By Tim Hughes

The Rockford Board of Education recently announced that sports are more important than education. What other conclusion can one draw from its new athletic eligibility policy code name “Failure on Demand,” which allows students to fail subjects needed for graduation while continuing to play sports?

The Register Star scratched its editorial head trying to decide whether such a policy was a good idea, then announced it was not retreating from its core principle while sounding retreat from its core principle by endorsing Failure on Demand.

Sports columnist Matt Trowbridge and Rockford Next blogger Vern Hilton praised Failure on Demand. Hilton, no doubt unwittingly, was using the same language used several years ago in a Register Star column to promote the now-discredited 2.00 grade average. You know the old line (no pun intended) about bait and hook. With this kind of bait, is it any wonder so many kids are left dangling from the hook of limited lifelong opportunities because they didn’t have to worry about boring old math and English stuff, thanks to Failure on Demand? Hilton tells us he’s been screaming that it’s about the kids. You would think he’d be screaming it’s about the kids’ education. Trowbridge eagerly tells us that it took less than 24 hours to assemble the coaches and inform them of the new policy. I submit it would have taken less than 24 seconds to clear the room had the new athletic directors proposed a policy which actually works.

And what exactly is the policy that would have coaches tripping over each other in their rush to the door? A no fail policy which, simply stated, requires athletes to be passing all their classes to be eligible for sports. Such a policy was in effect in 1983, and I’ll never forget when the first report cards of the year were handed out — the whoops and yelps and looks of astonishment on athletes’ faces upon seeing those report cards and realizing they had not only passed every subject, many made honor roll for the first time as well. A no fail policy has the advantage, too, of keeping students on track for graduation, since most dropouts result from falling so far behind in earned credits, there is no hope of graduating on time. Unlike Failure on Demand, when the athletic season is over but the semester isn’t, students can go back to shooting paper wads in class instead of working to pass for the semester, so they can have the prospect of one day shooting baskets in a championship game!

The coaches vehemently opposed the no fail policy and couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. Why? Because during its time, there was a handful of situations in which a team had to forfeit a game due to ineligibility, but it never happened twice in the same school, creating, if nothing else, an object lesson for athletes. The academic gains for athletes more than offset the occasional forfeits. Being under Friday night lights, however, is more important to some coaches, even if it means unplugging the lights on an educated future for their athletes. That is why it is so hypocritical to imply that those coaches have only the interest of their athletes at heart. Fielding a team at all cost takes precedence.

And what are we really talking about when using the word “athlete” in this context? We’re talking about black athletes, so let me tell you about a black athlete from Auburn High School who didn’t hear his name called out at a sports pep assembly, even in the face of a spontaneously-gathered student petition to have him recognized for the athletic goal he was pursuing. The coaches didn’t have time for that kid’s athletic dreams, but it didn’t deter him. As a result, he did hear his name called out. Not, of course, at one of those “Whoop ‘em up, rip ‘em up: We’re gonna smear ‘em” pep assemblies on which coaches thrive and which serve little purpose other than taking away from classroom academics. No. He heard his name called out in the rarified air of supreme athletic achievement as winner of an Olympic medal.

His is a prime example of why we shouldn’t trivialize black potential by insisting we have to make allowances for black athletes. The new Failure on Demand policy makes things convenient for coaches and serves no other purpose. The Register Star may think that by lowering standards, you in some screwy way inspire students and light a fire, but the only thing that gets lit with that kind of reasoning is a firestorm of functional illiteracy! The Board of Education may be pleased as punch with the way things are going, but far from signaling the dawn of a new day, the new Failure on Demand athletic eligibility policy simply guarantees that in District 205, the sun never sets on the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Tim Hughes is a former teacher in Rockford School District 205 who coached debate and taught English at Auburn High School for 20 years. At Auburn, he coached three debate teams to first-place national championships.

From the Aug. 31-Sept. 6, 2011, issue

By Nichole Larison Sammon
Neighborhood protester of proposed asphalt plant

I am requesting that an investigation be started regarding the events that transpired at the Winnebago County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting I was involved with at 5:30 p.m., Thursday, Aug. 18, at 404 Elm St., Rockford.

The meeting addressed William Charles Construction’s request for a special-use permit to operate an asphalt plant at the bottom of its East State Street quarry.

In my opinion, a direct violation of the Open Meetings Act is on record in the transcript for this meeting.

From the very onset of the ZBA meeting, William Charles’ attorney, Bruce Ross-Shannon, requested the procedures be altered. That request was granted.

William Charles was allowed to present their petition for the special-use permit, and all five witnesses for the petitioner were allowed to present their testimony and various report findings. Questions were not allowed until the petitioner’s entire list of paid witnesses and case were presented.

After the William Charles witness, Dr. Laura Green, a toxicologist, finished her testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Brian Erickson made an opinionated statement to the fact that he believed he had never had as knowledgeable a witness in front of him before. He said this on the record, before the board, and before the entire room of Winnebago County residents.

At no time did we, the opposition, make an outburst or interrupt the proceedings, other than to let the board know we could not hear the testimony presented. Amazingly, no microphones or PA were used in the crowded meeting, with more than 60 people crammed into an unairconditioned room. The petitioner’s paid witnesses talked in a lower octave, mostly directly facing the board, making it difficult to hear all that was said in testimony from the various witnesses.

Once the petitioner had finished presenting his case, the questioning of the petitioner’s witnesses began. The questioning of the witnesses was confusing to the opposition, as at times two witnesses were answering questions at a time, then it was one witness at a time. And throughout, the lawyer for the petitioner, Ross-Shannon, interrupted opposition questions and directly confronted the opposition, not the chairman, to make statements challenging the questions and the opposition resident asking the question. At no time did Chairman Erickson remind the petitioner to address the chairman directly, not the opposition, or reprimand him for his conduct.

Chairman Erickson, however, did reprimand the opposition for the way we were reading off our names and addresses, apparently too quickly for the chairman and the court recorder (paid for by William Charles), before beginning to ask questions of the petitioner’s witnesses.

Additionally, Chairman Erickson challenged the opposition many times, interrupting an opposition resident, before they finished asking a question about whether a question was being asked, rather than testimony. The constant interruptions from the chairman and the petitioner’s attorney, Ross-Shannon made it difficult for the opposition to ask all questions of the witnesses. These interruptions intimidated others in the audience into not asking questions. The witnesses refused to answer opposition questions based on relevance without a ruling from the chairman. At no time was the opposition allowed to question the petitioner’s Supplemental Narrative, supplied by William Charles, nor Ross-Shannon’s opening remarks.

Because of the late hour (around 11 p.m.), and once questioning from the opposition seemed to go on too long for Chairman Erickson (although he gave the petitioners all the time they needed to present their case and did not rush them), the chairman announced the board would leave the room for a conference.

This was the direct violation of the Open Meetings Act. Chairman Erickson did not make a motion for the reason to go into what was really a closed session. Chairman Erickson did not take a vote on going into Closed Session.

The entire board just left the meeting, went into a side room and closed the door behind them, going into Closed Session. Then, the chairman came back into the room and met with the petitioner’s lawyer and a couple of witnesses on sidebar, off the record, in a hushed voice, so no one could hear him for a period of a couple minutes. All of this occurred in the room in front of the opposition and the Winnebago County Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Hohe.

The chairman then went back into the side room and closed the door again. The entire board emerged a few minutes later and took their seats.

The chairman called the meeting back to order. He then stated the meeting would continue. The chairman then listed the petitioner’s witnesses he would dismiss and would have no further questions from, even though the chairman had already dismissed those witnesses, and no further opposition questioning could take place. Previously, the chairman had made it clear to the room that their testimony was over, and all opposition questions had been asked.

We challenged the reasoning for the Closed session, as no reason was given to the opposition. The chairman stated he wanted to know how late the board members wanted to stay. We challenged that statement.

Then audience member Michelle Courier asked the ZBA whether they did not just violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Hohe stated they had just violated the Open Meetings Act, noting: she didn’t catch it; she could be sanctioned; the ZBA could be cited, and the opposition should look up the procedures to do so on the internet.

We then asked whether minutes had been taken in the Closed Session. The chairman stated, “No,” but not to worry, he was only asking about dates of availability of ZBA members for a future continuance of these hearings and if some of the petitioner’s witnesses could be dismissed or recalled.

We asked the state’s attorney again what that meant, and for her to advise us of our rights at that point. She advised us that since clearly we know how to use Google, we could figure it out, but she more than likely would be censured.

I was also going to challenge the sidebar with the petitioner off the record while the session was still in effect, but decided not to, as the attitude of the state’s attorney and the chairman did not make me feel assured my rights were being protected at that moment.

As a Winnebago County resident, it is my civic responsibility to be well informed about the subjects concerning my town, my county, my state and my country. I take that responsibility seriously, and was well informed at the meeting of my rights and the Winnebago County procedures. To be chastised and rebuked by the state’s attorney and the chairman for understanding my rights and the procedures that should be followed in this proceeding is not acceptable.

After more than four hours, I, Nichole Sammon, was called as the first witness for the opposition. The chairman interrupted me in the first five minutes of my presentation to question the validity of the information I was presenting concerning our neighborhood demographics. I stated I believe information about the neighborhood in question adjacent to the property seeking the special-use permit is relevant. He let me continue. I was told to “hurry along,” along with numerous non-verbal hand and facial expressions to move my testimony along. Again, not once was this demand put on the petitioner or any of their witnesses in this meeting.

Along with the chairman’s demands to hurry along, the petitioner’s lawyer, Ross-Shannon, interrupted my testimony multiple times, addressing me directly, not the chairman, stating I had no ability to testify to the information I was presenting. His tone was meant to belittle and bully me. He questioned my credentials multiple times. I am a citizen of Winnebago County. I do not need credentials to present in a public hearing in Winnebago County. At no time did the chairman or the state’s attorney correct or refute the petitioner until multiple attendees contested and informed the chairman of his duties.

Once I had completed my testimony to the board, direct questioning from the board and petitioner started. This is in direct conflict with the precedent set by the board at the beginning of the meeting, whereby the petitioner was allowed to present their entire side of the petition before any direct questions of the witnesses. We, the opposition, still have many speakers to present on our side of the permit in question.

During direct questioning from the chairman, he asked me for my burden of proof on how my property value would not be affected. It is not on me to prove my property value would not be affected, it is the petitioner’s burden to prove my property value will not be affected. A couple of board members in questioning me also pushed me to prove the petitioner’s request would not affect my health. It is the petitioner’s burden to prove my health will not be affected. I was asked by one board member whether I thought it was William Charles’ fault that the intersection they will be utilizing is poorly designed and accident-prone. That question was out of line and out of order, as I was simply raising a concern as a citizen of Winnebago County regarding an already dangerous intersection and the addition of large amounts of heavy truck traffic. Again, neither the chairman nor the state’s attorney corrected the board member for misconduct.

It is clear to me from the questions asked from Chairman Erickson and other members of the board that they do not understand where the burden of proof lies in this permit request.

At the end of my testimony and questioning, the board stated it was too late in the evening to continue, and stated this session would reconvene Sept. 14.

I am quite concerned with what I have seen and been involved with concerning this special-use permit for William Charles. The rules and procedures established by Winnebago County and the ZBA are not being followed or adhered to, I would allege. Blatant bias for the petitioner is on record.

I would very much appreciate your looking into this matter.

Nichole Larison Sammon is a resident of Fox Ridge Subdivision, which is just to the west of the proposed William Charles asphalt plant. The Editor & Publisher of The Rock River Times Frank Schier was present at this ZBA hearing and proofread and edited this column.

From the Aug. 31-Sept. 6, 2011, issue

By John Stassi

In his Guest Column (“Unions need to sacrifice, too” — Aug. 3), State Rep. Jim Sacia suggests that because labor unions are “out of control,” compensation for Illinois state government workers has far outstripped that for private sector workers.

His analysis, however, neglects to account for the suppression of wages in the private sector that is the consequence of so-called “free trade.”

Free trade forces private sector workers in our prosperous democracy to compete with poorer workers in developing countries where prevailing wages barely sustain them and where their right to form unions, their workplace health and safety, their nation’s environment, and even their inalienable human rights are not protected by law.

For example, let’s look at what used to be a major industry in Rockford, the furniture business. Furniture workers in China earn about $170/month, and those in Vietnam, less than $80/month. Americans who still have jobs in this dying industry earn about $12/hour. As a result of this uneven playing field that is an inescapable consequence of “free trade”, imported bedroom furniture now accounts for about 70 percent of the U.S. market for those products.^A

This catastrophe for American workers is neither limited nor recent. Since 2000, when Republicans like our Congressman Don Manzullo joined with Democrats like President Bill Clinton to throw open access to our marketplace to goods manufactured in Communist China and other totalitarian countries, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost a third of its workers, down from 17.3 million in 1999 to 11.7 million in June 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.^B

So, indeed, let’s talk about sharing that sacrifice that U.S. private sector workers have been forced to make by what I call free trade treason.

State Rep. Jim Sacia earns $67,836/year plus $139 for every day that the state legislature is in session. State legislators in Nebraska earn $12,000/year plus $39 to $109 per session per day, depending on how far they live from the state capital.^C Would Rep. Sacia care to “give a little” by sponsoring legislation to reduce his salary to that level? Don’t legislators need to sacrifice, too?

But let’s not stop there. I’m sure there are many bright, talented young people in Latin America, Africa and Asia who could be trained to do government sector jobs in Illinois and who would be happy to work at those jobs for a fraction of the salaries currently paid to those now working them. And when they get good enough at that sort of work, we can employ them to do Rep. Sacia’s job for even greater savings.

The free working people of the USA have a problem, but it has nothing to do with unions. They have been betrayed by an out-of-control two-party tyranny.

In return for billions of dollars in legalized bribes from greedy corporations and in the name of “free trade”, our Republicans and Democrats have entered American private sector workers into a “race to the bottom” with low-wage foreign workers, none of whom will ever win anything except ever lower wages.

Now, Republicans like Rep. Jim Sacia (89-R) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and Democrats like Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) would like to extend that wage suppression therapy to government workers and use the savings that result to fund tax breaks for their corporate sweethearts.

When you consider their shared contempt for the well-being of American working people, you can only conclude that Ralph Nader had it right. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Until American workers abandon their irrational devotion to the two-party system, they will continue to get nothing more out of that corrupt system than the “sacrifice” that Rep. Sacia would like to impose upon them: lost jobs and low wages. And they will deserve it.

References/Footnotes

A — “Chinese make a run around U.S. tariffs,” by Andrew Higgins, Washington Post, May 24, 2011 www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/from-china-an-end-run-around-us-tariffs/2011/05/09/AF3GR19G_story.html

B — “Democrats turn to Manufacturing for Jobs,” by Lori Montgomery and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Aug. 4, 2010 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/03AE2010080302685.html

C ­— 2010 Legislator Compensation Data, National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20117

John Stassi is a native Rockfordian who believes in liberty and justice for all.

From the Aug. 31-Sept. 6, 2011, issue

By Dan Sears

Dear Mr. President:

Do you realize that Big Brother, the Gestapo and the KGB could still be active by congressional law? Yes, right here in little Roscoe, Illinois (61073).

Last evening (Aug. 17) my wife and I were leaving (about 6 p.m.) for supper, and I noticed a strange car and person sitting in the road in front of our neighbor’s house. As we are somewhat rural, I turned around and went back, but by that time he was turning into another neighbor’s driveway, and sitting there. I thought perhaps he had located the party he wanted to visit. Oh no! He’s coming back, but by that time he was turning into another neighbor’s driveway, and I see our neighbor flagging us down from her back yard. We stop … she is shaking and on the verge of tears.

Apparently, this individual has been around before, and she found out he has been asking personal questions about her family, at other neighborhood houses.

I decided to confront the individual. He very “officially” flashed a neck badge at me, while he is still sitting smugly in his car, and told me he was from the “American Community Survey” and this was none of my business! I told him rather clearly, in words I’m sure he would not have any trouble understanding, that any strange person in our neighborhood, just sitting around was definitely my business.

Our neighbor informed this creep that she had called the sheriff to look into this. He, strangely, did not seem a bit concerned!

My wife and I left. When we got back, our neighbor called and told us the sheriff had been there, had investigated this guy and his car, and spent almost an hour talking to the person. Come to find out the American Community Survey is real! And if you do not complete and return their request for information form, they can send a “supervisor” to harass you into answering their questions (please note: this is not from the official Census Bureau, which we all try to respond to) but from an agency that looks like, sounds like, and could possibly be part of a scam, as far as the typical citizen is concerned! And better yet, if you still refuse to answer the very personal questions, from a very suspicious character, you could be fined $100 (per the sheriff’s information). Wrong, according to the Internet, our wonderful, caring, elected officials in Congress upped the possible fine to $5,000 in 1984! And even our local law enforcement agencies are not informed of this sinister, pompous group!

How much prying can a citizen tolerate before there is a “Mideast” mindset? Have you personally been investigated by this group? Why has it been a hidden agency? What do they need this information for (to stem uprisings?). How much of my tax dollars are spent supporting this dark group? I cannot even begin to imagine the cost of having these “supervisors” follow up on the form refusals. Is this some kind of Soylent Green department? What business is it of theirs as to what time I leave for work and get home … is this information supposed to help them gain entry and “bug” our suspicious residences?

Needless to say, we are really p—-d off!!! What other dark, undercover programs are the citizens being subjected to? I know you have your hands full, trying to keep the “wackos” appeased, but please give the loyal, hard-working citizens a break from this type of stealthy garbage!

I hope you can find a moment to address this issue and let us know what is going on.

Respectfully,

Dan Sears

Dan Sears is a resident of Roscoe, Ill.

From the Aug. 31-Sept. 6, 2011, issue