Local: A Curphy supporter is getting out the Bradley student vote (UPDATE)
I received a copy of the following email, which is apparently being sent to Bradley University students. I’ll reproduce it, then add my comments to the bottom:
To All Bradley Fraternity Presidents:
My name is Jeff Hall & I am one of the attorneys representing Sigma Nu in the case against Barbara Van Auken. As you may know, the election is coming up on April 7, 2009. There are some important dates I need you to inform your members about. It is imperative you do all you can to drive your members to register and vote. I send this email today with no time to spare. /
There is no secret that I am a strong supporter of Curphy Smith. I feel he would do a great job for ALL residents in his district, especially for Bradley students. That is why we need him elected. If Barb Van Auken wins, she will exact revenge on the Greek system at Bradley. You think it is tough now, just wait if she remains your council woman. Rumor has it that she is a very vengeful person and it would behoove every member of every fraternity to take 30 minutes out of their day tomorrow and go down to register and vote for “grace period voting”.
Tuesday 3/24/09 (tomorrow)
This is “grace period voting” meaning if you are not registered to vote you can register and vote at the same time. If you are registered already, you can still vote.
We will have transportation from the Student Center from 10am4pm (ish) to the election commission downtown. (it closes at 5pm). Students need to bring a driver’s license AND something with their Bradley address on it, such as: a bill–credit card or utility, or their Webster page from Bradley.
Saturday 3/28/09
This is “early voting” only. You must already be registered to vote at your Bradley address.
We are encouraging student car pooling, but will be providing transportation from the Student Center from 9am-2:30pm to the election commission. (it closes at 3pm). Students need to bring a driver’s license AND something with their Bradley address on it, such as: a bill–credit card or utility, or their Webster page from Bradley, or their voter registration card with their BU address on it.
I implore you to act. Now is the time to stand up and allow the city to hear your voice. If you vote with the drive and impetus we know students can possess, BVA will be voted out and no longer will Bradley students and Greek Members be underrepresented. You will make it easier for your successors. You will actually have real political power. That is a big thing to possess, especially around Peoria and Bradley.
We need at least 500 BU voters out of this election to win. Currently voter turn out is very low, but BVA’s supporters will vote for certain. You and your members are the secret weapon. Please take the time to go down to the election precinct tomorrow. It will only take 30 minutes. Further, grab 5 of your friends that aren’t in a fraternity/sorority and get them to go with you. We need all the help we can get.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing you at the polls.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey R. Hall
My two cents: Of course, Bradley students have the right to vote. That should go without saying, but to avoid any silly comments suggesting I am implying the opposite, I’ll say it here. BU students have the right to vote and I support that right.
The question is: Where do they vote? Do they vote here, in Peoria, where they are attending college, or do they vote where they live? When I attended Eastern Illinois University, I slept in Charleston, but I was still a resident of Peoria. I voted absentee. I never cast one single vote for any local race in Charleston (although I do recall registering). Not that I didn’t care or didn’t have an opinion. Simply stated, I considered myself a Peoria resident and cast my votes in Peoria. My stay in Charleston was going to be temporary and I knew it.
I knew that Charleston residents would — and had every right to — resent transient student votes deciding who held local offices. And I strongly suspected that some EIU students who did cast votes in Charleston did nothing to cancel their hometown registrations, meaning they remained registered in two counties, which is suspect is not exactly legal. And I would not surprise me if one or more of my classmates did the absentee ballot thing AND voted in person in Charleston. I know that IS illegal.
So, while Bradley students have the right to register locally and vote locally, I would encourage them as a matter of personal honor and integrity to vote in the communities in which they actually consider themselves permanent residents.
Second: Curphy Smith has every right to ask any eligible, registered voter to vote for him. He campaign has the right to register any eligible voter. His campaign has the right to drive voters to the polls. This is the stuff of grassroots politics.
Third: Permanent residents of Peoria are no different than the residents of Charleston and just might resent temporary occupants of dorms and student rentals helping to decide who sites on the Peoria City Council and other elected bodies long after these students have moved back to their real homes. People have the right to base their vote on anything they want to base it on. So while the Smith campaign has the right go after the student vote, permanent 2nd District residents have the right to decide to vote against Smith because he is going after the student vote, and would thus be beholden to them if he wins.
Fourth: If you were wondering whether the Sigma Nu fraternity’s lawsuit against Barbara Van Auken and others was politically motivated, I guess learning that that their attorney is electioneering for her opponent pretty much answers that question.
UPDATE: C.J. Summers beat me again and had a post up about this before I did (I decided to get 8 hours of sleep, instead). He also links to a PDF file that shows an anonymous anti-Curphy Smith flyer that’s going around, accusing the Smith campaign of violating election rules. A conversation with a Peoria Election commission official left me convinced it is not.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:11 am
Campaign staff and other interested citizens are being accused of electioneering. from http://www.dictionary.com electioneering:
noun
1. persuasion of voters in a political campaign
2. the campaign of a candidate to be elected [syn: campaigning]
If this is the accepted defination, then any campaign strategy to get residents to vote is electioneering, examples would include blog posts favoring a candidate, letters to the editor, friend to friend letters (snail mail or electronic), campaign literature whether delivered by hand, mail or availiable for people to simply choose.
There are many strategies, most involve getting the candidates message out. Some chose postive, other’s negative, some resort to smearing candidates and in this case private citizens. Regarding Bradley students or any other residents voting in the district. If they live here, they have a right to vote, to representation. Most importantly, all residents pay taxes of one sort or another. Are you advocating for taxation without representation. Who should students approach with issues, calling back home to resolve a Peoria concern is fruitless. All residents need equal access to local reps.
Local Reps need to advocate for all their constituents in an equal and fair manner. Conflict resolution must be addressed in a calm, rational, and certainly sober manner. The incident at BU by the councilwoman and the subsequent flyer serve only to divide residents from students, something the flyer accuses the other side of doing. That is poor representation, judgement, and practice of leadership skills.
Students and residents in this area will continue to live side by side and must work together to get along. It takes responsible leadership to bring two sides together after significant conflict. Look at attempts by world leaders to bring waring factions together. Difficult, perhaps, Necessary, absolutely. The current leadership has show abysmal failure in accomplishing this much needed tasc. It is imperative that we choose new leadership.
While you may or may not agree with Mr. Hall’s reported statements, he does have a right to advoacte for representation that he feels would best represent the populations in question, perhaps to end this long time feud.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:36 am
Billy:
I am not a D2 resident. I understand what you are writing. I would ask that you consider these ideas.
Regardless of your residency status — temporary (student or otherwise) or permanent — you still need to ‘bloom where you are planted.’ I have lived in Peoria for 15+ years and the complaints are the same for the Bradley area — lack of communication, respect and cooperation on some fronts between the locals and the students. The same old strategy does not seem to be effective. Doing more of the same seems to be insanity.
Think about yourself — do you like it when someone is in your space? By that I mean verbally, physically, emotionally — as in being aggressive in their request to get you to comply with some standard? I would think that you would be resistant to that approach — makes you or anyone for that matter push back.
Take the Sigma Nu (and perhaps other student organizations) and Van Auken/Rand/3rd party conflict and lawsuit. If accurately reported — if you are on someone’s property and trespassing and asked to leave and don’t — then there should be consequences. Regardless of whether Sigma Nu were provokers or instigators (and I am not saying that they were in any given incident because I was not there) it is not reason for Barbara to solve the situation in the manner reported (if that is accurate as I was not there in that sitation).
Mr. Hall was sharing his opinion — please let me share two personal experiences which testify that his statements may have merit.
By your fruits you shall know them.
I have been present where Barbara was talking about retaliation to the city Councilmen who voted against the Orchard District Lighting project and just wait until their re-election time — she would get them. She also included anyone who helped to change their minds. Does not make for safe public process and wanting to engage in expressing their opinions. Fact — willing to testify in court regarding this incident.
On the current public facility purposes sales tax (museum issue), I was privy to the same type of behavior from Andrew Rand about getting a seat at the table. Disturbing that all stakeholders are not welcome to the public process, just those who support your cause, in the case the Build the Blockers in this situation. Your viewpoint is ‘intriguing’ but no place at the table, hope you will not make a big fuss …. have emails to document this exclusive behavior from an elected official.
How do these types of behavior build ‘healthy and cooperative and united’ communities? They don’t. These behaviors are destructive and counterproductive to progress.
Respect and trust are earned not given.
Curphy’s campaign slogan — Action For All! means just that — engage all the stakeholders — work together to make the 2nd District great. Let’s work through our challenges and makes choices and cooperate. Let’s be builders and contributors across all categories and work together. This is the type of public process I have advocated for during the past 15+ years. The most underutilitzed resource in Peoria is our stakeholders and their talents. Curphy recognizes all that youthful energy to be partnered with some of the older energy in District 2 to make for an awesome transformation. I applaud his efforts to unite District 2.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Anonymous: If you readmy post, you KNOW that I support the right of B.U. to vote where ever it is legal for them to vote. If a student attends classes and sleeps in a dorm in Peoria, they still are legal residents of their home towns. I’m willing to bet most are still claimed as dependents on their parent’s taxes. As a point of personal honor, I think through out to vote there, not here. My opinion.
Karrie: I have no personal objection to Curphy Smith. I’m voting for Barbara because she has been a friend AND because she has helped me out of several jams. I don’t agree with all her votes and all her positions. The same could be said of Gary Sandberg, who I also consider a good friend.
You aren’t going to see any endorsements out of me because it’s my endorsements turned out to be curses last election.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Billy: Fair enough!
April 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Billy: How do I get a happier smiley face?
April 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
As Peorian and Bradley alum, I don’t see my former peers who hailed from the suburbs of Chicago and elsewhere as bothersome interlopers into the local political scene of my city but rather as conscientious politically-active and community-oriented citizens. I know that some, when I was a freshman, registered to vote in Peoria for the convenience, voted only for president, and left other parts of the ballot blank. Others feel very strongly about participating in local politics and see their four years in Peoria as imbuing them with a vested interested in what goes on there. I think either are respectable decisions. I maintained my permanent address in the north part of Peoria during my time at Bradley and continue to do so while living abroad, but as I think it over, the decisions of politicians who represent the district(s) in which Bradley lies did more to affect my life while in college than those in north Peoria. Spending the better part of nearly a half-decade in a place is something more than temporary.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
As a Peorian and a Bradley alum, I don’t see my former peers who hailed from the suburbs of Chicago and elsewhere as bothersome interlopers into the local political scene of my city but rather as conscientious, politically-active and community-oriented citizens. I know that some, when I was a freshman, registered to vote in Peoria for the convenience, voted only for president, and left other parts of the ballot blank. Others felt very strongly about participating in local politics and saw their four years in Peoria as imbuing them with a vested interest in what goes on there. I think either are respectable decisions. I maintained my permanent address in the north part of Peoria during my time at Bradley and continue to do so while living abroad, but as I think it over, the decisions of politicians who represent the district(s) in which Bradley lies did more to affect my life while in college than those in north Peoria. Spending the better part of nearly a half-decade in a place is something more than temporary.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
First of all, I want to say your post was fair. However, the flyer was not.
The flyer was written by those who want to spread fear and division among neighbors. Dividing neighbors is not a good strategy to govern well and is pulling down the whole second district.
Taking a small fact and weaving a larger lie, implying that private citizens are doing something wrong when they are not, is something the West Bluff unfortunately sees every election cycle. We need leaders that can see that this is dishonorable and wrong, and will surround themselves with likeminded people.
Curphy Smith will give positive, respectful leadership for all citizens, not just a few.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
GO CURPHY!! Van Auken has been a great disappointment. But what do you expect from a lawyer?
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
Is Jeff Hall growing up to be our next Chase Ingersoll? Timmy boy got caught in the honey jar helping temporary residents-the guard from the RRRA is making Curph look bad. Leave it to the Ingersoll class of professionals to keep our West Bluff divided.
Thats not our councilwoman’s style to do anything cowardly-look at the Sigma Nu incident. Curph should not have stated in the Chronicle BVA was behind this. That is credible negative campaigning.
I love Bradley (minus a few students marring Bradley) & our District & everyone should get out to vote!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Gary Sandberg just wrote a long, thoughtful, fact-filled post on the PJS blog after their editorial endorsement of Curphy Smith.
You might agree or disagree, but if you are in the 2nd District, Sandberg’s post is the most informative of anything out there.
Here, cut and pasted is what the Councilman wrote on the PJS blog:
Gary Sandberg
Oh my gosh, something else to agree upon. What’s going on out there at 1 News Plaza? What I wish the newspaper would point out in this race is specifically the incumbents voting record. Yes, her defenders say she represents them and use the late night/early morning intoxication incident with a fraternity as the perfect example of that support. I think it unfortunate that everyone forgets the more critical action that the incumbent made almost three years earlier when Bradley University petitioned to amend their Institutional Plan to allow a new Fraternity/Sorority on Fredonia four doors down from the fraternity which the intoxicated incident revolved. At that time, the District Council representative could have required a ‘break from the past development practices’ that the City knew as well It gets warm in the Springdid NOT provide adequate protection for surrounding residential homes. She could have required that Bradley move the activity areas that had developed historically and before we knew better from the rear of the fraternity/ sorority properties to the front away from the adjoining residential properties. Yes the patios, the parking, and the garbage areas that conflict with quiet, quality, residential living could have and should have been moved to the north side of each fraternity along the ragged edge of Bradleys Plan. This would have been accomplished by vacating Fredonia Street to Bradley, allowing Bradley to reconstruct perpendicular parking on Fredonia instead of off alley and putting the patios between the existing and new fraternity structures. Those items were suggested by me to her, both prior to the meeting as well as at the meeting. She chose NOT to require any of those possibilities into the Amended Plan. Bradley got exactly what they wanted and yet another fraternity/ sorority were allowed to be constructed with all the problems that go along with it by a 10-1 vote.
A year after that Bradley vote, another zoning issue came before the City Council, a request for a replacement billboard located west of Knoxville approximately 58 feet from residential property on Linn Street. Now a little lead up information…….. Since 1989 large Billboards have been required to be separated from residential areas by a 500 foot (almost two city blocks) radius. The billboard that was being sought for replacement for one had been on property owned by Dr. Floyd Rashid behind the old Peoria Ford property and was constructed without permits many years before the requirement of 500 feet and prior to Dr. Rashids ownership of the underlying real estate. Across Knoxville is/was the old Hardees adjacent to OSF owned properties. With the purchase of Dr. Rashids property for the new Interstate/ Knoxville interchange, there was fear that Dr. Rashid would purchase the Hardees parcel and a large billboard would/could them be established on that side of Knoxville over 500 feet away from residential, but in front of OSF. Several Council members wanted OSF to purchase the old Hardees and NOT Dr. Rashid. They also feared he could/would increase the purchase price for the Hardees parcel for OSF. A small isolated parcel was owned by the State after the reconfiguration that had inadequate access off the end of Linn Street where Linn Street dead ends for the interstate. A plan was hatched lead by Council Member Nichting, Manning, and VanAuken to acquire this parcel from the state, rezone it for Special Use for Billboard and then sell the Parcel to Illinois Outdoor Advertising, thus preventing a billboard from being placed on the property east of Knoxville well away from residential property. That passed the City Council 10-1. The Billboard Company VERBALLY AGREED to remove another existing billboard from the Sheridan Triangle area next to Loucks and close to the incumbents home if allowed this billboard that is within 58 feet of residential property. Before the first use of the Billboard, the Billboard Company was back before the Zoning Commission and the City Council requesting the Special Use to be modified to allow one face of the previously approved billboard to become an electronic Las Vegas style billboard. Despite the facts that most of the landscaping conditions, screening and access requirements from the earlier approval were never started, yet completed, this modification also passed 10-1. Another time, when the effects of bad zoning practices and the resulting changes in regulations was circumvented for expediency of the politically connected. And how many of you would want to own a home 58 feet away from a billboard, let alone one that changes its face every 10 seconds
Then just over 7 months ago, again on Knoxville, a petition to remove the existing Taco Bell and replace it in exactly the same place and configuration came thru the Zoning Commission. Now forget that during the 60s and 70s home owners regularly testified against the addition of drive ups next to their back yards and that zoning regulations allowed these sorts of high traffic / high commotion activities and that back then these Commercial uses could be located directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties with NO SCREENING. Since 1989, landscaped Transitional Buffer yards with solid screen fencing have been the regulations. In 2006 when the City Council adopted the Land Development Code for this area, the principals of New Urbanism would require that building be situated AWAY from the residential uses along Linn Street and orientated toward the Knoxville street. Additionally, under the Land Development Code, A solid garden sound wall would be required between the commercial use and adjoining residential use. Now the Developer hired his well connected mouth piece, the same mouth piece that represented the Developer of Cub Foods and assured the City Council that 43% of the sales at Cub Foods would be new food sales to the City of Peoria just 10 years ago, and this agent said the Developer was going to spend $1,800,000 rebuilding an 2,900 square foot fast food restaurant that sells tacos for 79 cents each. That ladies and gentlemen equates to over $620 per square foot (the new museum is estimated to cost $200 per square foot), the incumbent buys into it hook, line, and sinker. Not a description of an intelligent, critical thinker from my perspective. Now you ask where the surrounding neighbors to voice opposition were. They left in the late 70s or early 80s after the noise and commotion from the disparate uses took their toll and the property became rental, and lets face it, the landlord lives somewhere else and the tenant doesnt really care. 10 -1 Again the Developer got exactly what they wanted and the protections learned from past poor zoning practices were abandoned for the expediency of the present. Instead of turning this into an opportunity for quality change, the incumbent led the way for another 40 or 50 years of no protection of surrounding residential quality of life, just as she did at Bradley and up the street. How many of you want to live with your back yard 16 feet away from the drive up lane of an all night fast food restaurant?
Listen, Learn, Lead was the incumbents slogan four years ago. In this Second District voters opinion, if she is listening, she is listening to only the few and NOT the many, if she has learned anything, it is to trade votes and punish those who disagree and she, by her voting record, is leading Peoria to more of the same, a community where the protections for quality residential living in every District is swapped for Pay to Play decisions, Ill vote for what you want, just vote for what I want that will continue to deteriorate the inner City Districts. GO to the State Election website and see who is donating to not only the incumbent, but also all the all the candidates and dont be surprised when MORE OF THE SAME HAPPENS IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. If you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result, you are insane.
I will be voting for Curphy Smith. I also urge everyone in the Third District to vote for Beth Akeson. I know she has a new and better vision of Peoria and especially its older neighborhoods. Older neighborhoods lost value incrementally, one little project or decision by one little project. Beth understands it is in the same process of little projects and little decisions then and only then will value return. It is NOT with the big Cub Food, Southtown, new Hotel, Ballpark, or museum. I must admit I cannot speak with the same level in confidence in Curphy in getting it, but I know the Incumbent has done little or nothing to earn my vote this time. With that I can only believe Curphy can and will get it.
By the way, Curphy has NO IDEA I am writing this or wrote this. I fully supported the incumbent four years ago as a candidate, As Council representative for the Second District, she is NOT that candidate, nor is she the woman whose values, principles, and priorities I fell in love with in 1982 and eventually married for 13 years. She turned into more of a Sheriff in the middle of the night than the previous Councilwoman ever was and less of an advocate for those homeowners she represents on Tuesday night.
That incremental change starts with a 10-1 vote becoming 9-2 with Beth Akeson and hopefully an 8-3 with Curphy Smith, who knows, maybe, it will be in that incremental way, only one vote at a time that thru critical thinking, standing on principles and not on trading values that eventually, a new course will evolve for an new vision of what all of Peoria can be for all and not at the expense of the home owners, residents, and property owners, silent or unconnected.