops, sworn in, guns, can arrest, but they work for Bradley.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“but they work for Bradley.” Indeed.
As for the much-anticipated video? I think it is still out for editing. Have to get rid of the hundreds of beer cups that were filmed on the porch that night.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:46 am
ba-da-bump!
March 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
tulip-
no beer cups need edited out. just BVA’s ’slirring’ might need subtitles!
March 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Say what you will about the history of Bradley students angering area residents, that’s pretty much irrelevant to this situation. The bradley police came three times and determined there was no problem, and if my experience with the Bradley police has taught me anything, it’s that they won’t hesitate to break up a party or hand out tickets. What else do they have to do? Van Auken was drunk and over stepped her bounds. Had the “real police” realized that in the first place instead of cow-towing to their vocal and aggressive council woman, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place. I think the attorney puts it best when he says that the only person that didn’t do anything wrong in this situation was the one that received a citation. Is it a political move? Yeah probably. Do they have any thoughts of winning money? Probably not. The point is that the record needs to be set straight. At the very least, the noise violation should be dropped. At most, BVA should be cited for public drunkeness and disturbing the peace.