The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, prohibits the making of any law that would abridge the freedom of speech, infringe on the freedom of the press, and interfere with our right to peaceably assemble or prohibit the petitioning to our government our grievances.

This sacred right we as citizens possess has been unbeknownst to Winnebago County citizens voted away by the Winnebago County Board. Dec. 1, 2008, Winnebago County Board Chairman Scott Christiansen and the Winnebago County Board voted to take away our First Amendment right to speak to the county board about legal or zoning issues.

How did they possibly vote away our right? The board simply voted in new Winnebago County Board “rules of order and procedures.”

Right after Christiansen was reaffirmed the county board chairman in the 2008 elections and before the new board members could be given the oath of office, the county board voted on a major change to our rights as citizens of Winnebago County. This all occurred during a season of family affairs and vacation dreams, and then the county forgot to post the new rule on the website or notify the media. To get a copy of the “new” procedures, one must go into the County Clerk’s office and request a copy.

The original 1996 version is still available on the county website for comparison. The section on limitation of debate states “non-members (non-board members) may address the board if written request is submitted to the county board office by 12 p.m. the day of the board meeting for which recognition is sought. The written request must identify the name of the speaker, specify the subject matter the speaker will address, and indicate the speaker’s interest in the subject.” (Res. No. 96-CR-253, 12-2-96). A 3-minute time limit for the speech is also recorded.

The 2008 version added the following limitation, “Speakers cannot address zoning items, personnel matters, or pending or threatened litigation involving the County.” The last section, “pending or threatened litigation,” pretty much covers any topic one might want to speak to at the county board meeting. Can we not potentially sue the county on any topic in this country? Not saying one might win, but you could file suit.

In my own dealings with the county, I was advised from multiple angles to avoid attempting to even fill out the form to speak at our county board meeting. I even received this e-mail from Christiansen himself stating: “Pursuant to state laws, only testimony and evidence presented at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearings can be considered by county board members when voting on any zoning petition. Hopefully, you were able to appear at a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and share your thoughts at that time.”

First of all, it is important to note the limitation on addressing zoning items added by our county in 2008 is not a state law, as Christiansen asserts. It is a Winnebago County procedure.

Boone County right next door doesn’t make you fill out a form by noon and make you wait to know whether you will get the privilege to speak to your own representatives. Boone County allows you to show up at the meeting, sign a sheet, and wait for the public comment section of the meeting. Boone County leadership obviously understands the reason they are in office ­— the citizens of Boone County put them there and pay for their salaries.

In Winnebago County, we have leadership working hard to make sure we cannot speak to the county board on any relevant topic unless we happen to have friends in important places.

In 2009, after this law was changed, 40 percent of the citizens who signed up to speak at the county board were denied their First Amendment right to speak to their elected officials. In 2010 and 2011, the rate went down as word got around it was not worth taking the time to fill out the form, to only get denied. Why take the time to drive to the administration building by noon, pay for parking, fill out the form, and write your whopping 3-minute speech, only to get denied?

You might be asking yourself who gets the final say on whether your topic falls under the limitations: zoning items, personnel matters, or pending or threatened litigation involving the county. Christiansen is the sole decider on whether you will be allowed to speak in your county board meeting for 3 minutes.

Three minutes is less than a commercial break on TV. This has been in place for three years and not posted on the Winnebago County website. For three years, Christiansen has been denying citizens their First Amendment right to speak on our grievances, without letting the greater populace know the reason behind it.

What can any citizen possibly convey with words in 3 minutes that warrants changing the law? Who suggested this change? Which county board members voted on this important change? The record only shows a voice vote was taken and NO names were scribed. Why was this version not posted on the Winnebago County website for three years? Surely, it could have been posted on the web at the same time regular meeting minutes were posted on the website multiple times a month for the past three years.

This is not democratic; it is oppressive, and is in the line of tyrannical. I expect more from my representatives in government.

Please reach out to the chairman directly to give your feedback. According to the Winnebago County website, “If at any time you have questions or comments on how we can better serve you, please contact our office at (815) 319-4225 or CountyBoardChairmansOffice-@co.winnebago.il.us”.

Remember to vote. Scott Christiansen and the current county board members are not the only choice. There are so many new faces running this year. Get to know them. Find the trust worthy ones in the mix.

March 20 is your next chance to vote in the Republican primary elections for this county and state. Mark your calendars now.

From the Feb. 1-7, 2012, issue

By Tom Castrey

As a resident of Rockford, and an avid user of the Winnebago County Forest Preserves, I was more than a little surprised when once again, the sound of machinery in our “forest preserve” was found to be the business of clear-cutting and killing our forests.

No, this sound was not from an illegal logger, nor someone in need of warmth on cold winter nights; no, in this case, it was the duly elected Winnebago County Forest Preserve Board of Commissioners who brought this terrible sound.

With an all-new Forest Preserve Board just recently elected and installed, I assumed that the new board was composed of a varied group, interested and dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the treasures that are our “forest” preserves. I knew for me, whatever their motives, this was not how I wanted our forest preserves “preserved.”

I decided to find out when the next board meeting was, and in that process, discovered the board allows only seven citizens, 3 minutes each, to address the board. My son and I registered to speak and attended Wednesday, Jan. 18.

The points I tried to address, in the 3 minutes allotted, were:

I have never in my life said, “Let’s go for a walk in the prairie.”

I enjoy the shade in the preserves, the quiet cool of the forest. How many will enjoy the bright sun and heat in our new prairie?

The name of the board they sit on is the Winnebago County Forest Preserve, not Winnebago County Prairie Preserve.

If the trees growing in a forest preserve are not “native” to our region, how did they get there?

If some previous board planted the trees, then you cut them down, what are the chances we might be replanting them?

But, more importantly, why would you kill something to achieve your idea of what Illinois was hundreds of years ago, when the people of Illinois today want trees? We have plenty of open space; we live in Illinois. Let us keep the few forests we have.

Winnebago County Forest Preserves’ mission statement: “Acquire lands … for the purpose of protecting and preserving the flora, fauna and scenic beauties … and to restore, restock, protect and preserve … such lands together with their flora and fauna, as nearly as may be, in their natural state and condition…”

With this decision, it was clear the board was more interested in restoring by destroying. Why couldn’t we just wait and let the trees die off and then decide the best use of the land designated as “forest preserves”?

I felt our concerns were respectfully listened to, but no questions were asked. When the last speaker was done, the board closed the meeting, and went into a private session. I was more than surprised that after hearing from five speakers about our concerns, and facing a packed house of opponents to the destruction of our forest, the board just essentially kicked us out of the room. In fairness to Mr. Randy Olson, the board chairman did offer his regrets and apologize about the manner in which the killing of our trees was handled, at the opening of the meeting. But after our trees have been hacked and mauled, then hauled away for pulp, an apology seems worthless; the destruction has already occurred. The trees are gone. There will be no more wind break from the cold, no shade for the hot summer days, no birds, no squirrels to nest in trees that have been sold for $ 5 a ton.

So now what? The tress are gone, stumps remain, which, by the way, we the taxpayers get to pay to have ground down. Three forest preserves have been altered and trees killed this year. What prevents this board from “preserving” more of our forest by cutting it down? I am not a tree hugger, I understand that wood must be harvested and grown for the good of all. But somehow harvesting trees from a forest preserve seems hypocritical, to “saw” the least.

Outside, after the doors were closed and locked, some of us exchanged e-mail addresses. I can’t and won’t speak for everyone, but my goal is to Stop Killing our Trees in Forest Preserves. If a law, a rule, by law, amendment, referendum or whatever must be passed to prevent this and any future forest preserve board from cutting down trees that are not diseased or dead, then that is my goal.

My name is Tom Castrey, and I am asking for your help in attaining my goal, because frankly this is not what I know how to do. But I do know that we are fortunate enough to have trees here in Illinois, no matter how they got here, and I want to “Preserve” the Forest Preserve. I have established an e-mail account stopwcfpd@yahoo.com for anyone interested in helping keeping the forests in the Forest City. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Tom Castrey

From the Feb. 1-7, 2012, issue

I was a children’s librarian at Rockford Public Library in the early ’90s, during which time I was selected to attend the School Readiness Institute in Austin, Texas. The work of the Institute resulted in a book called Achieving School Readiness, a guide for public libraries. From 1996 to 2004, I was manager of Youth Services at RPL, and was privileged at one time to serve on the American Library Association’s Caldecott Committee, which selects the best illustrated children’s book of the year.

I am writing to take issue with the notion of a “bookless” library, a vision illustrated by RPL Director Frank Novak, apparently in closed session, for discussion purposes, with “our” library board of trustees, and a vision accepted without evidence of much reflection by Ted Biondo in his blog column printed in the Jan. 24 Rockford Register Star. I have chosen to use Mr. Biondo’s words as my foil, since he espouses a thrust couched in elitist language that would dismantle both a print collection and a library system in our city.

Biondo says, “Can you imagine the world today if everybody shunned technological advances as some of the Rockford library patrons are suggesting?” Patrons are not suggesting this. They are suggesting the allocation of dollars spent on the acquisition of electronic resources be appropriately balanced with the acquisition of print resources, as well as library services and facilities.

Biondo says, “People cannot continually adjust their lives or make decisions solely based on the lowest common denominator.” Wrong. That is exactly what public libraries are supposed to do — that is, serve the broadest cross-section of the public by meeting their information needs. It is based on the principle of ensuring an informed citizenry. It is a public good that serves to improve the quality of people’s lives not just by providing a means to entertainment, but, in a more profound way, by providing meaningful materials and meaningful help to get things done when information is a part of the solution.

Biondo says, “The library is correct in its decision to embrace every facet of the technology that is now available…” Wrong. Remember 8-track tapes? Remember Betamax? Remember the Segway? Libraries must tread cautiously with our tax dollars before plunking down large sums with an embrace. We must also be careful to question what we are embracing. People who want to add to the load of Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) effects in their own lives should be free to do so, but even the EPA suggests “cautious avoidance” of electronic devices that emit them. One doctor believes that 30 percent of childhood cancers are caused by exposure to EMFs. How much do e-book readers add to the load? Another thing to consider before a full embrace is respect for privacy and anonymity. Traditionally, the library has been very careful to protect the privacy of citizens where library use is concerned. Records of borrowing history are never kept once a user’s library materials are checked in. In this PATRIOT Act, Google Analytics Age, what provisions has the library made to protect users’ anonymity and privacy where e-books and e-book readers are concerned?

Biondo says, “The library must remain relevant for those patrons that can’t afford the new technology and provide them with the opportunity to increase their skills in its use.” Right. He continues, “Of course, those displaced by the new technology seldom have the acquired skills to find a job with the new technology without training to improve their skills.” Possibly, but this is a gross generalization. Still, recognizing this need in various quarters, the library has traditionally allocated for knowledgeable and sensitive staff to provide not only access to new technology, but outreach and education in its use.

Biondo says, “Members of ‘Save Our Library’ and the Rockford branch of the NAACP need to look for ways to expand the horizons of individuals in their groups to obtain e-readers … not to hinder everyone else who has already taken the necessary steps to achieve success in a future filled with technology.” Traditionally, the library has been the point institution in this kind of activity, usually by establishing collaborative programs with other institutions with similar missions, and by seeking state, federal and foundation grant funding. Perhaps those who have already “taken the necessary steps to achieve success,” who can afford the new technology can also afford to privately download from their own wallets, saving the library tax dollars to, say, increase hours of service, bolster collections, or hire more staff. (Book circulation is down, you say? Could this be related to slashing hours from story hour prime-time, those three hours from 9 a.m. to noon five days a week? Oh, wait! The Main branch, Rock River and Montague branches are closed ALL day on Mondays!)

Biondo says, “Do the members of these respective groups still view only three channels on their tube television sets, or listen to Arthur Godfrey on their radios…?” Baiting diction to be sure. Did you know there is a revival in the production of vinyl LPs? Gee, I wish the library would collect some for me. After all, I pay my tax dollars, and I think I should be able to find these cutting-edge titles at my library! “Public services should also be required to keep current with technology.” Indeed.

Biondo says, “The future takes a little more effort than just learning how to read…” But you have to start somewhere. When the library cut its hours, it drastically reduced storytime programming. In fact, services to parents and young children is a shadow of what it once was. In its heyday, mothers and children would leave the library with armloads and tote bags full of books. Head Start would routinely bring busloads of children to dedicated storytimes weekly, introducing new families to the joys of reading and the power of library use. Part of the mission of assuring an informed citizenry is in supporting the growth and development of our youngest future sovereign citizens. And, I would argue, that learning to pull a book from a shelf with one’s own hands, and learning to read from a book with pages is qualitatively different than using a screen. The research is already starting to bear this out. Add to this the caution regarding health effects from electronic devices, and I think I’d prefer to cuddle up next to my child with a non-EMF-emitting paper book, thank you.

Biondo says, “To the library board of trustees, there doesn’t always have to be a balance.” Wrong, wrong, so, so wrong. We can argue about scope, depth and focus (which is what we are doing now. See my reference to LPs, above.). But as long as we are talking about a PUBLIC library, there must always be a balance, because we are talking about appropriate service to the broadest common denominator based on a bottom line. Speaking of which, where is the Library Foundation in all of this? And why is no one considering a referendum to restore hours and/or grow services and collections?

Biondo says,”It’s not cheaper in the long term…” Wrong again! In fact, Jane Pearlmutter of UW-Madison pointed out that, not only does the library have to pay over and over for the same e-book title, but the rise in cost to libraries for e-book plans through vendors has already been announced, and the rise is astronomical. Add to this questions about the durability of e-book readers and the cost of replacing them as they are lost or broken, and one can see how e-books are not cheap at present or in the foreseeable future.

Biondo says, “Let’s begin the transfer to the digital library world together for once and help those who need our help, whether they are patrons who don’t comprehend electronic readers or employees who need retraining as their antiquated jobs become obsolete.” Wrong again, and based on ugly assumptions. The transfer began in the 1970s. Anyone who thinks the library should dive headfirst, lemming-style, into the untested waters of e-books has not fully considered all of the implications. In fact, it is a number of patrons and employees who are arguing for a measured approach to providing services to all, and remembering those who need it most. A library is not ether. A library is a place. A library is people. A library is (or should be) a force for good. To be this, a library must be people who make good decisions.

Andrew Strong is a resident of Rockford and a former librarian.

From the Feb. 1-7, 2012, issue

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has decided to not let sleeping dogs lie in his pursuit to overturn one paragraph in the controversial National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA) signed on New Year’s Eve by President Barack Obama. National Hockey League goaltender Tim Thomas stood behind his view of this constitutional rights challenge to skip his team’s invite to the White House to celebrate the Boston Bruins’ Stanley Cup.

Take the “sleeping dogs lie” to be a double entendre. Every politician quoted directly from press interviews by The Rock River Times over the past month said they would never vote for any bill that takes away the rights of U.S citizens to due process as provided in the Constitution. And yet, there it is, in section 1021, in language that Paul believes obliterates the Constitution.

Paul ducked away from the campaign trail just before the voting in the South Carolina primary to introduce legislation to remove section 1021 and attacked one of his colleagues on the House floor about the National Defense Authorization Act.

Paul warned of this rights debauchery last December when he said the discretionary detention provision authorizing the president to detain people accused by the government of supporting terrorism is an outright attack on American’s basic civil rights.

Paul chided Obama’s issuing a signing statement declaring he will not use the law to detain Americans and wants the paragraph about discretionary detentions out of the NDAA bill, where it was slipped in subversively in versions of the House and Senate bills, then signed by Obama when nobody was looking. Paul said the bill will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”

Many rights activists, spearheaded by Paul, believe that section of the bill is out of line. Paul has made several public speeches about section 1021. In a weekly phone address to supporters, Paul said: “The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and, in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

Paul went on to say the following in his phone address: “The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal counsel. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.

“It is no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces. How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens,” Paul continued. “It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

In a break from his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Paul took to the House floor to speak out against the section, which allows the government to detain without trial individuals who have “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

Paul said section 1021 “provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely.”

He criticized his fellow lawmakers by saying the following: “Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One senator even said, about American citizens being picked up under this section of the NDAA, ‘When they say, “I want my lawyer,” you tell them, “Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.”’ Is this acceptable in someone who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution?”

Paul was speaking about comments made by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., that were captured on C-SPAN. Graham has compared the war on terror to World War II and believes suspected enemies should be stripped of constitutional protections. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, and the president is authorized to wage it.

Bottom of form

Paul has said the language is too vague and could be used to detain Americans. According to the Texas congressman, the section is “precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas.”

As reported by LewRockwell.com, the main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of the paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph reads: AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., introduced legislation that will help the federal government circumvent that issue. The Enemy Expatriation Act seeks to remove U.S. citizenship from those who “support hostilities against the United States.”

Meanwhile, Bruins all-star goalie Thomas boycotted the visit with Obama to protest section 1021 after the invite to celebrate his team’s championship last June. Thomas, 36, went 16-9 in the playoffs with a 1.98 goals-against average, helping Boston to its first title in 39 years.

Thomas posted his decision on his Facebook page last week and has refused to answer questions about it since.

“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People,” Thomas wrote. “This is being done at the Executive, Legislative and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

“Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House,” Thomas continued. “This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion, both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL. This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic.”

Paul’s legislation is less than 100 words in H.R. 3785 would repeal section 1021 of the NDAA. The bill, introduced Jan. 18, has been assigned to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committee on Armed Services.

Paul told his supporters after the South Carolina Primary ended that “The message of liberty is being received by more people every single day.” He said on national TV he “introduced a bill to repeal that provision and remove that power from our president. Our cause is the right cause because it’s the cause that made America great. Freedom is the answer to so many of our problems. Freedom brings people together.”

In previous statements provided to The Rock River Times by U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, all said they would never support a bill that eliminated the rights of U.S. citizens, and yet all voted for the bills, respectively, in the House and Senate.

Section 1021 needs to be repealed. The language of providing the president with far-reaching and exclusive powers to imprison anyone anywhere at any time is dangerous and scary.

Who inserted the paragraph and when it was done has not been disclosed. But it’s there, it’s law, and it must be eliminated to return our country to the course set by the Constitution.

From the Feb. 1-7, 2012, issue

Editor’s note: The following is the text of remarks made by Paul Arena during the public comment period at the Jan. 18 Winnebago County Forest Preserve District (WCFPD) board meeting. He attached the following note in his e-mail to The Rock River Times: “Here is my statement I made to the board. I spoke with Tom K [Kalousek, WCFPD executive director] and Randy [Olson, WCFPD board president] yesterday. They are planning a meeting for our group to work with them on a master plan for Roland Olson and how it will be replanted. I think that is very positive news. With your help, we stopped them from cutting 1,000 more tress and it appears we will have a say in what happens going forward. Thanks, Paul”

By Paul Arena
Roland Olson Forest Preserve Neighbor

Good evening, my name is Paul Arena. I am a resident of Winnebago County. I am here to address this board’s conduct regarding the alteration of Roland Olson Forest Preserve.

This action has been explained as necessary in the interest of prairie restoration. I am sure that prairies are an important component of a balanced environment that would include both wooded areas and prairies.

It is stated in the law governing this district that the purpose of the preserves is for the use by the general public. The law states it is this board’s function to provide the public “a well-balanced system of areas with scenic, ecological, recreational, and historic values for the inspiration, education, use and enjoyment by the public.” Roland Olson was an area that many of us frequently enjoyed.

Prior to the alteration, Roland Olson forest preserve was close to half prairie but also included a soccer field, a pavilion for public use and wooded areas where visitors could walk through.

The plan for Roland Olson on page 35 of the district’s 2012 resource management restoration manual calls for the removal of the majority of trees from the park, making the majority of the park tall grass. That is not well-balanced use of that particular area. In this case, the board has failed to represent the interest of a significant number of people who used that park the way it was.

The law governing this board also defines procedures for the contracting of services or for the capital improvement of public lands. With the intent of altering the park to convert it almost entirely to prairie, this board approved a contract to trade more than 4,000 trees for the service of their removal.

Regardless of how the work is defined, the law outlines procedures for a bidding process this board has failed to follow. These procedures are required when the compensation exceeds $20,000.

I believe the trees from Roland Olson have to be worth $5 each and would meet the threshold to require a competitive bid.

This tree harvest is from three forest preserves by the same contractor at the same time. The total value of the lumber harvested would be based on all the trees from all three preserves. The $20,000 threshold is based on the compensation to the contractor in the value of the tress, not what the district receives in return for the trees.

The excuse that there was no other willing bidder does not relieve the board of the requirement to follow the procedures defined in the law. Circumstances to document a sole bidder are addressed in the law and do not appear to have been followed. The intent of these laws is to ensure an open and public process before entering into this type of contract.

Section 2-348 of the law governing this board clearly states that the failure to follow the procedure defined in the law shall void the contract. This board should halt the removal of any cut lumber from our preserves until the public can be assured we are receiving fair compensation for the lumber.

It seems to be the position of this board that the alteration of these preserves without first gaining public opinion was a mistake in judgment, but the public needs to accept what has happened and move on. From the perspective of a person who enjoyed the park, I think a better approach would be to acknowledge that a mistake was made, and you will make things right instead of telling the people that a mistake was made and deal with it.

From the Jan. 25-31, 2012, issue

Stanley Campbell

By Stanley Campbell

It’s not too often we get to look a candidate in the face and ask them a question. It’s even less often we get a straight answer, but the chance of inquiry is worth the effort. It’s difficult, with the number of voters out there, to have a heart-to-heart with every constituent. Candidates would love to have you come and listen to them, but the chances are few, unless you plan on making a donation. That is why Rockford Urban Ministries (for which I work) is co-sponsoring three candidate forums before the primary election March 20.

Beginning at 7 p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 31, only the candidates for state representatives and senators are invited to introduce themselves at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 4848 Turner St. (four blocks north and east of Alpine and State). The questions asked by a panel will only focus on education. The subject will be limited, but you will have a chance to meet the candidates. There are plenty of them to go around. What with the new redistricting (some might say gerrymandering); I am not even sure where those lines are drawn. We’ll try to have maps, and I am sure the candidates themselves will be able to tell you where you are.

Why limit the candidates? The State of Illinois is a critical partner in education. The decisions made by the state legislature affect school funding levels and methods, regional offices, common core standards, Race to the Top, early childhood, higher education, testing, charter schools, vouchers, collective bargaining, pensions, teacher evaluations, school district consolidation and more. What do the candidates for the State Senate and State House plan to do to be supportive partners in education? Where do they stand on these issues? You are welcome to join us to find out. Sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Church, the Rockford Register Star, the League of Women Voters, RUM and La Voz Latina.

Beginning at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 2, Allen Chapel, 3000 Rural St., will host an all-Winnebago County candidates forum. Allen Chapel moved from downtown just before the wrecking ball and is now ensconced in the former Westminster Presbyterian Church — they having moved farther east. So, besides getting a good eyeful of county politicians, you’ll be able to see the A.M.E.’s new “digs.” Besides, they usually have a nice spread. County board politics can be messy. It is where the development goes, or stays. The environmentalists are upset because politicians got a hold of the Winnebago County Forest Preserve Board, but to make a real dent for the future, the county board is where the action is.

At 2 p.m., Sunday, Feb. 19, First Presbyterian Church at North Main and Park Avenue (yes, they are still there), will host state candidates (that’s the representatives and senators, again). This forum will focus on current issues and will take questions from the audience. I hope to get a few questions in about gambling and poverty.

We don’t do debates. Office seekers give a three- or four-minute introduction, and the moderators ask most of the questions. The League of Women Voters keep time, and everyone is welcome (most of the crowds number around 100).

With the new redistricting, the redrawn boundary lines make the primaries the main election. The lines are drawn so a district is either highly Democrat or Republican. Short of a mass murderer or some other felonious activity, once an incumbent gets in, it’s hard to dislodge them. So, take your chance and go see the candidates now, even at the expense of encouraging them.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Jan. 25-31, 2012, issue

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn’s plan to close some state facilities to address budget shortfalls will put pressure on legislators to find new money to avoid the cuts, but one of the cuts — the closing of a juvenile prison — should be embraced by legislators as cost effective and in the best interests of our youth and safe communities.

Obviously, it’s important that state employees be able to transfer to other facilities or receive help finding other employment, and some of the facilities, like the Illinois Youth Center in Murphysboro, could be put to other uses either by state government or others in the community.

But because the juvenile prison population is rapidly decreasing and per bed costs rapidly escalating, closing a juvenile facility makes sense. Illinois now has the opportunity to join a host of states ranging from California to Texas to New York that are rapidly shifting reliance from expensive — and ineffective — juvenile prisons to more effective community treatment.

In stark contrast to Gov. Quinn’s proposed closing of an adult prison in an already overcrowded adult prison system, the state’s juvenile prisons are far under capacity and an inefficient drain on the state treasury.

Illinois currently runs eight separate far-flung juvenile facilities to house an average of fewer than 1,200 youth. These eight facilities are costly. The average annual cost per bed has rapidly risen from $70,915 five years ago to an estimate of more than $90,000 this year. The per-bed cost at the Murphysboro youth prison, which the governor plans to close, are far above average and climbed to $142,342 per bed in FY ’10. Operation of each facility entails significant administrative costs, as does collective oversight and management of the eight separate facilities.

If each of the eight facilities ran quality programming with successful results, there might be justification for continuing their operation. The facts, however, are dismally opposite. Reports document a juvenile prison system that is ineffective, with more than half the youth returning to juvenile prisons within three years. Most facilities struggle to maintain minimal educational programming, let alone adequate mental health treatment, recreation or vocational classes.

The national wave of juvenile prison closures reflects an ever-growing body of research finding that local services are better at keeping youth from reoffending. Thus, many states, including Texas and Ohio, are reinvesting some of the savings from prison closures into community alternatives.

Illinois has a nationally-acclaimed reinvestment program — Redeploy Illinois — that has successfully decreased juvenile prison commitments across the state. Instead of closing just one juvenile prison, the governor and General Assembly should downsize the juvenile prison system further and shift some of the savings to community programs, like Redeploy Illinois, that hold troubled youth accountable for their actions, help change the direction of their lives and make our communities safer.

Elizabeth Clarke is president of the Juvenile Justice Initiative, a nonprofit juvenile justice advocacy organization with offices in Springfield and Evanston, Ill.

From the Jan. 25-31, 2012, issue

By Bob Logan
Franklin Grove Resident

The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals met Friday night, Jan. 20, to discuss setbacks, the issue all other industrial wind turbine regulations rest upon.

None could say why 1,400 feet, the current setback from non-participating property foundations, is appropriate, but that’s the number Florida Light and Power provided when supplying conditions Lee County adopted for its first turbines.

Setbacks are imposed to alleviate nuisances and protect people and nature. Two years of testimony have provided ample justification for longer setbacks to no avail. Industrial wind turbines are permitted as a special use on property zoned Ag-1, a concession permitting activities not normally allowed that affect surrounding properties. Granting special conditions use is a privilege given, not a demandable right.

Current sound thresholds came from recommendation of GSG wind company; proposed decommissioning, noise and flicker standards come courtesy of Ireland’s Mainstream Renewable Energies, the firm seeking to build wind turbines across Lee, Whiteside and Bureau counties. Anyone see a pattern?

Wind industry is being allowed to develop across the United States with few state or federal regulatory fetters and fewer regulations based on empirical studies. Turbines reach the field for installation through the benefit of huge taxpayer subsidies, but without the benefit of government studies, inspections or reviews ordinarily accorded such industrial development. Impacts come to light after a decade of performance and a host of private studies.

Illinois Farm Bureau raises the question, “Are local governing bodies adequately prepared to regulate such a vast, technically complex and swiftly developing industry?” Our board has never written rules to regulate an industrial complex that would envelop the county, if given unbridled access.

Zoning is imposed to protect health, safety, well-being and property values. Board responsibility does not require ensuring private corporations a profit, a place to operate, or creating county revenue at the expense of the county’s primary responsibility to protect its citizens and land.

How can zoning board members suggest we don’t need rules covering violation consequences and complaints? One board member said he can read the sound threshold section of the wind ordinance, but he doesn’t understand it — and then he goes ahead and moves to approve it?

He just joined three others, who don’t understand the ordinance, either, recommending a standard that “could be tried, and changed if it doesn’t work”?

Down-county residents will suffer the consequences of a timid ordinance in a county lacking enforcement will or intent.

Good men in over their heads? Probably! So, they look to knowledgeable experts, wind energy developers, to guide them through the process, seeking at nearly every juncture a nod of approval from those same developers. “Are we doing OK?” Seems like foxes writing plans for chicken house security.

Could $500,000 in permit fees buy really objective expertise, or must we accept diminishing, diverted landfill money, regardless of what happens to our environment and the effects on people?

From the Jan. 25-31, 2012, issue

By Frank Schier
Editor & Publisher

In light of the controversy over the clear-cutting in various Winnebago County forest preserves, The Rock River Times asked the concerned citizens living around the Roland Olson Forest Preserve to help present a list of questions they wanted answered. The following, editorially, is obviously contemptuous of the public’s right to know. Hartley called and said he’d issue a statement and not specifically answer each question. The reply was, a statement was not acceptable; each question should be anwered individually. That was ignored.

It’s outrageous and a sad attempt at spin and false public relations.

The e-mail

Frank:

Attached is the explanation of the District’s land management at Roland Olson, Fuller Memorial and Pecatonica River Forest Preserves. Most of your questions are answered in the attached explanation.

Tom Hartley

Director of Land & Development

Winnebago County Forest Preserve District

5500 Northrock Drive, Rockford, IL 61103, 815/877-6100, 815/877-6124 FAX

The attached explanation

2012 PINE REMOVALS AT ROLAND OLSON, PECATONICA RIVER, AND FULLER MEMORIAL FOREST PRESERVES

The Winnebago County Forest Preserve District undertook the pine removals as part of our land management/restoration efforts. Most of the pines removed were approximately 35 years old and their health declining. Two goals of the resource department are relevant to the removals:

1. To recreate or restore the landscape as it existed in the 1830’s and

2. To “Perpetuate biodiversity by reintroducing native plant and wildlife species to their appropriate physical environment.”

We base much of our knowledge about the Winnebago County vegetation on the first survey taken in the County between 1836 and1840. Those first surveyors took notes on the vegetation and no pines were mentioned. From the notes we can conclude that pines were not a part of the pre-settlement landscape. The pines were planted in rows and close together. As the trees mature they shade the understory and acidify the soil creating a sterile environment. By thinning the stands more sunlight can penetrate the tree canopy and a larger diversity of understory plants can survive. The District also started this work because we had a company, Premier Forest Products, willing to pay us for work that we wanted done. They have performed similar work for the Nature Conservancy and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. We would not have considered this work without someone willing to pay us. The process after all the trees are removed is to begin site clean-up. In selected areas stumps will be ground and brush mown. Remaining branches will be burned or chipped. The sites will then be seeded with a native seed mix. In some areas the site will be restored to prairie and other areas will require reforestation. That determination is based upon what the soil is telling us. Once the planting reaches three years of maturity the areas will be maintained with controlled burns.

According to our estimates 2,237 pines were taken at Roland Olson Forest Preserve. There were 301 White Pine, 866 Red Pine, and 1,070 Scotch Pine removed. Roughly 50% of the pines that were existing remain and most of those remaining are White Pine. The site perimeter was left untouched. Red Pines do not mature well in our climate and soil. They had thinning canopies and were at the end of their approximate 50-year life span. The Scotch Pine do even worse than Red Pine with age as they are vulnerable to borer activity and pine nematode attack and have a short 30-40 year life span. Some deciduous trees were removed—those were Black Cherry (54), Elm (49), Boxelder (66) and Green Ash as well as Mulberry, Honeysuckle, and Buckthorn. At Fuller Memorial Forest Preserve we estimate 1,013 Red Pine were removed, 351 White Pine, 70 Spruce, 30 Boxelder, and 20 Black Cherry. Approximately 70% of the existing evergreens remain. We were most concerned with loss of bird habitat at Fuller and therefore kept a larger percentage of evergreens. The most drastic reduction of pines was done at Pecatonica River Forest Preserve. In the plantation located in the northwest corner of the preserve with Brick School Road forming the northern boundary all of the pines were removed. A total of 382 Red Pines and 1,421 White Pines were removed. The remainder of pines in the preserve were retained.

Similar removals were done in 2009 in Sugar River Alder Forest Preserve with the services of Premier Forest Products. At that time we investigated the potential of having the work bid to other companies but found none in the area interested. The pines at Sugar River Alder were located within a nature preserve and required approval from the Nature Preserve Commission. There the pines were removed with little public response and about the same level of public notification. We also undertook a reforestation in the winter of 2008-2009 at Blackhawk Springs Forest Preserve. Former cropland had been left to ‘nature’ and the result was a thicket of Boxelder, Cherry, and Buckthorn. Again we removed the existing vegetation and gave some public notice but did not receive the same level of complaint as is true of Roland Olson Forest Preserve.

In light of the public response, we will do a better job in the future to inform and educate people about our land management program. Part of our legislation mandates preserves exist for the “enjoyment of the public.” We believe that a greater understanding of our land management will lead to greater understanding and appreciation of the preserves. Our hope is that in time the public will appreciate our most recent restoration efforts.

Tom Hartley

Director of Land & Development

The question asked:

JOIN IN JUDGING IF HARTLEY’S STATEMENT, “Most of your questions are answered in the attached explanation,” IS TRUTHFUL.

1. Have the Fuller and Pecatonica preserves already been harvested? Was harvesting done last week at Pecatonica? Were the neighbors informed, and was their input asked for by staff or the appropriate board member? Will any more harvesting be done at those preserves? NOT ANSWERED.

2. Who were the bird experts that were consulted prior to the harvest at Roland Olson, Fuller and Pecatonica? NOT ANSWERED.

3. Were experts contacted to study the effect on other wildlife, such as the nesting squirrels, raccoons, opossum, fox, owls, songbirds and even eagles? How about moths, butterflies and bats? NOT ANSWERED.

4. Why was it necessary to clear-cut the preserve? NOT ANSWERED.

5. Will they also be removing/culling the dead trees? If so, will the pricing be the same as in the contract? NOT ANSWERED.

6. If the contract was signed in February of 2010, why were the signs posted only days before the harvest began? NOT ANSWERED.

7. Who proposed the restoration plan? NOT ANSWERED.

8. Who decided that public input was not necessary prior to entering into the contract? NOT ANSWERED.

9. Was public input ever suggested by any board member? NOT ANSWERED.

10. Did Premier Lumber solicit the right to harvest trees from other public parks? How much work have they done for the WCFPD in the last 15 years? PARTIALLY ANSWERED.

11. How did Premier Lumber become aware of the WCFPD’s intent to convert Roland Olson from forest to prairie? Does Premier have any relationship with board members, staff or any other personnel or their families? NOT ANSWERED.

12. Why are only the areas of the preserve with a marketable commodity being converted to prairie? If restoration of the area is the intent, should not the whole park be converted? NOT ANSWERED.

13. Were other companies approached to bid on the harvest? Were public notices for bids placed in papers of record and general circulation according to statute? NOT ANSWERED.

14. Have the Winnebago County taxpayers been given a fair-market price for our trees? NOT ANSWERED.

15. Will other forest preserves be harvested? Why are 100-year-old pines considered invasive? PARTIALLY ANSWERED.

16. What other forest preserves have been restored to prairie? PARTIALLY ANSWERED.

17. Why is prairie considered more desirable than forest? Is this based on any public survey? PARTIALLY ANSWERED.

18. Why is the project referred to as a pine tree removal when many other species of tree are included in the contract? NOT ANSWERED.

19. Why did the press release on the prairie restoration not include a map that detailed the scope of the harvest? NOT ANSWERED.

20. Was the board aware that in excess of 1,000 trees would be harvested from Roland Olson? NOT ANSWERED.

21. How are the stumps going to be removed so the prairie planting can be done? What will be the cost for stump removal, by what firm, or will the work be put out to bid? NOT ANSWERED.

22. Why are we letting the lumber company choose the scale for weighing the trees, and have WCFPD personnel been present at the weighings? NOT ANSWERED.

OUR COUNT: 18 OUT OF THE 23 QUESTIONS WERE NOT ANSWERED AT ALL, AND FIVE WERE PARTIALLY ANSWERED. What’s your count? Is this a truthful and open response fullfilling the public’s right to know? Is this an example of good business management?

To be continued …

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

Curled in the lap of the library; surrounded by shelf upon shelf of information, cultural explorations, adventure and reading freedom … this is a public paradise, a place to be preserved.

What part of public is the Rockford Public Library board missing with its recent, privately-made decisions; the decisions that affect the preservation of this paradise? The same part, it appears, that is missing from our public schools institution — public input.

Public schools: Between the federal government’s probably well-intended, but definitely misguided, decree of No Child Left Behind (and its inherent, impossible mandates); and the greed of coat-tailing corporate testing giants fashioning and hawking shallow, scripted lessons and texts that promise to help students pass the tests they create; the public, and indeed, even the educators, were (are) removed from curricular decisions. And, thus, the morphing of public school content; shamefully narrowed to place “success” on high-stakes tests above that of acquisition of a broad and deep knowledge base, critical thinking skills, and most horrific, the joy of learning.

Public input in these decisions: Zero.

Rockford Public Library: Between dreadfully shortened patron hours, and the decision to allocate 34 percent of collection budget dollars for electronic books (contrast 8-10 percent to be allocated in most public libraries by 2016) at the sacrifice of print books (which are available for all patrons, and not just those who own e-readers); our tome-filled paradise is coming perilously close to an endangered classification. The words of Lady Bird Johnson at this juncture become bittersweet, “Perhaps no place in any community is so totally democratic as the town library.”

Public input in these decisions: Zero.

As a Rockford Public School teacher, I am dismayed by the twisted connotation of a foundational tenet of our country. Democracy, as I learned it and teach it (even though it’s not a fill-in-the-bubble question on the high-stakes test-du jour), resembles a very different animal than the one described above. Am I lying to my students?

Nonetheless; denotations, connotations and quotes aside, I see a desperate need for increased (not decreased) resources at the RPL that offer full and equal access to all of the families I and my fellow educators serve. That is, increased hours of operation at all sites, and increased number of accessible-to-everyone books — books of high art, books of popular culture, books that offer entertainment and escapism, books that serve as an avenue to pursue topics that consume our attention, books that are used as a tool for social change and personal transformation, books written in Spanish and other languages, books that help us to navigate our world (the world that Brazilian educator and author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire, aptly refers to as a “difficult text”). And an increase of coveted new titles, cherished classics, books that speak to readers across time and culture, and colorful/engaging/wonder-inspiring/cuddling-up/ towering-stack kind of books that you bring home with your toddler to be read, re-read, and then traded in for another stack.

Should we not be doing everything we can to increase literacy? Should we not be doing everything we can to narrow the 30,000,000-word gap our neediest preschoolers face, providing a “book flood” to those in danger of word poverty? For those readers who are undernourished in literature?

How about for those students who have not yet found the types of books they love, will come to crave, and will wait with joyful anticipation for the newest title in the series for? Studies show that students do not engage in enough recreational reading, and that those who do read the most for fun, score the highest in both reading and writing. Compound this finding with the bowdlerization of literature in schools (read Diane Ravitch’s eye-opening 2003 book, The Language Police), and the fact that a narrowed/test-driven curriculum leaves insufficient time for free-choice reading, and, resultantly, the need for a never-ending cascade of books that children WANT to read becomes even more apparent. Bear in mind the absolute necessity of myriad books available to borrow, enjoy and marinate in over summer break; the need crystallizes. Let’s not forget the students who frequently borrow books from the RPL for assignments. And we face less of these resources?

Don’t get me wrong, e-readers are amazing technological wonders that seem to provide many with the convenience they need; but we definitely need to keep the digital divide at a minimum. Furthermore, I certainly understand the role of budgetary constraints in issues such as patron hours. But, since the role of the public library is to provide for all of its public, let’s see if we can’t actually acquire some public input, and be constantly cognizant of all of the patrons of this paradise. Save the books, save the future books; open the doors and save the library. Let’s get the Rockford Public Library off the endangered list, and give the word democracy back its rightful place.

“A library is not a luxury but one of the necessities of life.” — Henry Ward Beecher

To help, please contact the Rockford Public Library board members, visit saveourrockfordlibrary.blogspot.com, and/or make an appearance at the Jan. 23 board meeting.

Byron resident Amy Orvis is a National Board-certified Rockford Public School teacher.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

I am a mother of two young children, and we visit the Rockford Public Library at least once a week. Each time, we bring cloth bags bursting with library books to return, and then fill those bags up with even more great BOOKS.

Books — pages bound together, often with colorful photos or illustrations. Books that my children hold, and that we read together. We share those books, and they are important to us.

That is why I feel the need to express my concern over the library’s plan to convert 34 percent of their materials to digital resources.

The very idea of libraries has always been to make books available to everyone. The thought that families would not be able to afford to borrow books because they can’t pay for expensive electronics is incredibly upsetting, and honestly, makes me worry that the library board has lost touch with the community it is supposed to represent.

Almost 64 percent of Rockford is low income. When families are struggling to buy food and clothing and keep their homes warm this winter, there is simply no room to expect these same people to buy electronic readers at $100 or more per unit.

I feel the need to respond to Library Director Frank Novak’s guest column where he states that digital information and digital readers are becoming “the new normal.”

I believe that e-readers have their place, but that place is not in the hands of most Rockford residents, because they can’t afford them. Therefore, e-readers represent a barrier to books, and to learning. A digital conversion means that the poorest people — those who need access to free books the most — will be the ones to lose access.

I read his letter in the most recent issue of The Explorer, the library newsletter, where he discusses how the library is embracing e-readers, and he suggests adding a digital reader “to your wish list.” Next to his column appears an article about helping people pick e-readers.

As a lover of the library, I find these two articles make me very nervous. I feel that the e-train is leaving the station, and only those who can afford expensive electronics will be along for the ride. But what about the rest of the community — the majority of the community, who still rely on good old-fashioned books?

And how will the staff be affected by a digital conversion? Will hours be reduced further? Will branches be closed, as we enter Mr. Novak’s vision of the future ­— a place where library shelves are empty, and only the wealthiest people and adults can afford the experience of reading?

It breaks my heart to think of my children, wanting to learn about a topic, and losing out on the opportunity to go to a library and search the shelves, the opportunity to choose a book filled with vivid illustrations, and beautiful type.

There should always, always be a place for books. They are a precious resource that our community desperately needs.

If you agree, I ask that you please visit http://saveourrockfordlibrary.blogspot.com. Community members who care deeply about the future of our library and free access to all have formed a group called SOL, for Save Our Library. On this site, there will be updates available, as well as information about how to contact library board members. Remember, it is the job of these board members to represent our community — accurately, with integrity, and with fairness to all.

Kara Anderson is a Rockford resident, writer and mother who thinks of the library as a place where she can always tell her children yes.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

“Loaning e-books is like playing with some other kid’s ball on the playground. There is always a risk that the other kid will take back his or her ball and go home.”— Christopher Harris, author of ALA’s Infomancy blog

Publishing and reading trends change and evolve, and libraries have always been responsible for keeping up-to-date and current with the changing needs and demands of their users. The foray into the ever-shifting world of e-book lending is the most recent part of this process, and libraries across America are working hard to make sound decisions about how to include e-content as a part of their collections. Libraries have to walk a fine line, though, balancing their investment into e-books with patron demand because the new landscape of e-book library lending is only just taking shape.

When a library buys a paper book, they have what is called “first sale rights” to the book. That means they can use the book in any way they like within the limitations of copyright law. They can lend the book as many times as they like, they may sell the book when they are done with it, or they may give the book away. In short, as you would expect, they own the book they have purchased.

Conversely, when a library “buys” an e-book, what they are actually paying for is a license to that title with limitations set (and changed without notice) by the title’s publishers and by OverDrive, the digital content distributor. Limitations may include the number of times the title can be checked out before the library has to pay for the book again (renew its license) and how many patrons can download the title at the same time (in essence the number of “copies” the library “owns”) and now, after a drastic move by Penguin Publishers last week that disabled Kindles from downloading library-lent Penguin titles, what devices it will allow to access the title. In short, the library is basically borrowing the rights to the title, which can be changed, eliminated or made more expensive to the library at any time.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to see the many problems with this model. A library investing in e-books on these unstable terms can hardly know what they will really get back for their investment. The problems surrounding library lending of e-books will continue to plague libraries as they work to build digital collections until the courts settle the policies and laws that govern the e-book lending arena. And don’t hold your breath … it’s not going to be anytime soon — we’ll be lucky to see reliable regulation in the next 10 years. Until then, libraries have very little control over the content they purchase, as their e-content collections will be at the mercy of any whim that OverDrive (the virtual landlord of their e-book collection), Amazon, and any publisher may have.

In response to this unstable platform for e-content, some libraries — especially smaller libraries with limited collection budgets — have opted to stay out of the e-content world until they can be guaranteed security in their investment. While this is an understandable position, it is not the answer. Libraries are responsible for keeping up-to-date with user needs and providing information in a variety of formats that reflect the needs of its community. Patrons are becoming increasingly interested in more access to e-content, so libraries need to rise to the occasion and find a way to provide access to a solid collection of e-content.

This is no small order. Libraries across the country have proven to be very creative in their approach to addressing the e-book issue. Many have taken a collaborative approach, creating regional or even statewide consortiums for collecting digital content so users have access to a wide collection while the burden of investment is shared between multiple libraries, protecting all from gambling too much of their collection budget on e-books. Other libraries have chosen not to join in collaborative collections and are generally allotting a responsible, yet steady, percentage of their collection budget to e-content — around 5-7 percent — to complement and add to their core collection in traditional format. This percentage can grow as the library lending world of e-books stabilizes and consumer demand grows. Many libraries expect to spend up to 10 percent of their collection budget on e-content by 2020.

A careful librarian who knows the library’s collection and the community it serves can develop an excellent collection of varied content that will serve a population’s demand within the bounds of a limited budget. It’s what librarians have been doing for centuries. In taking this slow, but steady, approach to collecting e-content, whether through a consortium or alone, libraries are able to create a solid e-book collection on which to build without risking compromise to its core collection. After all, if one or more of the many big-name empires in this arena (Amazon, OverDrive or any of the publishing companies) falls or the e-reader bubble bursts, the library will go on serving its patrons with its core collection standing — a collection that no one can take away.

Emily Klonicki is the assistant director and children’s librarian of Ida Public Library. Her passion is public library services and she is an advocate for the public library. She lives with her family in Rockford and uses library services nearly every day of her life.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

You “assume” as a citizen that the individuals you elect are, in fact, fulfilling their campaign promises once in office; advocate on your behalf, be available to you and your concerns, and put citizens’ concerns ahead of special interests.

We trusted this official’s judgment and relied upon their word, even though they remained silent during neighborhood protests against this proposed asphalt plant.

This proposed asphalt plant will be located adjacent to our neighborhood, plainly in sight of all our back and front yards and was approved by the county board Oct. 27.

One would “assume” that having an “elected official” actually living in the neighborhood would be advantageous. However, this is not the case.

It soon became apparent that this “elected official,” from the beginning of the fight, had no intention of remaining in the neighborhood. This “elected official” wasted no time in moving out of the neighborhood Dec. 17, a silent reversal of the reassurances to this “elected official’s” neighbors … a betrayal of the trust “assumed” by residents.

But then, this “elected official” also voted “For” the asphalt plant that is to be located at Mulford and Harrison before this area was part of their responsibility as a city official.

Now that this “elected official” has moved up the “political ladder,” this exact area has become part of this “elected official’s” responsibility. So now we are witnessing a betrayal of two neighborhoods, neither of which includes the “elected official’s” new residence.

We are writing this in the “third person” because, evidently, the article that was written by Jeff Sammon last week (a publicly available and factual account) upset the balance of this “elected official” to the extent that there were phone calls made threatening to sue us if we printed another thing with regard to this matter. I believe that the First Amendment and “freedom of speech” are there to protect all of us. When the truth is printed and you deny everything to cover your actions, and you must resort to using our legal system as a threat, I believe that such threats are unnecessary and only provide additional motivation to proponents of the truth.

This is election time and, of course, no “elected official” wants anything to be revealed that might make that individual appear to be less “perfect” and less “electable.” The truth hurts, and we will continue to print any additional information we can verify.

When you go to the polls, please take a long, hard look at your “elected official” and honestly ask, “What have you done for me? Have you listened to my concerns?” It would be so refreshing to actually have an “elected official” who is in it for their constituents, not for what they can get out of it.

As an “elected official,” you have chosen to be a “public servant.” This is your choice. One can hope that in the next election, our area will elect an “elected official” who is in it for their constituents, not for what they will get out of it.

Remember to vote at the primary March 20.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

By Layne Bruce
Executive Director, Mississippi Press Association

JACKSON, Miss. — Call former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s pardons of more than 200 convicted felons what you want — egregious, nonsensical or — if you’re so inclined — justified. More worrisome, though, may be the volume of instances where pardons were issued, but public notice requirements about them were not fulfilled.

It’s a bizarre turn of events that has led to a court order to halt the release of some prisoners, the potential rounding up of others and wiping the slate clean for scores of people long out of jail.

The pardoning power of governors and presidents is a well-known and important part of executive privileges. It’s there for deserving individuals who have simply exhausted all other avenues of possible reprieve.

More obscure to many — apparently even to some officials and their throngs of legal advisers — is Article 5, Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution that succinctly requires proper advance public notice be made before a pardon request is granted by the governor.

In the case of scads of pardons issued Jan. 10, that didn’t happen. Many public notices pertaining to cases in counties all over the state weren’t published in the proper local newspaper far enough in advance of the issuance of the pardons. Many more evidently didn’t run at all.

Even a cursory check of ads placed in a Jackson newspaper showed some of the public notices were scheduled to begin running Jan. 12, two days after the pardons themselves had been signed by the former governor.

This isn’t about whether any one of the individuals Barbour pardoned was worthy or not. That’s another debate and one that’s usually rendered moot by the chief executive’s right to release convicts and restore their civil rights.

Rather, this is about transparency and the public’s right to know.

The circumventing of public notice law has been a problem at all levels of government since we formed one. And, quite frankly, I’m not sure whether it’s better to say the governor’s office was unaware of what is constitutionally required or simply didn’t bother to check.

A spokesperson for Barbour correctly pointed out after the story broke that the burden of notice falls on the individual requesting the pardon.

But it’s valid for the public to expect someone at some level of government validated the notices were published properly before the executive orders granting the pardons were signed.

This is a prime example of the importance — and too often overlooked — principle of public notices that appear in newspapers and on their websites in this state and nationwide. They serve the public’s right to know about what is happening with government and public officials within their communities.

And when public notice laws are abused — either by mistake or on purpose — a serious right of citizens, taxpayers and voters is compromised.

Now, we’re left to sort out how many of those pardoned were actually eligible. It’s going to take time and money.

Some have discounted the outrage resulting from the mass pardons as political rhetoric. After all, a vast majority were no longer incarcerated.

It doesn’t reconcile, though, a number of murderers were nearly handed back the right to own a gun. And some molesters were almost excused from registering as sex offenders.

Victims of such crimes deserve better.

And the public at large has a right to know. Always.

Layne Bruce is executive director of the Mississippi Press Association.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

In response to many articles about 2012 Democratic candidates for the Illinois 17th Congressional District, let me say that, from the several candidate forums I have attended, Freeport Mayor George Gaulrapp is the voters’ best bet at the upcoming March 20, 2012, Primary Election.

At each of the forums I attended, I compared each candidate with a simple, high-to-low, 3-point scale that has worked well for me in the past: (1) Substance — substantially and factually answers questions on pertinent issues; (2) Manipulation — plays to an audience’s emotions or popularly-held beliefs; and (3) Name-dropping — pretense of self-importance through loose association.

Gaulrapp consistently scored the highest at every forum, and now that there are only three congressional candidates left running, there is no question in my mind that only Gaulrapp is the single most-qualified candidate for the voters.

Gaulrapp consistently has detailed answers for the people’s questions and never changes the subject back to who he might have known when he was growing up, or how many important hands he has shaken along the way; yet, there have been many.

As mayor, Gaulrapp has been an effective administrator of city staff functions, leading by example during economical duress by personally taking a 10 percent salary cut, and then encouraging city employees to follow his example.

He is a proven and capable budget administrator balancing and maintaining the City of Freeport budget to a surplus balance of $1.25 million, and has garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for urban renewal and infrastructure projects.

He has been instrumental in progressive talks to get rail transportation service returned to Freeport on its way to Iowa.

Gaulrapp has been a charismatic contract negotiator and arbitrator between bargaining unit employees and city management, allowing for agreeable wage and benefit packages that kept the city safe and secure, and avoided shutdowns of key departments such as public safety.

Gaulrapp has been a good listener, a thorough investigator and tactful problem solver for urban housing issues, working toward improving neighborhoods and encouraging neglectful landlords to clean up or remove dilapidated buildings.

He understands and is an advocate for improved health care issues, especially those involving senior citizens, veterans and the less fortunate.

As president of the Northern Illinois Mayors Association, Gaulrapp serves as a strong leader and respected trend-setter among his peers.

Gaulrapp is a respected elected official who knows how to “walk across the aisle” to achieve mutually beneficial agreements through honest negotiations and compromise.

Gaulrapp is a knowledgeable debater and strong advocate on federal issues concerning manufacturing, transportation infrastructure, waterways, agriculture, nature conservation, and use of renewable energy and natural resources.

Gaulrapp is an avid high school, college and professional sports fan who conscientiously maintains a personal schedule including daily health workouts at the YMCA.

He is a respected and proud Catholic who actively practices his faith through volunteer actions, yet who is known for privately taking time, in public, to bow his head and say grace and give thanks before each meal.

A committed family man, neighbor and friend of many, Gaulrapp is a respected citizen who helps drive others to church when the weather gets too bad for them to drive; who has been known to personally shovel out people’s driveways after a city snowplow plugged the driveway.

But don’t take my word for it. The next time a candidate forum is scheduled, take the time to discover the truth yourself. Or call George and ask him your questions.

Use your own scale of comparison, or use mine. You will find that Gaulrapp is the 17th Congressional District’s “Best Democratic Candidate” deserving of your vote.

Richard Montgomery is a Freeport, Ill., resident.

From the Jan. 18-24, 2012, issue

When my husband and I were looking for a site on which to build a house seven years ago, we were very happy to have found a site with the back yard on Swanson Road and across from Kieselburg Forest Preserve. We like the view so much that instead of having the traditional indoor fireplace at the back of the living room, the builder allowed us to place a large picture window at the back of the room so we could see the preserve. In addition, there were bike paths in the area and another forest preserve, Roland Olson, nearby.

We enjoyed this view for a few years. We saw deer, hawks and many birds. We loved to watch the changing colors of the trees as the seasons changed. We put bird feeders in the back yard and attracted many birds from the preserve that we could watch more closely. We used binoculars to see into the preserve from our living room window.

Last January, I looked out the window when I woke up as I usually do, and was devastated. A huge machine was knocking down the trees. It felt like a nightmare. The questions I had were: “How many trees were they going to take?” and, “Had the district sold the property for a gas station or commercial building?” I was horrified.

I called the Winnebago County Forest Preserve District (WCFPD) and was told the trees were being removed to “restore the prairie.” I was told that the “native state” is more bio-diverse and that it was going to be beautiful. They further told me they would only remove “scrub trees,” although I saw them remove trees with trunks that were at least 5 or 6 feet in diameter. They cut these trunks into pieces about 5 feet long and hauled them away in dump trucks.

Then, they hauled tree limbs and brush from somewhere else and proceeded to build the biggest open burn fire I have ever seen. They built this fire right across the street from Sheppard Hills Subdivision. It burned and smoldered days and nights for nearly two weeks. At times, there was a huge cloud of smoke over northern parts of Machesney Park and Roscoe that you could see while driving on Highway 251.

I called the Environmental Protection Agency and was told that the WCFPD did not have a current permit to burn. They sent me a copy of Title 35: Environmental Protection Subtitle B: Air Pollution Chapter 1: Pollution Control Board Subchapter i: Open Burning; Part 237 Open Burning. They sent a copy of the expired permit.

So, I had two issues with the forest preserve district. First, I strongly disagree with cutting down forests to create prairie. The more immediate concern a year ago was for my lungs and the house catching fire. I called the fire department and was told there is to be no unattended open burning at any time in Winnebago County. They suggested I call the state police. I filed a report with the state police, but never heard anything more about it.

I called the print and television media about this policy of destroying forests to create prairies. There did not seem to be much concern at the time. I called Randy Olson and talked to the district supervisor. They had the attitude that they are the experts and will do what they want to. We think the “prairie” they created looks like a big weed patch. Our neighbors also think it just looks like weeds. We were told they won’t be planting any of what they believe are native prairie trees, bur oaks, in the foreseeable future. We haven’t seen the owl since then.

When I heard about cutting the native pine trees at Roland Olson and the sneaky way they did it over the holidays, I looked into the matter further. This past weekend, on the Facebook page that has a link from the comments section of the article “Forest preserve or prairie preserve?” in The Rock River Times, I learned 50 acres of pine trees have been removed from the Sugar River Forest Preserve. This is insane.

In the first place, the period in time that the forest preserve district is using as the “natural state” is the 19th century when the settlers arrived. The common definition of natural state is, “a wild primitive state untouched by civilization.”

The Native Americans who had come from Asia had been here for thousands of years. They were civilized. Archeologists have come to know in the last 50 years or so that the Native Americans used fire to control their environment. Recent estimates are that 100 million Native Americans manipulated the environment for hunting and agriculture with fire before most of them died of diseases spread from Europe by the first explorers to America.

Studies of ash, carbon and pollen suggest the Native Americans used fire extensively by burning forests in the late spring when conditions allowed for more controlled burning. The Native Americans planted corn where they cleared forests with fire. They burned undergrowth in forests for easier mobility and hunting. Agriculture in the true prairies of the Great Plains required the invention of the steel plow. The Indians did not have the steel plow.

A 2005 book by Charles C. Mann, 1491 New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, is a good source to learn about the native state. Also, wildlandfire.com and foresthistory.org are other sources to learn about how the Native Americans controlled the environment for their survival by extensively using fire.

A common-sense way to find out what is the native state of Northern Illinois is simply to not interfere with a clear-cut land for about 75 years and observe it. We have many examples of this. First, the weeds and shrubs will grow followed by scrub trees. Larger trees will eventually shade the smaller varieties, which will die out. The last stage of forest growth is the large coniferous trees. To maintain prairie, it must be burned every one to three years, or the forest, the natural state, will slowly return.

These forest preserves are in populated areas. When they burn the prairie in Kieselburg, I am up all night coughing for a week. What about local asthma and respiratory sufferers?

Are we really sacrificing clean air, health and beautiful mature trees to enlarge the prairie chicken population?

Could there be a private profit reason for taking mature native trees out of our forest preserves?

I believe the WCFPD trustees have violated their fiduciary duty to the residents of Winnebago County, which is to preserve forests for the purpose of the education, pleasure and recreation of the public. Please call the WCFPD, the board and attend meetings. Let them know what “the public” wants and what we think about the forest preserve district’s policy of destroying forests.

“(70 ILCS 805/5) (from Ch. 96 1/2, par. 6308)
Sec. 5. Any forest preserve district organized under this Act shall have the power to create forest preserves, and for that purpose shall have the power to acquire in the manner hereinafter provided, and hold lands containing one or more natural forests or parts thereof or land or lands connecting such forests or parts thereof, or lands capable of being forested, or capable of being restored to a natural condition, for the purpose of protecting and preserving the flora, fauna, and scenic beauties within such district, and to restore, restock, protect and preserve the natural forests and such lands together with their flora and fauna, as nearly as may be, in their natural state and condition, for the purpose of the education, pleasure, and recreation of the public.”

Gloria J. Maloney is a Roscoe, Ill., resident.

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

At the risk of resurrecting another “dead horse,” I have some last comments on William Charles’ proposed construction of an asphalt plant in the East State Street quarry. These comments address State Rep. and former Rockford Ald. Joe Sosnowski, formerly a resident of the Fox Ridge subdivision adjacent to the quarry.

As a Fox Ridge resident, Mr. Sosnowski has never taken the time to introduce himself or even wave a greeting in the five-plus years I have lived in the same neighborhood; Mr. Sosnowski simply likes to cover the ground like snow and expect us to forget his arrogance when it comes time for his “people” to place signs in our yards.

Let’s start with all the controversy and challenges from his neighbors to William Charles’ request for a special-Use Permit from the county board, through the board’s final approval of the permit, Mr. Sosnowski remained silent. Requests for his support against the plant from his neighbors went unanswered; even after some of his neighbors met with the members of the local Tea Party — one of “Mr. Sosnowski’s biggest supporters. We presumed that the legal maxim “silence implies consent” applied; in other words, if Joe did not openly oppose the asphalt plant being built in his back yard, he was for it. He was so sure that the plant would bring no ill effects to the neighborhood that he even offered to arrange for a tour of William Charles’ similar plant on Nimtz Road for one of his concerned neighbors.

Let’s also not forget that he voted “For” a very similar asphalt plant at Mulford Quarry, situated inside the Mulford/Harrison neighborhood while he was a Rockford alderman. Remember that the asphalt plant at East State Street quarry will be even closer to homes than the proposed Mulford Quarry that Mr. Sosnowski voted for as a councilman.

The Winnebago County Board approved the special-use permit for the East State Street Quarry and construction of the asphalt plant at their meeting of Oct. 27.

Coincidentally, Mr. Sosnowski packed up his family and moved out of the Fox Ridge subdivision Dec. 17 and moved into 6153 Muirfield Lane, Rockford.

Apparently, he believes the ill effects of an asphalt plant could be dumped upon his neighbors and their children, but he wants his family (a wife and three small children) moved away before actual production starts in the spring. Why move if the plant’s emissions and noise are harmless? Why move approximately 5 miles from the Fox Ridge neighborhood — was it because of better public schools?

As a full-time employee of Rockford Christian Schools, I doubt Mr. Sosnowski would put his children in public schools. I have had several reports that Mr. Sosnowski and his wife did not like the thought of going outside and being able to see the asphalt plant.

It is obvious that Mr. Sosnowski’s hypocritical move is that of a political opportunist. The Republican Party obviously advised him that becoming involved in this controversy and taking a stand against the William Charles conglomerate would constitute political suicide. Remaining silent while his neighbors fought against overwhelming political odds is an act of political cowardice; but alas, this is the trademark of Mr. Sosnowski. Mr. Sosnowski had the opportunity to distinguish himself from other self-serving Winnebago County politicians by taking a stand against one of the most blatant special interest groups in the county, but unfortunately, he blew it and became just another one of the “grazing herd” feeding at the public trough.

Mr. Sosnowski has done nothing to distinguish himself as a legislator in Springfield, except to sponsor House Bill 1626 “CNTY CD-ZONING-SPECIAL USES.” This Bill amends the Counties Code by providing that a special use may be passed at a county board meeting by a simple majority of the elected county board members, except that a written protest against any proposed special use that is either signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the land to be rezoned, or signed by the owners of land immediately touching, or immediately across a street, alley, or public right-of-way from at least 20 percent of the perimeter of the land to be rezoned, or in cases where the land affected lies within 1.5 miles of the limits of a zoned municipality. It further provides that in those cases, a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the county board is required, but in counties where the county board consists of three members, only a two-thirds vote is required.

How funny that Mr. Sosnowski sponsors a House Bill on Special-Use Permits three months before a Special-Use Permit for the East State Street Quarry was filed, and now he has moved into a new, much larger house!

Mr. Sosnowski is running for re-election unopposed. I guess smiles and handshakes are all it takes these days, plus having the right connections. I urge the Democratic Party to come up with a viable (just breathing is good enough) opposition candidate by Election Day.

If not, I encourage Fox Ridge residents and everyone else to enter a “write-in” vote for someone Mr. Sosnowski should be familiar with — Mickey Mouse.

If you would like to comment directly to Mr. Sosnowski, please write him at his new asphalt-free home consisting of four bedrooms, 3.5 baths, and more than 3,000 square feet of lovely living space, 6153 Muirfield Lane, Rockford, Ill.

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

By Paul Gorski

We lost a great leader when Peter M. “Pete” MacKay passed away in December. Pete served the community well and was the beloved voice of many residents during his long tenure on the Winnebago County Board and as Rockford Township Highway Commissioner.

The longest-serving county board member, Pete was often characterized as an “extreme” conservative by those who did not understand him. A conservative, yes, but Pete was simply watching government finances, as any good politician should.

Pete had an eye for detail and looked for the biggest bang for the buck without increasing government spending. He’d argue that anything less would be doing a disservice to local residents.

Pete’s love of public service was exceeded only by his love for his wife Rose, daughters Margot and Meredith, family and friends. Our conversations always opened with an update on family and friends, and then, and only then, would he move on to politics. His wife “Rosie” was still always in his thoughts after she passed away in 2009. And while we served on the county board, I can’t remember a single vote Pete made where he wasn’t thinking of people first.

Long-time friends Ken Becker and Frank Manzullo will tell you Pete had a big heart and was a kind and thoughtful soul, a testament to his faith in church and family. And with his old friends, and some new ones, Pete shared his love of guns, Illini sports, piloting planes and collecting old cars.

Pete’s hobbies and faith provided the basis for many discussions with local residents, another reason why he connected so well with so many people. A man of strong opinions, he was also a great listener. Even if you didn’t agree with Pete, you’d always be guaranteed an intelligent conversation, a trait that endeared him to even his staunchest opponents.

So, we say good-bye to our good friend, colleague and public servant Pete MacKay, who will be remembered most for his love of family and friends and his service to the community.

Paul Gorski is a Rockford resident and former Winnebago County Board member.

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

In Illinois, on most of our rivers and streams, it is legal for a landowner who owns land on both sides of a river to close that river. We believe this is the result of a misinterpretation by the courts, but it is legal. Such closures almost never happened, until two years ago when the only significant white-water river in Illinois was closed by Buzzi Unicem, the Italian cement company that owns a mostly abandoned plant on the river, and a dam at the plant where several rafters have died over the years.

There had been another rafter death at the dam and another drowning upstream. Buzzi was afraid of additional liability, so they decided to permanently close the river. Much as we believe that all waters in the state should be public, the fact is that they had every legal right to do what they did. The Vermilion was closed indefinitely.

At this point, enter the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and its director Marc Miller. Director Miller believed that the Vermilion should be open to the public, and so he asked the IDNR’s lawyer to enter into lease negotiations with Buzzi. It took several months, during which time Buzzi’s lawyers made it clear the company reserved the right to cancel the lease at the first sign of increased liability for the company, and that the company sees the lease as an interim solution. A final solution would eliminate the dam, and would require two to four years of permitting and construction before it can be done.

There are many people in our community who for various reasons distrust the IDNR, but this is one time when our state government has gone far out of its way to be of service to the paddling community. IDNR agreed to put an exclusion zone around the dam and spend a significant amount of money eliminating hazards, preliminary to a more permanent solution that would provide the plant with necessary water, but eliminate the dam. Until then, the river would be open, but no one would be allowed near the dam or on Buzzi property, eliminating portages around the dam and Wildcat Rapid. (We have asked for reconsideration of allowing portages.) These are the terms Buzzi imposed. If all falls in place, the river will be opened this spring. Buzzi holds all the cards. We may not like it, but if we want the river open, we will have to live with it.

Much of the information in this editorial came from a meeting with IDNR personnel held on Jan. 6, 2012.

P.S. Letters thanking Director Miller, Lawyer Bob Mool, and Arlen Juhl, Office of water Resources, might be helpful.

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

Progress continued at the end of 2011 to establish a recreation Rock River Water Trail and a scenic and historic Rock River Route.

We had a wonderful opportunity Dec. 9 to present the Rock River Trail Initiative (RRTI) to key civic and community stakeholders from Sterling, Rock Falls and Dixon, Illinois and Lee, Whiteside and Henry counties. We appreciate the cooperation of the Sterling city government to organize the information meeting in the city hall. We estimate the number of people in attendance was about 50. Sterling mayor Skip Lee, Rock Falls Mayor David Blanton and Illinois State Sen. Tim Bivins (R-45th) offered comments of support for the trail initiative.

Other RRTI council members who were able to join us in Sterling included Carles Brown of Henry County, Erin Folk and Bob Vogl of Ogle County and John Thompson of Lee County, who attended on behalf of council member Debbie Thompson.

We also used the opportunity to share the podium with Gary Wagle, president of Friends of the Hennepin Canal, and listen to his informative review of the restoration efforts of the canal. We had the pleasure of meeting Walker Johnson and associates of Johnson Lasky Architects of Chicago, which is engaged in much of the development work on the Hennepin Canal and Guard Lock gate in Rock Falls.

Many key synergies exist between the Rock River and Hennepin projects, and mutual reinforcement of each is important.

We were pleased that Dick Westfall, Greenways and Trails Section manager of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, was part of the presentation. Dick emphasized the importance of developing local support of river trail opportunities for the project to be successful. He also pointed out construction of smaller sections of many trails preceded each finalized trail.

Dec. 21, the third public information meeting was held at the Janesville Municipal Building, Janesville, Wisconsin. Representatives of the townships of Fulton and Rock attended the meeting and offered important suggestions to complete highway selection for the Rock River Route in Rock County. Also on the 21st, a meeting was held with Friends of Riverside Park, Janesville. The Friends group is enthusiastic, well-informed and committed to improving Riverside Park and have it play an important role as a key recreation spot along the Rock River Water Trail.

Members of the trail initiative council have begun work on the preliminary Rock River Water Trail plan and map. As a first step, an inventory of existing river access sites is being developed for river locations in each of the 11 counties in Illinois and Wisconsin.

We’ve had preliminary discussions with Executive Director of the League of Illinois Bicyclists Ed Barsotti about incorporating certain on-road bike trails into the Rock River road route. A meeting will be planned for county engineers of the six Illinois counties and other stakeholders to select highways for the road route. If you have ideas for the route and would like to participate in the meeting, please e-mail or telephone Frank Schier.

In Wisconsin, we’re working with municipalities on completing the river road routes through the five counties. Maps will be distributed to local government and stakeholders for review.

During December, we received support letters and resolutions from Dave Behl of the Sinissippi Ski Club in Hustisford, Wisconsin; Jerry Snodgrass, chairman of Henry County Soil & Water Conservation District; Christi Rhea and Debra Carey of the Dixon Park District of Dixon, Illinois; Zack Baker of the Village Board of Rockton, Illinois; and Frank Masterman and Stephen Rypkema of Rock River Sweep.org.

Debbie Thompson, trail initiative council member in Dixon, Illinois, reported that support letters will be forthcoming from the City of Dixon and Lee County.

During January, we will travel to Springfield, Illinois, to meet with the Illinois Greenways and Trails Council and the Illinois DNR, and then to Rock Island for an information meeting with key stakeholders and organizations.

We appreciate everyone’s enthusiasm and support!

If you have questions, comments and recommendations, please let us know.

Greg Farnham

Coordinator

Juneau, WI

(920) 386-2450

waterdown@powerweb.net

Dave Druen

Coordinator

Sterling, IL

(815) 716-3366

tricitytrailblazers@gmail.com

Frank Schier

Founder and Coordinator

Rockford, IL

(815) 964-9767

frank.schier@rockrivertimes.com

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

Stanley Campbell

By Stanley Campbell

Rockford Urban Ministries (for which I work) will be celebrating 50 years of service to the city.

RUM (as it is affectionately known) was started back in 1962 as a way for the United Methodists to pool their resources and do urban work. In 1963, RUM received formal support from the Northern Illinois Conference, and a director was appointed. But the story I would like to relate concerns the second RUM director, the Rev. Charles Jordan.

Rev. Jordan was appointed by the Chicago Bishop to come to Rockford and direct the urban ministries of the church. Rev. Jordan, an African-American pastor, went on to become Bishop of Iowa and presently resides in California.

At the time he moved here, Rev. Jordan sought good housing for his wife and two young children in a north Rockford neighborhood. Funny thing and highly coincidentally, he purchased a house right next door to my family. I was in high school at the time, attending Holy Cross Seminary in Lacrosse, Wis.

My mother relates the story of the neighbors being none too pleased at having a black family move into the neighborhood. Rev. Jordan might have been greeted with a burning cross, except my mother went from house to house asking the neighbors to be more neighborly. The Jordans were received without incident.

I met Rev. Jordan over Christmas break, 1967, during a heavy snowstorm. My mother “asked” me to shovel their driveway. They were returning late from a long trip and expected the worst. They were pleasantly surprised to arrive home to a freshly shoveled driveway. Decades later, he still relays his appreciation. Little acts of kindness last long.

When I was hired by RUM in 1985, I searched the local history for references to Rockford Urban Ministries. The only article I found was about the city’s response to Dr. Martin Luther King’s murder. Rev. Jordan led the first integrated march through the city of Rockford. At the time, there were many people who thought Dr. King was “moving too fast,” or worse, part of a Communist conspiracy. The John Birch Society was quite active in the city back then. But Rev. Jordan overcame those obstacles and brought a large part of Rockford together.

I’ve since met with Bishop Jordan, who still works for inclusiveness and who still holds Rockford Urban Ministries and the city in his prayers.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Jan. 11-17, 2012, issue

While most of America was reveling in the dethroning of 2011, President Barack Obama was signing into law one of the most powerful and potentially dangerous Department of Defense bills ever crafted.

The timing of the signing led to little media coverage, as most Americans were captivated by Lady Gaga, Fergie, Jenny McCarthy and Dick Clark. While the signing of the bill escaped the national news fill-in reporters, there were plenty of positives left to write about with the tax cuts and unemployment extensions.

Obama chose the weekend to announce his signing when no one cared. Happy New Year. And oh, by the way, let me be clear about who has military power along with the military.

Not only does this bill reinforce the already present, sweeping powers of the president, it sets the stage with more drama with Iran as well. The Defense Bill was a smokescreen for the provision inside that allows sanctions against Iran.

This bill stabilizes and more accurately defines the president’s ability to detain or kill anyone in the name of a terrorist act. The first language that allows this power came with the Patriot Act nearly 10 years ago. Most of the government’s ability to cast a quick and wide net when it comes to arresting people has existed since then for the military and the president.

Now, the real debate comes with the aspersion that this sweeping power means that Americans can find themselves jailed in the name of national security.

Reuters reported two months ago that a kill or capture list is composed by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions. Reuters said current and past administrative officials have said, “there is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council. Neither is there any law establishing its existence …”

Does this mean that the military and the president can arbitrarily execute anyone anytime and anyplace? No trials, and indefinite incarceration can be called upon at any time.

With the new sanctions, however, the door has been opened for the government to go after anyone who does business with a bank in Iran. This sanction could lead to higher oil prices, and Obama signed it despite his “objections” to it. As for the pipeline threat by Iran, they also supply oil to China over the same passage.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months, and the president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution reduces its purchases of Iranian oil.

Even though this is the House version of the bill, what sticks out the most is the importance of the rights of U.S. citizens, which was brought up by congressmen and senators. The lack-of-rights discussion was bantered back and forth prior to the passage in each legislature.

The appearance of the U.S. citizen arrest potential mentioned in the House bill is disturbing because it wasn’t supposed to be in there, according to those who voted for keeping it out. Instead, it stayed in the bill. Now, Obama says he took it out. He said the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

How did this verbiage of detaining U.S. citizens escape them, or did it get passed along deceptively? Read the comments made by Obama upon the signing, but first, here’s part of the current bill.

Here is how section 1021 of the House bill reads now:

“Affirmation of Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the authorization for the use of military force.

“IN GENERAL. — Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

“COVERED PERSONS. — A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

“(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

“DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. — The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

“(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

“(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

“(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

“CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

“AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

The clause about “including any person who has committed a belligerent act” is broad and vague. Read in section 1022 below where the president can assert himself at any time. Pay particular attention to the clause in 1022 that says no U.S. citizen will fall into this category, unless they fit the al-Qaeda-Taliban criteria:

“SEC. 1022. Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists.

“(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. —

“(1) IN GENERAL. — Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

“(2) COVERED PERSONS. — The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined — (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

“(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. — The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

“APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. — (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

“AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”

Following is part of what President Obama released in his statement with the signing, but it received little fanfare on the White House press site:

“Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the ‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.’ I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

“Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

“Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not ‘limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.’ Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any ‘existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’ My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

“Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are ‘captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.’ This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

“I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past three years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

“Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

“Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241 and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242 and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

“My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.”

Digesting all that comes down to this: The president holds the cards when it comes to arresting or killing those believed to be terrorists. Nothing has changed, only reaffirmed. The president can call for martial law any time he feels like it and call it “in the best interest of national security.” Senators and congressmen from Illinois will say they protected the rights of Americans when it appears these rights are no longer theirs to protect. They belong to the president, whoever is in office. And he or she can determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t. And will a future threat exist? Will Occupy America members, for example, be called terrorists some day?

The new, most pressing threat from the bill comes not from these new affirmations of the law, but rather the threat of conflict in and around Iran.

The rest is just rhetoric and posturing.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

Photo by Georgine Arena

Editor’s note: Controversy has erupted over massive tree cutting at the Winnebago County Roland Olson Forest Preserve, with more apparently planned in other Winnebago County forest preserves. The following was posted from the board meeting minutes on the Winnebago County Forest Preserve District (WCFPD) website, www.wcfpd.org.

“Non-Native Tree Removal, Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

Photo by Georgine Arena

Winnebago County Forest Preserve District to Remove Non-native Trees

“The Winnebago County Forest Preserve District has contracted with Premier Forestry Products to remove non-native pine trees at three locations this winter. Reduction of the pine stands at Roland Olson and Pecatonica River Forest Preserves, and thinning of the pines at Fuller Memorial Forest Preserve are part of the District’s ecological restoration program which aims to create and maintain high quality native ecosystems. The trees being removed are scotch pine, red pine and white pine. The trees were planted very close together, ‘plantation style’ and now require clearing to allow for the restoration of native vegetation. Originally, the only conifers in Winnebago County were junipers, and possibly rare scattered white pines. Removal of the pines in these preserves will eventually increase the biodiversity of the preserves. The trees will be cut and the stumps ground between now and winter 2013.”

Yet, the contract for the removal, obtained by Roscoe resident Paul Arena, states that besides pine — spruce, hardwood hackberry, elm, cherry, cottonwood, box elder, locust ash walnut, maple, basswood, mulberry and basswood will be sold by the ton for pulp, logs and biofuels for as low as $1/ton to $4/per ton. A full log truck

What Roland Olson Forest Preserve useD to look like, and now ... Top and center photos show a wild winter wonderland in what the viewshed used to be from the walking and equestrian paths off 9669 Atwood Road, in Roscoe, Ill. As the Winnebago County Forest Preserve District website states, the preserve is located “3 miles east of Roscoe on Burr Oak Road, south 1/2 mile on Atwood Road. Roland Olson is 127-acres which were once a polo complex. Today it is a favorite spot for hiking, picnicking, equestrian trails and soccer,” complete with a Stuga shelter house that holds 500 people, 15 tables, 90 seats, with electricity. There’s 1.5 miles of trails, plus soccer fields, and yes, even a horse arena. This paper’s editor & publisher spent a wonderful afternoon there wandering last year. “No one was there to stick up for those trees,” said Frank Schier. “They were a beautiful stand, with a special atmosphere. If you follow the prairie mania logic, you’d cut down much of the wonderful Lowden State Park in Oregon and Sinnissippi Farms, planted in the same row fashion. Think of how many ringed years of wonderful seasons have fallen to their cold blades. I’m glad I’m not a tree in their care.” (Photo by Georgine Arena)

usually carries 25 tons. Neighbors to the Roland Olson Preserve have counted as many as 1,000 logs stacked up awaiting shipping. The contract also states, “*Scaling instructions: wood to be weight scaled at a scale of Purchaser’s [Premier Forest Products of Oregon, Ill.] choice.” One forestry expert said after a brief reading of the agreement that it was “a very unadvantageous contract.”

Guest Column: Neighbors shocked and angry and speak out

Roland Olson Forest Preserve is in northeast Winnebago County. There were tree-lined paths for walking and horseback riding. There is access to the Stone Bridge Trail, a baseball diamond, a soccer field, a playground, and a pavilion for gatherings. This park is used by many people in the area. It is a sanctuary of beauty; a place that is good for the soul.

Unfortunately, that was before the Winnebago County Forest Preserve District commissioned “Prairie Restoration” for three Winnebago County parks. The parks listed to be restored are Fuller Memorial, Pecatonica and Roland Olson. They claim they want to bring our parks back to the way they were in the 1800s. Trees and other plants that were not native would be removed so native plants could flourish.

When the work began, we assumed they were thinning the trees, but soon we could see mature trees being felled at breakneck speed. As the work progressed, we noticed large areas were not being thinned but cleared. What has happened in the far northern path has left us shocked and angry. These mature trees are being harvested and being stacked in neat piles. Dead and small trees have been left. This is not restoration.

After viewing the destruction, many of us e-mailed the WCFPD directors. Randal Olson, Winnebago County Forest Preserve District Board president, and Tom Hartley, director of Land & Development, responded. We asked why it would be necessary to do a Prairie Restoration. They had no viable answers. When asked if the taxpayers of Winnebago County were considered in this decision, the answer was, “No.”

Many have seen the devastation of clear-cut sections in the states of Washington and Oregon, and now we can see them here on North Main Road and hidden in what used to be some of the back woods of Roscoe. Both projects proceeded with little notice and substantial shock to the taxpaying public. You don’t know what a tree does until it’s gone. (Photo by Georgine Arena)

The final concern is that they have sold this lumber. Premier Lumber Products has cut and bought our forest preserve. Mr. Olson said the Forest Preserve District is only netting a small profit. There are so many trees in just this one park that we find that statement hard to believe. Someone is stealing our forest preserves under our noses. Do you think it’s a coincidence that this has been done when there is less traffic through the park? Do you think it’s strange that the restoration is being done mostly in the back of the park and not viewable from the front or roadway? Do you want to know who is profiting from the lumber harvest? Are you angry that you didn’t know this was happening? We are, too!

Mary Weaks-Baxter

Jerry and Martha Jordan

Georgine and Paul Arena

Jean Van Buren

James and Judy Kennon

Roscoe, Ill.

Guest column: Forest Preserve distress and public forum request

By Dr. Mary Weaks-Baxter

My neighbors and I are greatly distressed by recent actions taken by the Winnebago County Forest Preserve Board. Just before Christmas, a sign went up at the entrance of Roland Olson Forest Preserve located next to our neighborhood indicating that non-native species would be removed from the preserve. A posted map on the sign indicates that plant life along the entire border of two paths in the preserve will be removed. The sign refers people to the Forest Preserve website, and the website indicates that the work at this preserve and two others will be completed in 2013. The website indicates that vegetation not native to the region will be removed because the goal is to return the preserves to their native habitats. The vegetation the website refers to are actually mature pine trees in the preserve, although this is not mentioned on the signage.

No public forum was held about the tree cutting, even though a number of houses in our neighborhood back on to the preserve, and many residents use the preserve on a regular basis. This preserve also includes soccer fields, picnic pavilions, a horse-riding ring, playground equipment, and a paved road that runs for most of the length of the preserve. If the intent is to return preserves to their native habitat, this preserve doesn’t seem to be one that should be the focus of such efforts. I certainly understand the need to restore habitats (I teach Environmental Literature at Rockford College, where I am a professor), but the board’s decision to focus on this preserve is perplexing, to say the least.

Even though there seemed to be time for us in our neighborhood to go before the county board at their next meeting to ask for reconsideration of the cutting, we have been devastated to see that the company in charge of the cutting (Premier Forest Products from Oregon, Illinois; Eric Olson is their procurement forester) has almost completed their work. They were cutting over the week between Christmas and New Year’s when many of us were out of town or busy with the holidays. It is heartbreaking for us to see the massive destruction of the pine trees in the preserve, a place that so many of us value. At least for me, too, I had faith in our county board that they believed our preserves were for the people — the taxpayers/citizens of this county. What has happened in recent weeks has left me perplexed and with little faith in the system.

We have found that the preserve system is receiving payment for the trees — not paying to have the cutting done. While seeing the destruction of the trees is heartbreaking, the principle of the matter goes far beyond the physical damage. One of our neighbors has received letters from Randy Olson and Tom Hartley, director of Land and Development, but basically all they have both done is apologize for incorrect information — they said the cutting was complete, but we now hear that cutting is to continue this week, either on Wednesday or Thursday. The rush to complete this work before citizens have a chance to even know what is happening — much less even voice their opinions — is incredibly disturbing.

I hope you feel the urgency in my letter. Can you help us get the word out about what is happening? Please see our Facebook page for more details: “Roland Olson Forest Preserve Community Opinions.”

Here is my request that a public forum be held:

Dear Commissioners,

As a tax-paying citizen of Winnebago County who lives next to the Roland Olson Forest Preserve, I respectfully request that all cutting in the preserve be suspended until a community forum has been held and the board has reconsidered its decision. It is our understanding that the company cutting in the preserve has up to 3 more hours of cutting. A video taken by my neighbors shows several trees cut down in a matter of minutes, so we are quite concerned at the number of trees that could be cut down if this work continues.

Our neighborhood had no chance whatsoever to respond to the board’s decision to cut mature pine trees in our park. The information we have received indicates that ornithologists have been consulted, but not the citizens who live next to the park.

We have a right for our voices to be heard and for the commissioners to provide us with information about what is happening. The preserve website indicates that cutting will be completed in 2013, but we have been blindsided — with cutting taking place over the holidays. Please give the citizens of our community some respect — this is our park.

I made this request to Mr. Olson in an e-mail yesterday, and although he answered my e-mail, he did not respond to this request. Cutting is scheduled to continue this week, so we are running out of time. I urge you and your colleagues to do the right thing and give the citizens of your community a chance to at least be heard.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mary Weaks-Baxter

Roscoe, Ill.

Editor’s note: Roscoe residents who asked to speak at tomorrow’s Jan. 4 meetin g at WCFPD headquarters (5500 Northrock Drive, Rockford, IL 61103, (815) 877-6100, Fax (815) 877-6124, wcfpd@wcfpd.org), were told “no,” they could only speak at the 5:30 p.m., Jan. 18, meeting, and they must register by noon the same day. “Requests must include the speaker’s name and topic to be addressed.”

Unable to reply in writing by press time, Winnebago County Forest Preserve Board President Randy Olson did take a phone call on the controversy. Several people had asked if he had any professional or family relationship with Premier Forest Products’ Eric Olson, and he stated none existed. He thought the firm had been used for some work in 2009 with the WCFPD, and that is why they were chosen. He did not know if the project had been put out to bid or if a consulting forester acted as the taxpayers’ advocate on the deal.

“It was one of those typical housekeeping things on the agenda, and we took the staff recommendation,” Olson said. “Myself and the board had what was given to us that night, and we have tried to respond to the concerns of the neighbors’ e-mails even with the holidays in a timely manner.”

Olson noted WCFPD Director of Land & Development Tom Hartley had responded to residents and knew the details of the staff recommendation. Hartley was not available for comment by press time.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

Back in July 2003, Winnebago County levied a 1 percent sales tax to pay for a brand-new, $142 million jail, which opened in 2007. Today, that jail is overflowing with prisoners, and local politicians are looking to spend an unexpected increase in tax revenue on hiring more guards. I believe that levying a county sales tax to pay for a new jail was a mistake from the onset, and that we need to find an alternative means of funding the jail while reducing its overall cost.

Winnebago County remains one of the worst counties in the state in terms of crime rate, and the county’s solution to this problem has been to simply lock criminals up and throw away the key. In this endeavor, our new jail has been a success. Crime in Winnebago County dropped 15 percent from 2008 to 2009, and according to Sheriff Dick Meyers, unincorporated Winnebago County saw a 20.9 percent reduction in crime over the past several years. At the same time, the average daily population in the jail has climbed more than 27.8 percent.

This is a very expensive way of reducing crime, one that will cost the county millions of dollars to sustain over the long term. Furthermore, a larger jail filled with more prisoners fails to address the root causes of crime, which means we will need to continue to fill the jail to keep crime rates down.

If it is true that poverty is one of the primary drivers of our high crime rate, then adding a 1 percent sales tax on top of an already high state sales tax was a bad idea. The county sales tax drains between $24 and $26 million out of the local economy every year. That is less money in a person’s pocket to spend at stores, gas stations and restaurants. In turn, these businesses have less revenue with which to hire more employees or expand. By increasing the tax burden on consumers in this county, we may have unwittingly contributed to the problem we were attempting to alleviate.

Statistically speaking, sales taxes hurt low-income families, and I believe they should be dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a 6 percent sales tax amounts to roughly a 1 percent income tax rate for families in the highest income brackets, a 3 percent income tax on middle-income families and a 4.5 percent income tax on the poorest families. That is because, generally, wealthier families spend only one-sixth of their income on items that are subject to sales taxes, while low-income families spend three-quarters of their income on taxable purchases. A small sales tax increase is felt most strongly by the people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

That is an irresponsible way to pay for government expenditures.

The county board has made a commitment to pay off the jail construction debt using surplus funds from the county sales tax, and I believe they should stick to that commitment. Once the debt has been paid off, however, the board should seriously consider repealing the county sales tax and folding the cost of the jail into other areas of the budget. Not only could costs be reduced through greater efficiency in the county judicial system, but some of the costs of the jail could be paid by the people who necessitate it in the first place: the criminals themselves.

Taxation has a tendency to reduce the thing that is taxed. Instead of taxing consumer spending, we need to “tax crime” more aggressively. Whether that be through raising fines for minor criminal offenses, or a tax on recidivism for repeat offenders. Nonviolent offenders who are unable to pay would be allowed to work off their debt by cleaning up graffiti and roadside litter, working at community outreach programs, or doing other jobs for the county. That way, the burden of paying for incarceration would not fall on the law-abiding citizens of Winnebago County.

It is time we get more creative about finding solutions to our problems, and I believe rethinking the way we pay for the county jail is a good first step.

Rockford resident Michael Kleen is a local author, proprietor of Black Oak Media and candidate for the Winnebago County Board District 8 seat.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

In recognition of Martin Luther King Day of Service Jan. 16, YouthBuild Rockford AmeriCorps will be sponsoring and coordinating a Veterans Needs Drive. All proceeds will be delivered to William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital. It would be an honor to have you join us in service to help support some of our nation’s veterans.

We would appreciate your donations including, but not limited to, the following:

• New quilts/afghans/fleece blankets for the hospice program

• Used magazine donations only accepted as follows:

1. The magazines must be dated within three months of the present month.

2. The magazines must be in good condition and clean, and the magazines must be appropriate for everyone (nothing religious, suggestive or sexual in any way).

3. No catalogs or advertisements of any type.

4. Please remove the mailing label or black out the information so it is not readable, for your privacy.

• Books — PAPERBACK books are accepted, provided they are in good condition, clean and of appropriate content. Patients enjoy westerns, mysteries and thrillers. Romance novels are not needed, as there is little to no demand for them.

• Gas cards ($10 or $20 denominations) — BP, Kwik Trip

• Puzzle books (crosswords, word search, Sudoku, etc.)

• Calendars/Planners — for use with Compensated Work Therapy Program (job searching)

• Postage stamps — first-class stamps for patients to mail letters/cards

• Games — small or medium size Cribbage boards or other peg-board games

• Reading glasses

• Small backpacks for use in our clothing room

• Paint brushes (assorted sizes for use with models, paint by number, suncatchers, etc.)

• Drawing pads or non-spiral sketch

• Small canvas boards for painting

• Acrylic paint sets

Please drop off your donation between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Jan. 16, at Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc., 917 S. Main St.

We thank you in advance on behalf of William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc., and YouthBuild Rockford AmeriCorps. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (815) 963-6236, ext. 224.

Pamela Echols is the community services coordinator/AmeriCorps director for Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

Stanley Campbell

By Stanley Campbell

When the local Tea Party leader wrote that tirade against me, it opened a wound. (See “Guest Column: Stanley Campbell’s comments about Tea Party inflammatory,” by Rockford Tea Party Coordinator David Hale, Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue.)

I have not joined the local Occupy movement, despite what he said. I appreciate that there are other social justice movements in Rockford besides the ones I support. I have attended one Occupy general assembly, which is their planning session.

The meeting took place in the basement of Katie’s Cup, the best coffee shop in Rockford (at 502 Seventh St). It was packed; 80 people led by three women, a semi-orderly discussion of upcoming events. Democracy in action!

Occupy was planning their weekly march from Beattie Park to one of the local banking headquarters. I marveled at the number of people who patiently waited their turn to speak. I also recognized some folks who impatiently ground their teeth. The movement has a few who rant more than think.

I’m happy to let them run their organization themselves. I offer my copy machine and a few feeble suggestions from the sidelines.

The local Tea Party did not take too kindly to this upstart collection of left-leaning liberals. At almost every demonstration, local right-wingers amassed to show disapproval (they like the rich getting richer?). The Occupy movement tries to be non-violent and not get into yelling matches with opponents.

Occupiers take abuse, both verbal and pepper spray, which the opposition dishes out. That’s why you see sit-down demonstrators getting dosed with gas in the face.

Here in Rockford, the demonstrators get an earful of verbiage. Tea Partiers try to pick fights. Because there’s little training for Occupiers, some participants are more than happy to exchange insults across the street. I was accused of being one of those angry lefties screaming insults; but truth be known, I only attended one Occupy demonstration. It was to encourage Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to go after dishonest bankers. Not even Tea Partiers support those scofflaws!

Some local Occupiers reached across the street and made friends with a few Tea Partiers and are even meeting in a third group, trying to find common ground. Apparently, the leadership of both organizations is nonplussed, though the self-proclaimed Tea Party general David Hale is livid. I myself applaud any attempts at finding common ground with as broad a mass of people as possible.

It’s a wonder that groundswell movements get anything done at all. Whether it’s ending a war or getting the rich off our backs, people should be encouraged when anyone rallies for a just cause. The Powers that Be don’t like to change.

So, I encourage the local Occupiers as well as the national movement to get a little more specific in their demands. I encourage them to get involved in local as well as national politics. Try to find good candidates to support for election.

In 2012, we should occupy Wall Street AND the voting booths. And we’re going to have to occupy some congressional and senate offices and get big money out of big government.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

Citizens who don’t vote “… because it’s a waste of time …” are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The 2012 elections are likely to offer the starkest political differences between the two major parties since 1964, when President Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) went up against challenger Barry Goldwater (R) and won a second term.

The Republican Party has morphed into an extreme right-wing outfit. Here’s how:

A significant number of staunch conservative incumbents were beaten in the primaries by even more right-leaning Tea Party newbies. Since they captured the House of Representatives in 2010, the GOP congressional caucus is blocking all legislation that could benefit working people, and has made no secret of their intentions to turn back the political clock at least 75 years. The GOP presidential primary process has become a spectacle where nearly every candidate tries to out-do the others in a rightward drift. At the state level, GOP-controlled legislatures are adopting laws designed to suppress the people’s right to vote.

If given the opportunity, the GOP will install a regime answerable only to the wealthiest 1 percent. Then, the chief actors of this regime will act aggressively to dismantle our own form of self-government. They’ll abolish, privatize or underfund much-needed departments, programs and services, while giving huge tax breaks to corporations and rich people. Forget about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid! A 1 percenters’ regime will treat working-class Americans like nothing more than cogs in a machine.

Voters who desire to prevent a GOP takeover need to organize electoral campaigns for candidates who are dedicated to stopping the GOP momentum and returning power to the American people.

What about the Democrats?

The Democratic Party is not the property of Main Street. It’s a big tent party, peopled with Democrats who would be comfortable in a Canadian-style social Democratic Party if we had one, moderates and Democrats-in-name-only. Consequently, voting the straight Democratic ticket should not be the only choice. Inside and outside the party, there have been examples where independents and Democrats won elections together.

Working-class politics is bedeviled with contradictions. Politicians may sing praises about us just to get votes, then back-slide after they win an election. Even our most favored politicians need an earful of “You’d better leave this dance with who brought ya.”

Despite all of the difficulties, throwing out the baby is not an option. Instead, let’s cast our ballots for viable candidates who will defeat the GOP power grab and stand up for the common good. That’s how we can keep the USA moving forward.

Tim Mills of Garden Prairie, Ill., is chairman of the UAW Local 592 Community Action Program.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

Today, I received a letter from a David L. Stein, executive vice president, Retail Banking for Associated Bank & Associated Banc-Corp, informing me they are closing the banking location I have used for nearly a quarter century, because they “regularly evaluate [their] operations to ensure [they] deliver the service and convenience [I] expect with the value [I] demand.” They go on to state this is because “it is increasingly difficult to continue to operate branches that are in close proximity to each other.” Prior to becoming an Associated Bank depositor, I used that facility back when it was still First Federal Savings & Loan of Rockford.

In an interview, Associated Bank’s President Phillip B. Flynn said “[o]ur track record where we have consolidated branches, as far as retaining customers, is in the very high 90 percent, and that’s what we expect this time.” (http://m.jsonline.com/newswatch/135777438.htm) So, without consulting their depositors, they figure they can close the Edgebrook Branch and force us to follow them to another location at a 90 percent rate. Sort of like the commercial on TV where they keep telling the guy at the ATM, “[y]ou can’t change the way banking works, just accept it.”

As a result of several other decisions of Associated Bank in past years, I had seriously questioned discontinuing my longtime relationship with the bank. However, because of the excellent and friendly service of all of the local branch employees at the Edgebrook Center Branch (1601 N. Alpine Road, Rockford), truly dedicated to customer/depositor service, I continued this relationship even though there is a very good hometown bank (Alpine Bank of Rockford) directly across the street. If Associated Bank’s “executive team” follows through on its decision to close the Edgebrook Center Branch, I will take both my business and personal accounts elsewhere, both because of convenience and the break-up of the outstanding staff they currently have at the Edgebrook Center Branch. I may not be able to change the way banking works, but I don’t have to accept it.

The banking industry in large part is homogenous, and outside of solvency, one bank is pretty much the same as another except for customer service and convenience. By closing the Edgebrook location, Associated is undermining those two distinguishing features, which have given them a competitive advantage at the Edgebrook location.

It is truly rare to have staff at any business who joyfully take care of us the way they do at the Edgebrook facility. I know that given the close proximity of hometown banks, the announced customer/depositor retention rate of 90 percent is unreasonably optimistic for this location, as many other customers will agree they don’t have to accept it, either.

I strongly urge readers who are depositors to let Mr. Flynn and Stein know they will take their banking business elsewhere if, Associated Bank follows through on its announced decision to close the Edgebrook Center Rockford branch.

Mark A. Rouleau is a local attorney.

From the Jan. 4-10, 2012, issue

To Whom It May Concern:

In her guest column [TRRT Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue] regarding Ted Biondo’s comments on the OMA [Open Meetings Act], Mona Marcinkowski stated she didn’t know what had prompted Mr. Biondo’s comments. It is interesting to note that Mr. Biondo’s comments were made immediately after the attached statement was presented to the Rock Valley College Board of Trustees (during the public comments portion of the meeting). …

Sincerely,

Michael J. Youngblood

The following statement was made on behalf of the faculty. It was read by Cristina Szterensus (RVC professor of foreign language):

Statement to the Rock Valley College Board of Trustees, Dec. 13, 2011

In 2010, two trustees of Illinois community colleges were forced to resign from their positions. First, Dr. Don Mitchell stepped down from the Board of Trustees of Rend Lake College. Later that year, Donna Kurtz was forced to resign from the McHenry County College Board of Trustees. What do these cases have in common? In each case, the individual trustee was elected to a county board position while already serving on a community college board.

According to Illinois statutes, there are several offices — both elected and appointed — that may not be simultaneously held by a single individual. Specifically, the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act prohibits the simultaneous holding of the positions of county board member and community college trustee. According to that act, holding both offices creates a conflict of duty for two reasons. First, counties and community colleges may enter into contracts with each other. Second, one board may undertake an action that is not in the best interests of the other board.

A reasonable question might be, “Could an individual holding both positions simply abstain from voting on issues that constitute a conflict of duty?” The answer is a resounding “No.” In fact, the very act of abstaining from a vote justifies the view that holding both positions creates a conflict of duty. First, abstaining from a vote is evidence that an elected official is unable to carry out his responsibilities in an impartial manner. Second, elected officials are expected to be the representatives of their constituents. By abstaining from a vote, an elected official deprives his constituents of the opportunity to be heard.

There are three possible remedies when an individual holds incompatible public offices. First, a private individual may ask the person in the incompatible public office to resign. Second, a private individual may ask the first board to which the individual was elected to declare a vacancy. Finally, a private individual may ask the Illinois Attorney General and the County State’s Attorney to bring suit to force the person out of the first position.

Of course, Rock Valley College and the community it serves expects Trustees to hold themselves to the highest legal standards. In light of the current situation and consistent with the examples previously described, the community deserves Mr. Biondo’s immediate resignation from the Rock Valley College Board of Trustees. If a resignation is not offered, then the board owes it to the community to declare a vacancy.

Letters of complaint were sent late last week to the Winnebago County Clerk’s Office, the Winnebago County State Attorney’s Office, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and the chairman of the RVC Board of Trustees. These letters refer to specific Illinois case law supporting the statute that a sitting county board member may not simultaneously serve on a bommunity college board. These letters may eventually result in the state’s attorney or attorney General bringing suit against Mr. Biondo.

The Rock Valley College community does not deserve to be in this situation. It is a distraction from the amazing achievements of RVC faculty, students, staff and administration. The simple solution is for Mr. Biondo and the other members of the Rock Valley College Board of Trustees to do what is right. Not only is it right, but in the words of former McHenry County College Trustee Donna Kurtz, “it’s the law.”

Editor’s note: In response to a request for an update, Michael J. Youngblood e-mailed TRRT the following: “I did an interview on WNTA last Friday. At that time, Ken Decoster informed me that State’s Attorney Bruscato is ‘looking into the situation.’ That is the only new info I have.”

By deadline, Biondo had not responded to The Rock River Times for comment.

Winnebago County State’s Attorney Joe Bruscato told The Rock River Times: “Yes, we are looking into the matter, and we are looking into more than the statute. We are researching the issue.” Bruscato could not give a timeline for the end of the research, but he did say there had been several citizen complaints and a letter from a Moline, Ill., attorney concerning Biondo holding both offices.

From the Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

I would like to clarify points made in Frank Novak’s “Staying relevant — why the library must change and embrace the digital revolution” (Dec. 21-27 issue). Mr. Novak is correct that there is a trend with ebooks, and it is the library director’s job to look at trends in publishing. However, it is wrong to imply that the cause of Borders’ closure was their lack of digital books. Many financial analysts do believe that the company’s inability to foresee the trend was a contributing factor to the closure (along with having too much debt, opening too many stores, over-investing in music sales, and perhaps most critically, outsourcing their online books to Amazon).

Mr. Novak stated that public libraries are phasing out print books. However, according to the American Library Association (ALA), most public libraries plan to devote between 8 percent and 10 percent of their total collection budget to digital material by 2016. This is significantly lower than the 34 percent our library is currently allotting. The question I raised previously was, do our city’s demographics reflect the need to spend 34 percent of our collection budget on ebooks, which was never answered in Mr. Novak’s response. Again, I raise the question, but I’ll push further this time ­— where is the public input before making allocations for our collection budget? I visit the library at least once or twice a week and have never seen or been asked to participate in any kind of survey about whether I own an ereader and want to see an increase in the digital collection budget. A public library is a democratic institution and, therefore, should ask public opinion before launching into something of this size. Remember, most libraries are planning to spend 8 percent to 10 percent of their collection budget on digital materials by 2016. I do not deny a national trend toward ebooks, but I again wonder if this 34 percent is permanent and out of touch with Rockford Public Library cardholders.

More than 70 percent of Rockford Public School students are on free or reduced lunch. For those of us who fall into that lower socioeconomic status, an ereader is not affordable. Some people do not have the money to buy food for their children, much less an electronic device that costs around $100. Perhaps I am allowing my background in social work and my awareness of the poverty in this city to cloud my judgment. Perhaps Mr. Novak’s interest in staying relevant and keeping up with the digital trend is clouding his. The only way any of us can find out is by polling the public. For a democratic institution, I would expect nothing less than an invitation for public input.

Rachel Leon is a Rockford resident and Rockford Public Library cardholder. She is a writer and mother who depends on the services and (print) materials that the library provides.

From the Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

Jane Hayes’ Dec. 14 Ethics in Education guest column leaves one wondering if the expanded credit proposal for District 205 shouldn’t include a course for teachers with the course description reading “Paranoia 101.” First, she states, “Education is not a business based on a corporate model.” I assume, then, she would have opposed the National Education Association’s $500,000 alliance with corporate goliath Walt Disney Company to create a new kind of school that the NEA intended to become a national model for innovative instruction. The NEA had no qualms bellying up to the bar of corporate America’s “billionaire boys’ club” as education author Diane Ravitch denounces businesses that dare tread upon teacher union-enforced mediocrity. The NEA was positively giddy in announcing at a National Press Club meeting that Guess Who was setting up camp at Disney World, an announcement that had NEA executives dancing in the streets of the Magic Kingdom.

In her litany of teacher grievances, Hayes cites “insurmountable problems such as overcrowded classrooms.” Even I think the REA has done a good job of effectively limiting class size through contact negotiations, proving that the problem is not insurmountable! Hayes complains about unnamed individuals making “irrational choices” who are “ill equipped” to be teachers themselves, meaning those unfortunate souls who haven’t endured a mountain range of courses that teach you how to hold a piece of chalk in your hand.

Then, there is the dark conspiracy being cultivated by the Rockford Area Chamber of Commerce that Hayes is certain must exist. She suggests teachers were intentionally excluded from the Chamber’s annual State of the Schools luncheon by holding the event during school hours and charging a “hefty” price for admission, making it impossible for other than Rockford’s “elite” to attend the function. Oh, please! The Chamber’s State of the Schools luncheon has been around for a decade or more and has always been held in the first week of December, and until this year, the guest speaker has always been the current superintendent. The event has often been followed by complaints that it is little more than a PR vehicle for District 205. The “hefty” price per ticket is $35, par for the course for similar events, and a corporate table usually runs around $300. Rockford’s elite that attend the event are mostly ordinary members of the Chamber, businessmen and women trying to make a living. They don’t arrive in chauffeured limousines and top hats. I’ve frequently seen REA officials at Chamber events, so are they, also, considered to be Rockford’s “elite”?

Hayes notes that Keith Country Day School had a corporate table at the event. So what’s stopping the REA from purchasing corporate tables and inviting poor, picked-on teachers to attend the function at union expense? It might help make up for the lousy value teachers are getting on their representational fees vis-a-vis the current contract bargaining talks. There are any number of ways teachers could get Board-paid leave time to attend the luncheon and see for themselves the depths of conspiracy Rockford’s elite are going to in order to close down public schools. But then the REA’s parent organization, the NEA, has in recent years named corporations from FedEx to GEICO and Outback Steakhouse as either directly or indirectly involved in right-wing conspiracies to destroy public education. Pass me a fresh crying towel, if you would, please.

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 Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

Oct. 3, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) suspended the operating license for the Rockford abortion clinic. The beleaguered clinic was cited for several health and safety violations in June and again in September. The Northern Illinois Women’s Center (NIWC), at the corner of Broadway and 10th Street in Rockford, was fined $15,000 before ultimately being suspended.

The reasons for the suspension are outlined in a three-page notice, dated Sept. 29 and signed by Damon T. Arnold, the director of the IDPH. The department “found conditions at the Northern Illinois Women’s Center (NIWC) directly threatening to the public interest, health, safety and welfare requiring immediate, emergency action.”

What has happened here in Rockford is hardly unique. Since 2008, similar scenarios have played out in clinics in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Louisiana and Virginia.

Rockford’s NIWC looks even worse when violations of professional standards are considered. The owner of the clinic displayed an image of Jesus flipping the middle finger with the caption “Even Jesus hates you.” This was done to antagonize the pro-life protesters, but think for a moment how women facing the most difficult decision in their lives may have been affected. It’s unimaginable that images such as this could be displayed by a clinic that performed vasectomy or in vitro fertilization, also opposed by the Catholic Church.

Ten years ago, several of us at Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) became convinced that a new, more honest, more thoughtful conversation should emerge. We explored a concept, “standard of care,” which is an everyday familiar legal term among medical professionals. Incredibly enough, standard of care is almost never applied to discussions of abortion policy. Consequently, the conditions in abortion clinics all across the country have sunk to dangerously low levels.

In legal terms, standard of care is the level at which the average, prudent provider in a given community would practice. It is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient’s care under the same or similar circumstances. The medical malpractice plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care and demonstrate that the standard of care has been breached.

An example is when the doctor asks you if you are allergic to penicillin before prescribing it. A significant percentage of people are allergic to penicillin. For those patients, prescribing it will harm rather than help them, so doctors are EXPECTED to do some level of screening before prescribing it. It’s the old “9 out of 10 doctors agree …” thing, and the oddball doctor who fails to take the expected precaution is vulnerable to being sued out of existence. This vulnerability helps maintain high standards in everything from plastic surgery to brain surgery.

Pre-operation screening practices in U.S. abortion clinics are often inadequate. Far too many post-abortion women express regret … the notion that if they only knew then what they know now, they would have done something other than end the pregnancy. The percentage of women who ultimately regret their abortion is impossible to say with certainty, but what can be known is the following:

A. Such women are probably the minority of post-abortive women, but undoubtedly exist in significant numbers. I have met or conversed with at least 100 such women since 2001 when we started DFLA. They are all around us. At school, work, church, in our families and in our neighborhoods. I bet you know one, too.

B. The pre-operation screening practices used in most clinics were not robust enough to identify the “high-risk” women found in post-abortion recovery groups like Rachel’s Vineyard and Silent No More.

C. Academia has produced some solid scholarly work about the subject of identifying high-risk patients. Visit http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/high_risk_abortion_patients.asp for details.

Abortion has been legal for nearly 40 years. It’s time for the debate to go beyond legal vs. illegal to safe vs. unsafe. Legal abortion does not automatically mean safe abortion any more than legal investments are automatically safe investments. Unsafe, under-regulated, unwanted, forced, coerced, emotionally devastating and ultimately regretted abortions performed at seedy, unprofessional dives happen far too often. They can be eliminated by establishing sensible standard of care expectations. Such standards must be established by statute because the overall standard of care in abortion clinics serving the poor is too low.

Rockford, this is a serious public health issue, not a political football. If the Rockford clinic reopens, the Rockford City Council must figure out how to regulate it properly.

Jay Ware is a Rockford resident.

From the Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

This fall, Comprehensive Community Solutions started the 17th year of our YouthBuild Rockford Program. Over the past 16 years, they have enjoyed the support of our federal, state and local governments as well as a variety of both public and private organizations for this important program serving young adults in our community. Yet, we also know that there are those in our community who either don’t know us or fully understand the significant benefits that this program offers to the young people we serve, nor the extent or costs of the dropout crisis gripping our community.

As we near the end of 2011 and think toward the future – 2012 marks the 20th anniversary for our organization — I want to invite you to support our work by becoming a friend of YouthBuild. By becoming our “friend,” you have an opportunity to help us reverse the growing crisis of high school dropouts in our community. In addition, your contribution will help support our other important work, including: Project Welcome Home, Salvage Too — Rockford ReUse Center, and our development of affordable housing.

For those of you who have generously contributed in the past, we thank you and hope you will consider increasing your contribution. The long-term success for the young people we serve and our community lies in generating significant support of individuals and businesses in the community.

Best wishes for the holiday season.

From the Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

Let’s suppose that the Mayan Indians are correct: 2012 will be the last year of existence for this little planet. I’m not saying the world will end at the close of 2012, but those Indians predicted the Spanish conquistadors. So, when I make resolutions for the coming new year, maybe it will take on more significance if I think they’ll be my last chance at change.

I already quit smoking, and I exercise more, do yoga and eat right (fewer animals and more vegetables). But here’s the tough ones:

1. No more Tea Party jokes. Even though that guy’s article last week was full of holes (I have not been to any Occupy meetings, so I haven’t had the opportunity to get yelled at by him), I hear he is the one who badgers everyone else. Apparently, there are some Tea Party members talking to and finding common ground with the local Occupiers. This guy is none too happy, and is antagonistic with anyone who disagrees. Too bad, there’s a lot to do about cleaning up government that both the right and the left can — and should — agree upon. As a friend of mine says: the American eagle needs both wings to fly.

2. I will stop buying so much stuff! I am a collector of history and love political items, especially from civil rights and peace movements. I usually scour antique malls and used book stores and buy anything even remotely related to a social justice. But I resolve to keep my money in my wallet and begin sharing my collections with the public or young activists. But I will still accept gifts!

3. I am going to get more involved in local politics. I have an old peace button that says “Think Globally, Act Locally” and am beginning to understand that sentiment. I can work for peace in Afghanistan and support the Arab Spring, but when my local Forest Preserve Board spends money on a less-than-ideal piece of property, it affects me more.

I want to learn how to win local elections. For example, I’d assumed, as did many of my environmental friends, that if we just mentioned the names of 10 good candidates, the electorate would go out and cast their votes for those people. How wrong we were!

What we should have done, and what I plan on doing, is learn how to win local elections, because we lost the little treasure of a forest preserve district to politicians who seem to have little regard for the environment.

Political positions are plums and can grant powers to make friends happy and wealthy. An elected politician can disburse taxpayer-funded jobs and direct cash gifts as long as there’s a majority on the board or council.

I was too naïve and trusting. I assumed the forest preserve board members would be like our Rockford Park District Board: they’d carefully manage the people’s property. But with a 4-3 split board, we’ve seen our resources threatened.

So, with the election in November, I’ll be encouraging people to vote in the state and national elections, but I will work hard for good candidates on our local Winnebago County Forest Preserve District Board. And I will stay away from that Tea Party guy.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Dec. 28, 2011-Jan. 3, 2012, issue

The National Defense Spending Bill, with versions that passed in both the House and Senate recently, has again stirred up civil rights proponents who say if this bill is signed by President Barack Obama, basic civil rights of Americans will cease to exist.

Politicians who voted on the bill insist that’s not true. Yet, others in Congress and rights activists have called in question the final legislation as stripping away all basic rights. Congress and the president, many believe, now have the power to imprison anyone at any time for anything construed to be a “terrorist act.”

After passing both the Senate and the House, a conference committee was created to combine both bills, which passed within a week of one another. The president is expected to sign the final version of the bill.

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, called the bill “bold, arrogant and dangerous.”

Is this a blanket step toward tyrannical rule?

This annual legislation that authorizes money for the military and weapons systems usually passes without a hitch. Not this year. And yet, the mainstream media have brushed it aside to talk about the economy and election politics. Despite the fact both sides of Congress can’t pass anything this year without a dog fight, the House vote was 283-136, reflecting rare bipartisanship.

One smokescreen used to confuse and bewilder is that there are many versions of this bill out on the web, from the original draft last May to the different versions that surfaced this month.

The latest bill allows the military to take custody of a suspect deemed to be a terrorist, but there is a supposed exemption for U.S. citizens.

However — and the big however to rights activists — comes with the clause that the bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

Does that mean the FBI, the military and the president now have carte blanche over arrests? Does the president trump all?

The White House website has little to say about the subject.

The Associated Press reported that FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed concern about the detainee provisions.

Mueller said: “The statute lacks clarity with regard to what happens at the time of arrest. It lacks clarity with regard to what happens if we had a case in Lackawanna, N.Y., and an arrest has to be made there, and there’s no military within several hundred miles. What happens if we have … a case that we’re investigating on three individuals, two of whom are American citizens and would not go to military custody, and the third is not an American citizen and could go to military custody?”

Although the fight over whether to treat suspects as prisoners of war or criminals has divided Democrats, Republicans, the Pentagon and Congress, little of the debate has been captured by the media.

Has Congress slyly stripped Americans of the right to a trial and holding them for any length of time without giving a reason for detention?

Here is some of the language found on page 655 of this mammoth document:

“Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

And, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Confused? That’s understandable.

House members offered varying interpretations of the military custody language and indefinite detention provisions, including U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill.

Rich Carter, director of communications for Manzullo, told The Rock River Times: “The Defense bill that the Congressman supported yesterday was changed to explicitly exempt American citizens from detention. There’s a lot of confusion surrounding this right now, but I can tell you he never would have supported a bill that allows military detention of American citizens.”

Manzullo responded to the chaos with the following letter “to clarify some of the confusing elements” of the legislation:

“There has much confusion in recent days about the detention provisions that are contained in the Fiscal Year 2012 Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization bill (H.R. 1540/S. 1867). As a Member with one of the strongest pro-constitutional voting records in Congress, as evidenced by my opposition to the extension of the PATRIOT Act and federal involvement in primary and secondary education, I take my oath of office to protect and preserve the Constitution very seriously.

“I want to be very clear — I do not support any role for the U.S. military to arrest, detain, or prosecute any U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil. Every U.S. citizen deserves the full protection of our constitutional rights, even to those who commit acts of terrorism.

“That is why I was originally concerned with a version of the DoD Authorization bill (S. 1867) that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) last November. It originally contained two provisions that could have been interpreted to give overly broad authority to the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens seized on U.S. soil for being affiliated with al-Qaeda or any associated terrorist force. Because of the furor this created outside of the Beltway, on December 1, 2011, the Senate fortunately adopted a ‘catch-all’ amendment authored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is also the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, at the end of these two sections that this does not apply to U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents.

“The Feinstein amendment passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 99-1, with the support of Senators such as Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.

“However, because there was still some concern with this language, when the bill went to a conference committee to reconcile the two competing versions of the DoD Authorization bill, the conferees made further changes to the sections to make it absolutely crystal clear that the detention provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens and legal residents. This language can be found on Page 655, lines 14 through 18, and Page 657, lines 10 through 22 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540 (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR1540conf.pdf). There is confusion over this issue because some reports reference language in older versions of this bill so the link above is the most up-to-date version that passed the House on December 14.

“It is also important to put this issue into context. First, Section 1022, the provision of most concern, is entitled, ‘Military Custody for Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists.’ Thus, the entire point of this section (mandatory military custody for al-Qaeda terrorists) only applies to foreigners. If that wasn’t clear enough, the conferees added explicit language in paragraph (b) to doubly ensure that this section doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens and legal residents.

“The entire purpose of this section is to avoid a repeat of the situation in 2009 that confronted U.S. authorities when the ‘Christmas Day’ bomber was seized in Detroit, Michigan, after his flight from the Netherlands. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had a Nigerian passport, was arrested by civilian law enforcement authorities and read his Miranda rights. As a result, U.S. military and intelligence authorities lost the opportunity to obtain valuable information that could have led to uncovering other terrorist plots. Section 1022 would change protocol so that if a future foreign al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist is seized on U.S. soil, then he/she would enter U.S. military custody. To give even more flexibility to the U.S. government Section 1022 provides a waiver authority to the President (with applicable reporting requirements to Congress) if he decides to prosecute the foreign terrorist seized in the U.S. through the civilian process.

“Finally, Section 1021 is a restatement of current detention policy, under the 2001 authorization of the use of force, so that it is part of statutory law to give clarity to the Executive and Judicial Branches. Again, this section only applies to foreigners. Nothing in this section affects existing law or authorities as it relates to U.S. citizens. Thus, habeas corpus applies, as it has always applied, to U.S. citizens because it is existing law. No U.S. citizen can be indefinitely detained without knowing what crime he or she is alleged to have committed. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens, even those seized overseas on the battlefield in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). The U.S. does not, and the Pentagon has no plans to, indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen in military custody. This language also ensures that the U.S. military or the intelligence community, still, cannot engage in any domestic law enforcement matters because that is existing law.”

In contrast, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, made a passionate speech on the House floor before the vote. Following are some of Nadler’s remarks: “Mr. Speaker, it has been a decade since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As a nation, no matter what adversity we’ve faced, we have done so as Americans. We have united behind the values that gave birth to this nation and that have made it a moral force in the world. More than our military or economic strength, it has been the strength of our values and our example that has made us the world leader we are today.

“We are in danger of losing that most precious heritage, not because a band of murderous thugs threatens our freedom, but because we are at risk of forgetting who we are and what makes the United States a truly great nation.

“In the last 10 years, we have begun to let go of our freedoms, bit by bit, with each new executive order, court decision, and — yes — act of Congress. We have begun giving away our rights to privacy, our right to our day in court when the government harms us, and, with this legislation, we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law.

“The changes in this bill to the law of detention have major implications for our fundamental rights. We should not be considering this as a rider to the Defense Authorization Bill. This should be the subject of close scrutiny by the Judiciary Committee. The complex legal and constitutional issues should be properly analyzed, and the implications for our values carefully considered.

“You will hear that some of what is in this bill is already the law. That may be, although many legal scholars tell us that it goes a great deal further than what the law allows now. You will hear that it really won’t affect U.S. citizens, although, again, there is credible legal authority that tells us just the opposite. You will hear that it doesn’t really turn the military into a domestic police force, but that clearly isn’t the case.

“Most of all, you will hear that we must do this to be safe, when the opposite is true. The truth that the founders understood is that a people who will willingly sacrifice their core liberties — as this bill does — are already lost. We can never be safe without our liberties, and this bill continues the decade-long campaign to destroy those liberties.

“This bill goes far beyond the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That resolution authorized ‘all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.’

“This bill is not limited to those responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks, and those who aided or harbored them. It includes anyone who ‘substantially supported’ al-Qaeda and the Taliban or ‘associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.’ It is not clear what is meant by ‘substantially supported,’ or what it takes to be ‘associated’ with someone who ‘substantially supported’ them. It refers to any ‘belligerent act’ or to someone who has ‘directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.’ It doesn’t, as does our criminal law, say ‘material support,’ so we really don’t know whether that support could be merely a speech, or an article, or something else. …

“Whoever it reaches, the government would have the authority to lock them up without trial until ‘the end of hostilities,’ which, given how broadly the AUMF has been used to justify actions far from Afghanistan, is an open-ended, worldwide war. That might mean forever.

“And who will be taken out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned forever without a trial? The bill says anyone who ‘is determined’ to be covered by the statute. It doesn’t say ‘determined’ by whom, or what protections there are to ensure that an innocent person doesn’t disappear into a military prison.

“Section 1022(c) simply requires the President to issue procedures ‘designating the persons authorized to make determinations … and the process by which such determinations are made.’ No requirement for review, no requirement for due process, nothing. Only the President can sign a waiver, but a perhaps low-level functionary may decide who is detained by the military forever. That’s not America.

“We also need to be clear that the so-called ‘Feinstein amendment’ does not really provide the protection the sponsor intended to provide.

“It says that ‘nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’

“So, what are ‘existing law and authorities’? As former FBI Director William Sessions has recently written ‘the provision does not limit such detention authority to people captured on the battlefield. … The reality is that current law on the scope of such executive authority is unsettled.’

“Director Sessions goes on to point out that in the two cases where the Supreme Court might have decided the question of detaining a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident, the U.S. claimed that the President had the authority to detain a suspected terrorist captured within the United States indefinitely without charge or trial. In both these cases, Padilla and al-Mari, the government changed course and decided to try them in civilian courts in order to avoid a court ruling on the question.

“So, when the Feinstein amendment references ‘existing law,’ you should not assume that means that current law clearly deprives the President of this dangerous power. I hope it does, but it is still, legally, an open question. We should ensure that our liberty is protected and not leave that question to some future court.

“If the Senate had wanted to make clear that a U.S. citizen could not be detained forever without charge, it could have said so unambiguously, but it did not. At best, we are shooting dice with our liberties and hoping that a federal court, down the line, will rule that it really does mean what the sponsors of this bill say it means.

“We must take great care. Our liberties are too precious to be cast aside in times of peril and fear. We have the tools to deal with those who would attack us. We do not need to do this. We should not do this.

“And, because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States — that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law — this bill must be rejected.”

Civil rights groups were outraged by the legislation, and the White House’s decision to drop the veto threat.

Human Rights First website reported: “Following news that President Obama will not veto defense authorization legislation that expands the military’s role in domestic counterterrorism by sidelining the FBI and local law enforcement, authorizes the indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects, including Americans, undermines the independence of prosecutorial decisions, and makes Guantanamo a lobster trap even for those who have been told they can go home.”

Human Rights First President and CEO Elisa Massimino issued the following statement: “When he took office, President Obama told the American people that he would restore the nation’s commitment to the rule of law and the protection of human rights. Today’s announcement proves that he is unwilling to put his full power behind those presidential promises. … This legislation will be a loaded gun in the hands of any future administration.”

Although there was a plethora of other organizations that weighed in on the subject, the national news media didn’t file a single report on the Big Three nightly newscasts when the Senate or House bills were passed.

Hmmmmm.

What to look for in the future?

If U.S. citizens start disappearing, people may want to enact their fundamental right to civil disobedience.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

Ted Biondo, a Winnebago County Board member, wrote a blog post for the daily Dec. 14 stating the Open Meetings Act hinders transparency of elected boards and handicaps elected representatives that have to deal with it.

Apparently, Ted Biondo does not feel the law, which guarantees an open and honest government, is important. After all, it is only the cornerstone of our American democracy. This law guarantees our rights as citizens to know what our government is doing and how it is spending our tax dollars. Without this law, our government would be free to hold closed-door hearings on many important topics: taxes, infrastructure, and their salaries.

The fact that newly-elected officials must sit through training on this law and then be expected to follow this law as part of their job description is no different than my ethics or compliance training each year from my company.

The fact that the law requires a majority of the board to be present during discussions is not an overly-undue burden. It is their job to be in that discussion from start to finish. It appears from Ted Biondo’s statements he would prefer a closed room with no media presence.

He wrote, “Three or four board members at a time should be allowed to discuss issues on a seven-member board so that they can at least share ideas to see which ideas might work and which might not.” Apparently from his perspective, this would allow certain members from “keeping their mouths shut.”

I know I can’t speak for everyone, but I did not vote for my elected officials to stand on the side lines, keeping their mouth shut in an important debate, all to avoid looking like a “fool” in the public eye, as Ted Biondo put it. As an elected official, you are paid to be in the debate, you are paid to weigh each side of a debate and make the best possible decision for your constituency, and you must do so in public. That is what is meant by “public official.”

According to Mr. Biondo, “Transparency will only take place when the elected officials, in an open meeting, discuss the questions they have come up with jointly, not individually.” If one is not competent enough to be able to openly debate in the scrutiny of the public and the media, please take your name off the ballet now. Find your true calling in life, as public service may not be your cup of tea.

By putting your name on the ballot, you are asking for the job, the responsibility of working for your constituents in public. The Open Meetings Act is our guarantee you follow through with that promise. Ted Biondo will most likely be running again for his position on the Winnebago County Board in 2012. Remember to vote.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

Ted Biondo has the luxury of being able to state his opinion whenever an issue arises. The Open Meetings Act (OMA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were put into place for exactly the reasons Ted Biondo is complaining about.

He states that “if elected officials could meet privately without all those pesky ‘bureaucrats’ looking on”. WELL, Ted, you are a “bureaucrat” and you CHOSE to run for the county board. You CHOSE to represent your constituents and Winnebago County.

Based on what I have been reading and all the comments regarding this, it makes me wonder exactly what brought on this tirade with regard to the OMA. Were there discussions regarding this?

If the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Committee and the Winnebago County Board do not have the time to read over material that is given to them, and they are placing a vote determining the outcome, then request that the vote be held over, not a difficult thing to do. Something you have the power to do.

If our “elected” or “appointed” members do not have the time or energy to do what is expected of them, then step down. If you are not fully informed on what you are voting on, then don’t vote. If you feel that a discussion or meeting is warranted to discuss what you are going to vote on, then you have no business representing us. If you need help or direction in determining your vote, then step down. It is your job to know what is going on when you enter the room to vote on something that will affect a lot of citizens.

We are a country of laws. That is the way it is. But it is very sad to read when an elected official, for whatever reason, prints an article such as the one Ted did in the Rockford Register Star on Dec. 14 with regard to a law that was enacted to protect the citizens.

Ted Biondo states “Open Meeting Act hinders transparency of elected boards.” What is being “hindered”? You give the appearance that you are incapable of making a competent decision based on information given to you. You choose to blame the “staff” which, in this case, is the Zoning and Planning Department of Winnebago County. They do, in fact, receive all of the evidence, documents and whatever else is required to be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Within their packet is also conveniently a “Staff Recommendation” Report. This is based on their determination of material that they allow to be submitted. So, what you are receiving is their “recommendation.” Do you take the time to read what is given to you? Do you stop by the Zoning Department and pick up your “packet” in a timely manner? AND, if you do not have the time to review the material that you have been given, then don’t cast a vote. If you are being pressured, then why did you vote?

I commend Linda Grist Cunningham and Chuck Sweeny in defending the Open Meeting Act (OMA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Without these two laws, the average citizen, myself included, would not be able to obtain any information with regard to Winnebago County. We have a right to know what is going on, and you have a responsibility to keep us informed with “transparency” in what is going on. What you vote on should not benefit you in any way. It should be something that will benefit Winnebago County, not just a few “chosen ones.”

Ted, maybe you and any of our current “elected” officials who seem to have a problem with OMA and FOIA need to reconsider running in the next election. You evidently do not have the time or energy to do a job that you have been elected to do. Let someone else step up to the plate and represent us. Maybe they will take the time to know what they are actually “voting” on.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

I read Rachel Leon’s recent guest column (“Does our community reflect the need for 34 percent of our library’s budget to go to electronic resources?”) and wanted to address her concerns and provide some perspective about the library’s changing role in our community. First, let me say I think it’s wonderful Ms. Leon is such an advocate for library services, and we both agree the library provides value to its citizenry. However, her letter suggests the library cut its hours for the sake of purchasing electronic resources, which is not the case.

The library cut hours in 2009 as a result of a budget cut, which reduced the library’s overall budget. Within that overall budget, the library dedicates a minimum of 13 percent to its collection (on par with comparable other libraries in the state), which is divided among all formats including print, eBooks, online databases, etc. The library did not cut hours and then increase its electronic budget with the savings gained. What has increased is the ratio of electronic materials to printed books within the collection budget.

Why the increase? The world has changed. Print books are phasing out as the de facto standard for public libraries. Evidence everywhere is telling us that digital information is rapidly becoming the new normal. Sales of eBooks are growing dramatically. Amazon sells more eBooks than all of its print materials put together. Borders went out of business, and Barnes & Noble is shifting its focus to eBooks. Publishers are moving assets out of their print operations and into digital formats. Some authors are going direct to digital and aren’t even bothering with publishers at all.

The world of information has changed and will continue to do so. For the library to fulfill its mission and remain relevant, we need to stay aware of popular materials and format trends. The library has spent decades developing a print collection that offers breadth and depth, but relatively little time developing an eBook collection. Collections grow over time, but the explosion of the eReader market necessitates an immediate investment if the library hopes to reasonably meet the growing demand for digital content.

Developing an electronic materials collection makes sense for a modern public library, but we are mindful of the digital divide. To that end, the library is acquiring eReaders for library users to check out, facilitating access to the devices and the growing collection of eBooks for everyone. History shows that new electronic access devices quickly become cheap and readily available, which we are already seeing in the eReader and tablet market (more than 80 devices were introduced last year alone!). As eReaders become more affordable, RPL must prepare for the demand of materials people will want as a result.

Ms. Leon’s letter stated we need “more hours, services and programming” instead of electronic resources. eBooks aren’t part of an either/or scenario with hours and programming — it’s about creating the right product mix for today’s library users while making the necessary investments to remain relevant to tomorrow’s library users as well. While there is still demand for some print books, and some genres don’t lend themselves to the current eBook format, statistics tell us that our customers want electronic materials. Check out of print materials has declined overall from its peak in July of 2009 every month since January of 2010. The use of digital materials, however, has grown more than sevenfold since 2007, and it continues to rise.

There are many reasons we see such explosive growth in our eBook lending. Digital materials are accessible to customers 24/7 from their homes, cars, places of employment, or any place they have a mobile device. Digital books are fast, convenient and efficient. With eBooks, one doesn’t have to visit the library to use the service, making it incredibly useful to busy parents, seniors with mobility challenges, people with difficult work schedules, and many others. On the back end, there are no late fees, lost books, or return trips to the library.

Public libraries are invaluable assets to the communities they serve, and meeting the community’s current needs while planning for the future is a juggling act complicated by limited resources. Rockford Public Library is committed to maintaining that value and staying relevant by offering a mix of traditional library services and digital materials, digital literacy and programming. The library is about economies of scale, and we are dedicated to providing access to the materials, services and programs our customers want in a constantly-evolving electronic world.

Frank Novak is the executive director of Rockford Public Library.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

Stanley Campbell

By Stanley Campbell

It’s kind of a miracle, JustGoods Fair Trade Store. Rockford Urban Ministries (for which I work) did not expect to go into retail marketing as a mission. But one is often led to places the Spirit wants. RUM (as Rockford Urban Ministries is affectionately known) has focused its meager resources on the Seventh Street neighborhood since 1991.

The United Methodist Churches, the majority of the RUM Council, designated the area as a “Shalom Zone” in hopes of bringing God’s peace to the neighborhood. We’d already seen the wonderful work of the Lutheran community through Zion Development and thought we could piggyback on their good graces. Zion rehabbed many of the houses that sorely needed tender, loving care and good families. Their idea of a mixed-income neighborhood was attractive as well.

After 15 years in the 600 block of Seventh Street, we’d helped shut down some of the worst bars in the neighborhood, brought in volunteers to do rehab and repairs, and tried to establish drug counseling outreach to the street sex providers. We were encouraged to move from that dilapidated Queen Anne building up the street, and I guess we got out just before the foundation cracked.

Through the love and support of the Schreiner family and friends, RUM leased and rehabbed the building at 201 Seventh St., our present home. I remember sitting in the middle of the construction wondering where the next donation was coming from, and “me of little faith” saw miracles occur as volunteers walked through the door to offer their assistance. For example, a contractor sent four skilled carpenters to work three weeks in our building. All we had to do was provide materials, which we purchased through interest-free loans from our friends. We hope to pay off those loans at the beginning of 2012.

I heard the story of fair trade: support the individual producer of our many goods made overseas, ensuring they receive a fair wage and no environmental fallout. The items in the store, JustGoods, had to be procured through more loans. Our benefactors came through, and now we have a five-year-old gift shop that’s renowned in the Midwest and is a beacon of hope here on Seventh Street. This is a true Christmas miracle here on Seventh Street. I want to thank God and the community for bringing this about, and I have been humbled to have played a part during its creation.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

By David Hale
Coordinator, Rockford Tea Party

I have to hand it to Mr. Campbell, who is the minister-in-chief at the nonprofit 501(c)(3) Rockford Urban Ministries here locally. He has no fear of losing his independent voice, as one can see from this lopsided letter and castigation of anything conservative.

It always amazed me how left-wingers can get away with such politically inflammatory, abusive language and never fret over their 501(c)(3) status. Mr. Campbell delights in his progressive street cred and support of the Democrat Party, which is the entity responsible for single-handedly approving the extermination of 60 million children in the womb via abortion. Yet, he calls himself a Christian minister of the gospel.

It may be more of an indictment on those so-called right-wing conservative ministers who have a terrifying fear of losing their tax-exempt status who keep their mouths closed and remain cloistered in their church silos muttering, “Make the bad things go away,” and “Jesus saves,” while the likes of Mr. Campbell run around railing against their meek requests for a chance to even mumble a hushed and all-inclusive prayer at a pre-schooler breakfast.

The Campbells of the world have used the jaws of life to extract God from culture, and our so-called Evangelical Christians have watched the extrication silently.

Those so-called conservative ministers who would prayer torture people keep a tight lid on things, never straying from the reservation when it comes to standing up, whereas Campbell has no qualms about sticking it to anyone who so much as peeps anything conservative or Godlike in public.

Campbell’s use of the derogatory, homoerotically, sexually-charged term “Tea Bagger” to describe those in the Tea Party says more about whatever ministry credentials he may hold in the Methodist Church or whatever denomination it is that would ordain a man that refers to human beings as Tea Baggers as opposed to, say, fellow citizens, or errr … human beings. Eee gads. Tea Baggers are human beings? Oh, OK.

I will hand it to Campbell, who has attended a number of Occupy events and back-slapped with the best of them, while cat-calling anyone in the Tea Party who respectfully and in polite tones has merely asked for government to stop abusing taxpayers. Anathema to Campbell and his crowd of culture warriors on the left. Campbell’s public, overt, shameless disdain for conservatives and “Tea Baggers” is almost admirable in its brazenness and fearlessness of a backlash and utter lack of concern with losing that 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. The operative word there is almost, because in this day and age, it is laudable for those in the popular culture such as Mr. Campbell, who in his off time attends various soirees with the elites of Rockford’s left-wing political class, finds himself a celebrity of sorts for standing up to, uh, let’s see, the Grand Old Tea Party.

It’s easy to join the pack, Stanley, when “pack” is a pack and growing. I have seen packs of teens, and mobs of mobs, beating one person mercilessly, and none of them probably even knows why they were doing it. They were just doing it because it felt good to join the rest of the mob to beat someone down. Well, Stanley, welcome to your mob. You’ve made your denomination proud with your version of social justice and Christian charity. I’m thinking the mobs of people who partake with Campbell in their café society will not object.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

The GOP candidates are making pledges of cutting what seems to be our only safety net, the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In Illinois, we have seen firsthand how the federal EPA had to step in, clean house and enforce the laws that are there to protect us. As long as lobbyists and corporations are able to buy legislators and the pollution is not in their back yards or affects their families, the opposition is labeled as extreme fanatics and something to have the h— scared out of them.

The right paints a picture of the federal government controlling too much of our lives; yet, when it comes to agriculture, we in Illinois have no control, and more and more states are following suit. Just recently, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has caved under pressure, allowing the largest dairy to expand even larger in spite of citizens’ pleas against it. This factory farm can increase size, without notification or authorization from anyone. Citizens surrounded by large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations have nowhere to turn when their lives are ruined by an industry that pollutes the air, ground and water with ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, E. coli, antibiotics, drug-resistant E. coli, salmonella, and a host of other lethal pathogens. The right is obviously only concerned about corporations’ rights, not human rights. Over time, our individual rights have been taken away by making agriculture exempt from local control, and that’s very American as long as it profits a Limited Liability Corporation. Tea, anyone?

The families who have farmed for generations are squeezed out by these tycoons, and it’s almost impossible for a young family to start new. Those who have had to give up farming are often left with guilt and shame of believing that they did something wrong. This mental abuse from agencies that are supposed to represent them and work with them only profits LLCs by buying up these smaller farms because the CAFOs need more land to dispose on.

But why should the people in the urban areas care about what happens far away in the country? The industry will say that they are feeding the world and keeping prices down, but we all know that world hunger has nothing to do with production and everything to do with distribution. Industrial factory farming affects them by the antibiotic-resistant E. coli, and other lethal pathogens that are too often found in the food they put in their and their children’s mouths. It takes time, but contaminated groundwater travels for miles. It’s a guessing game exactly when and where contaminated water will show up, but it will; it has.

We teach our children to wash their hands, we are told to cook meats and eggs thoroughly because it takes personal responsibility to eat safe.

I’d like to know, exactly how much responsibility does it take when we turn on a faucet, breathe air, open a bag of spinach or jar of peanut butter?

Victoria Grizoffi is a concerned citizen who lives in Galena, Ill.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

Did anyone happen to catch the special section on philanthropy in The Wall Street Journal on the Monday after Thanksgiving (Nov. 28)? The lead story focused on a debate whether philanthropies should operate like businesses or not.

A full page and a half was devoted to two opposing viewpoints concerning philanthropies operating, or not operating, like businesses. The “business-like proponents” argue that “If your acts of philanthropy come only from your soul, you may be throwing your money into a stream of underperforming organizations that mean well.” And the “non-business proponents” argue that by focusing on return-on-investment (ROI) numbers, “the poorest will suffer,” because the problems that are the easiest to solve (greater ROI) generally aren’t those of society’s neediest.

It’s not that much of a debate, in my opinion. Of course, philanthropies need to employ reasonable decision-making and follow acceptable business practices … because we live in a “no money — no mission” society. At the same time, there are many times when the needs of society must come before the “safest” or “highest ROI” solutions. Likewise, in stable economic times, funds need to be placed “in reserve,” to replenish reserve resources or to build reserves for the future (rather than being spent immediately).

I appreciate the Wall shining their national light on philanthropy, here at year-end, but I think they could have found a more important topic to use in their cover article.

• Once again, the tax-free IRA/charitable rollover provisions are scheduled to expire Dec. 31 of this year. This is the provision that allows individuals 70-1/2 or older to rollover up to $100,000 directly from a traditional (or Roth) IRA to a charity, without declaring the funds as income on their tax return.

• Restrictions on the provision do not allow gifts from a 401(k) or to donor-advised funds or supporting organizations, and the gift is not tax deductible as a charitable gift. At the same time, the rollover CAN be counted as part of your minimum annual distribution. If this is something that may have benefits for you, contact your accountant or financial adviser for specifics … and complete your gift prior to Dec. 31.

• And remember, all year-end giving must be POST-MARKED by Dec. 31, to be deductible in this tax year. The date on the check is irrelevant. And FedEx or UPS are not considered the same as a U.S. Post Office postmark. Think about your year-end giving and put your Social Capital to work today helping us build a better community tomorrow.

John R. Mecklenburg is executive vice president and CEO of SwedishAmerican Foundation.

From the Dec. 21-27, 2011, issue

He came. He spoke. He woke … the sleeping giant of corporate interests in Rockford. However, he (Geoffrey Canada) didn’t need to awaken the lowly educators, the Jacks and Jills who climb the beanstalk daily by dealing with the crisis in public education. Why? Because we educators deal with insurmountable problems such as overcrowded classrooms and schools where violence, misbehavior and disrespect abound while trying to penetrate impoverished minds, bodies and spirits of our students with the love of learning.

We deal with paperwork, high-stake standardized testing, power standards, the lack of a teacher contract, insensitivity and irrational choices made for us by those ill-equipped to be educators themselves.

We plant the magic beans that germinate in the midst of irrational odds never expecting to find a golden egg or magic harp, but still striving to do well by our students.

So, Geoffrey Canada spoke Wednesday, Dec. 8, to nearly 500 of the elite of Rockford about his background with the Harlem Charter Zone (HCZ) in New York City, and most found inspiration from his words. However, few in attendance were educators because it was held during the school day and at a hefty cost.

I was fortunate to teach half a day and still hear his speech. Noticeably, Keith private school had a table for their teachers. The Rockford Chamber of Commerce, Alignment Rockford, Zion Development and the United Way sponsored the Education Outlook luncheon without including teachers. Just imagine how disenfranchised we feel, and WEE (Watchdogs for Ethics in Education) would like to know what Canada’s honorarium was and how much the various organizations contributed. Do we need to do another FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to find the cost?

Educators realize that to educate a child today, it takes far more than just stimuli of the classroom. As a society, we need to support and nurture the poorest among us, who have been deprived of advantages or opportunities from birth by offering wrap-around services that HCZ offers its students. However, social justice and sound educational reform have to be more creative and critical in its solutions than just giving lip service, hand-outs and costly alternatives.

For all Geoffrey Canada’s charm, do some research to understand why he is the darling of the corporate world. Goldman Sachs, an investment banking and securities firm in lower Manhattan, gave him $20 million to build another charter school. Its latest school building will cost $100 million from a private/public partnership. New York City is contributing $60 million from a capital fund for the charter school construction, and the Harlem Children’s Zone must raise the remaining $40 million, easily attained since they are nationally renowned with numerous financial and political contacts.

Another strange situation Canada has been linked with is his testimony on behalf of one of his benefactors, Raj Rajaratnam, a hedge fund billionaire and board member of HCZ, whom he considers a dear friend. And according to a New York Times article hyperlinked below, Canada would even help guarantee part of Mr. Rajaratnam’s $100 million bail after his arrest in October 2009 (hyperlink No. 4 below). Raj was accused of using inside trading tips from Goldman Sachs to enrich his riches.

According to Brian James, teacher and activist who participated in the Education Nation Summit sponsored by NBC, Waiting for Superman (the documentary movie on charter schools vs. public schools) paints Canada as a kind of educational Chuck Yeager — the pilot who first broke the sound barrier. Canada seemed particularly incensed that I brought up the fact that after New York’s test scores were re-scaled last year, only 38 percent of his students in Harlem Children’s Zone 1 fell within the benchmark for “proficient” reading ability. Canada tried to change the subject to the better scoring Harlem Children’s Zone 2. And while he claims it’s not the building that proves successful, he had been endowed with millions for support services and programs. Yet, while taking large checks from Wall Street on one hand, Canada insists that “it’s not about resources” on the other (hyperlink No. 1 below).

Canada’s personal resources extend to his annual salary, purported to be between $400,000 to 500,000 annually. Actually, President Barack Obama makes $400,000 a year as well and has pledged to replicate the HCZ in 20 other cities. But then, remember, it’s not about resources!

Some comments from a substitute teacher at the Harlem Children’s Zone (hyperlink No. 3) show insights to HCZ: I was a substitute teacher for both of Harlem Children Zone schools. I worked for one day; in one, which is the one I liked, their principal and administration seemed more organized. The other one, which had the older kids, seventh graders — teen-agers — was a nightmare. I stayed in that school for two months. They used to give the kids a paycheck to help them buy supplies in school, but instead they used that money to buy PlayStations and very expensive cell phones. They paid the teachers well, but I remember meeting up with one teacher on the street who was crying. Her students were cruel to her, and she was one of the best teachers in the school. The administration was all about appearance — they had an image to portray, Prince Charles and Clinton had visited their school already. I felt bad for all of them; everyone wanted to keep their jobs but ran the school like a dysfunctional army. I stopped idolizing charter schools after that. It’s a business in the end of the day.

Now, in fairness, Canada was an engaging speaker who entertained the audience with anecdotes, successes and personal poetry. His poem, “Don’t Blame Me,” touched a chord in me because I am not about blaming the blameless. However, I am tired of business and corporate interests blaming the teachers and excluding them from the decision-making process.

As educators, we have given and rescued as many as we possibly can without benefit of CEO salaries, respect or acknowledgement. We understand the value of an educated work force and lifelong learning. We understand the need to reach the distressed and disillusioned among our students. We reach who we can; we teach who will listen; we seek to make a difference.

Educators live to create light in the darkness, hope in the hopeless, and knowledge from the ignorance. If Harlem or Rockford is to have an actual Renaissance in public school reform, it has to do more than canonize a public face or a charter school leader. While Canada is currently the darling of the elite — the powerful of the corporate and banking worlds, politicians, media and moguls — he correctly states he is not going to save our children. That task belongs to us, but do not delete the teachers, parents and students from this movement because true reform cannot be achieved without our partnership.

Canada would say it’s not about resources, but then he has many to spare. Instead, we need to follow Diane Ravitch’s (education historian) lead: “Unless the schools provide our children with a vision of human possibility that enlightens and empowers them with knowledge and taste, they will simply play their role in someone else’s marketing schemes. Unless they understand deeply the sources of our democracy, they will take it for granted and fail to exercise their rights and responsibilities.”

Remember, education is not a business based on a corporate model. Remember us? We are the teachers who navigate the human minds and hearts of your children. It is time to start networking with us, the equitable and ethical teachers who want change that fits the students we serve in Rockford. You see, we have been thinking, creating and teaching outside the business box for years.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-jones/what-i-learned-at-nbcs-ed_b_748152.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/huffposts-greatest-person_n_791194.html

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/tag/harlem-childrens-zone/?scp=4&sq=Donations%20to%20Harlem%2-0Children’s%20Zone&st=Search

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/former-galleon-executive-and-prosecutor-clash-over-definitions/

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/58511.Diane_Ravitch

From the Dec. 14-20, 2011, issue

In her Nov. 16 Rock River Times guest column, Mary Jo Powers of Watchdogs for Ethics in Education says the Rockford school board is at war with its educators. I would suggest the teacher union bureaucracy is equally at war with its rank and file members where certain issues are concerned, and the ethics watchdogs would do well to sniff out and make known one of District 205’s most unethical pieces of business: namely, taxpayer subsidies to the teachers’ union, or as some like to call it, Taxpayer Ripoff 101.

Taxpayer subsidies to the teachers’ union take different forms, ranging from taxpayer-paid payroll deduction of union dues and PAC contributions to free use of in-school mail service and board-paid retirement benefits for union officials, some of whom have been on leave of absence for 30 years or more doing union business, not always connected with District 205 business! Subsidies may also include release time with pay for teachers who use their personal leave, which they don’t have to account for, to drive voters to the polls on election day and man telephone banks during election drives. In addition to being paid for such days, which can be accumulated up to six days for 205 teachers, this also leads to taxpayer costs for providing a substitute for the absent teacher. A few teachers have even been known to use their “personal leave days,” which they don’t have to answer for, to man their part-time department store Christmas jobs. Talk about unethical! Some of these subsidies would actually be illegal under federal labor laws if the teachers’ union were a private sector union.

Try finding out how much District 205 provides in “freebies” to the union, and you encounter the mother of all brick walls. The sum may be minimal or may, even in a medium-size district like Rockford, be substantial. Make no doubt about it; such subsidies do exist. Ted Biondo, a former school board member, who has had a lot to say about taxpayer subsidies concerning certain things, was tight lipped when I once asked him about school district subsidies to the teachers’ union, saying only that yes, they did exist, and yes, they don’t come cheap! A school secretary I queried about board-paid deduction of union dues and PAC contributions said that yes, the secretaries did provide such service to the union free of charge, but the secretaries did this work at home on their free time. Wait a minute! Doesn’t that violate a fundamental union principle of work without financial compensation, or am I just behind the times?

Various state legislatures make some of these subsidies mandatory, but I know of no state that requires the subsidies be made available free of charge.

The current school board has made a point of pledging openness in school matters, so it should be open regarding how much “free service” they’re providing the teachers’ union that the teachers’ union could well be paying instead of using that extra cash to fuel the Springfield, Washington cocktail circuit. The income accrued by the board, which might be substantial, could go to giving teachers a salary increase or perhaps offset the tenfold increase the board is demanding in teacher contributions to health benefits. If nothing else, teachers and the public are entitled to know the truth about board-paid subsidies to the REA. People think I’m anti-teachers’ union. I’m not. I’m anti-teachers’ union bureaucracy, which is a polite way of saying I’m anti-parasite.

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 Dec. 14-20, 2011, issue

Anyone with any knowledge of economies and markets knows U.S. presidents may promise they can create jobs and unleash economies, but that’s not really true. The economy and employment depend on billions of daily decisions made by investors, consumers (purchasers), employers, boards of directors, government regulators, job seekers, banks, etc.

Yet, the effect of the person in the White House and the party in charge of either house of Congress will be felt. President Barack Obama promised “fundamental change” when he took office. Did the change produce positive outcomes in the economy?

• A presidential order put a six-month stop to issuance of deep-water drilling permits after the BP oil spill in the Gulf. Two hundred thousand jobs hang on Gulf region drilling operations. A Florida judge ruled the order unconstitutional in June 2010, yet the agency charged did not issue its first drilling permit until March 2011.

• The president will wait until after the election to decide if the Keystone XL oil pipeline may proceed through Western states, to the joy of his environmentalist base. Canada would be a source of oil for Texas refineries, lessening our dependence on foreign oil. More than 20,000 high-paying jobs will wait for a State Department decision on alternate routes.

• The administration’s appointees in the Energy Department gave a $500 billion loan, against advice of experienced Energy Department staff, to Solyndra, a solar panel company whose investors were bundlers of Obama campaign contributions. The loan was renegotiated shortly before bankruptcy was declared, such that the taxpayer has last claim on company assets — Obama-friendly investors have first claim.

• Obamacare turns out to be the biggest job-killer of all. Section 3022 of the law, about the Medicare shared savings program, takes up just six pages in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But the Department of Health and Human Services wrote 429 pages of new regulations on those six pages. Rather than hiring workers, companies must hire lawyers to avoid government fines.

• Large employers, including AT&T, John Deere and Verizon are making plans to drop employee health plans, incurring the far less-costly $2,000 fine per employee rather than maintain the expensive, all-inclusive plan mandated by Obamacare. Much cheaper “major medical” plans become illegal in 2014, when Obamacare is in full effect. Young insured are most affected. See the John Goodman blog, “It’s Official: 51 percent Won’t Be Able to Stay in Their Employer Health Plan.”

• Has the Obama administration’s 21 percent increase in the growth of government done you any good? Unless you’re a bundler for contributions for his campaign, or a newly-hired federal regulation writer, I seriously doubt it.

• Finally, closer to home, Illinois faces the loss of a 6,100-person employer, with 9,000 ancillary jobs at risk, as the state of Ohio woos Sears. The massive corporate and personal tax rate increases passed in January by the Democrat-dominated Illinois General Assembly are having the result opponents predicted.

The only thing growing in this economy is government spending, supposedly to spur economic growth in the private sector (and to regulate all these nasty businesses). Face it, people, we were sold a bill of goods in 2008. The mainstream media did you no favors in their anything-but-investigative journalism on candidate Obama. Has his promise of “working with both sides of the aisle’” borne fruit? Are you happy paying for Obama campaign stops disguised as “official events”?

Six months ago, I thought the bleak news on the economy would be sufficient to make Obama a one-term president. Now, I am less sure. There’s enough Kool-Aid to drink for those who believe the president only “needs more time” for the “fundamental transformation” to bring America the utopia he promised. Wake up and smell the coffee, America! This is “gangsta’ government” at its finest. Whom you elect in 2012 will matter. The Northern IL Tea Party meets at 6:30 p.m., Dec. 15, at 1315 N. Blackhawk, the Rockton Township offices.

Roscoe, Ill., resident Jane Carrell is coordinator of the Northern IL Tea Party. She can be reached at jane@teaparty-NIL.com.

From the Dec. 14-20, 2011, issue

Stanley Campbell

By Stanley Campbell

The boys in Springfield gerrymandered Rockford into two congressional districts, which, I think, will give us a little more input into the U.S. Congress. If we don’t get help from one representative, we can appeal to the other.

Right now, Rockford is in the 16th Congressional District. We have Donald Manzullo as our “Representative for Life.” He is not a hard worker. The Donald takes the easy way out on a lot of issues, though he has a great staff that gives good service, which is very important to maintain one’s power.

The Donald ran as an outsider, and promised to serve only six terms. That was 10 terms ago. He could have had practically any congressional committee in Congress, but he chose some simple ones that had little power (and even less to do).

Manzullo racked up an incredible zero percent on environmental votes. He never voted for the environment. He did allow the Rock Island Arsenal to place some acreage in a wildlife preserve, thanks to the work of his wife.

Manzullo’s new 17th Congressional District will have most of the Republicans in Illinois, and they can yell at each other as to which one will build the highest electrified fence at our borders, who’s more conservative and wants to kill the most Arabs. Manzullo now faces a Tea Party Republican in his first primary battle since he trounced Democrat John Cox in 1992.

Four Democrats are running in the 17th Congressional District who want their party’s vote. They are vying to be the first Democrat from the Rockford area to be elected to Congress since John Cox (and he was only there one term). Before Cox, the last Democrat was in the 1840s.

The 17th District is represented by a Teabagger as well, Bobby Schilling, but his chances, I imagine, are now pretty narrow. Gerrymandering means the politicians draw boundaries so their side wins. Almost always.

A month ago, Rockford Progressive Meetup hosted a Meet the Candidates Night. They invited those Democrats running for U.S. Congress in the Illinois 17th District. It was the first chance to meet them. Rockford will be split between the 16th and the 17th in the new gerrymandered state. Since I’d heard the 17th will be more Democrat, I figured this would be a good time to meet one of our next representatives.

Five Democrat candidates were invited, but only three showed: George Gaulrapp, mayor of Freeport; Cheri Bustros, alderman of East Moline; and David Koehler, state senator from Peoria. This was the first time these candidates were together, and the event gave us an opportunity to hear them talk. Only The Rock River Times advertised the event (thanks, Frank!), but two of the three TV stations showed, as well as one of the Hispanic papers (El Tiempo, I believe).

Here’s my impressions: They were all good candidates. I loved the fact that Cheri’s father ran Paul Simon’s gubernatorial campaign (he lost, but went on to beat Chuck Percy for Senate), and Dave Koehler worked for Cesar Chavez before moving his family to Peoria, where he worked for an interfaith urban ministries (my kinda guy!). Late breaking news: Dave just pulled out of the race!

George was the best I’d ever seen him. He’d run against Manzullo in 2010. Articulate, focused on his “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” campaign. Concerns: George does not identify himself as a Democrat in his big yard signs, and he bends to business interests.

I think there are two other Democrats running. Hope they show up at some public forum before the primary. Thanks to Progressive Meetup for hosting a great candidate forum, and IBEW for letting everyone into their beautiful hall.

Stanley Campbell is executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries and spokesman for Rockford Peace & Justice.

From the Dec. 14-20, 2011, issue

Public education is undergoing the most significant revamping ever.

This moment caps 30 years of attacks on the rights of working people, two decades of deregulation, the suppression of democratic opposition, the greatest upward shift of wealth in U.S. history, the plunder of financial markets, and a double-dip recession that has destroyed middle-class America. It is a perfect storm. Education reform is fueled by billionaires confident the American people are on the ropes.

One tactic being used in Rockford is to focus public discontent on teachers. This hits a hot button for many on the receiving end of U.S. austerity, and draws focus away from the sleight of hand taking place in ownership and control of public education. But the reality is that public dollars once spent on education have been diverted to bailouts that enriched the same people who are now investing in companies buying up schools.

Rockford’s education restructuring initiative under leadership of Alignment Rockford has assembled a roster of local industry, nonprofits, Trade Unions Council, United Way, City of Rockford, District 205 administrators, Rockford Board of Education members and others. Alignment brings a new mode of governance in District 205. The mission is apparently to redirect education to better serve the needs of corporations.

University of Illinois professor Robert Lawless recently wrote: “The last thing the current ruling class wants is a group of people trained to think critically and to question the structure and conventions. …”

For the first generation in American history worse off than their parents, the question will be: How do we live in a society that fights to pay us less, drives costs of living up, and forces us into lifelong debt? With all the new spin surrounding reform, the means for funding education reform remain disappointingly old. If history is any teacher, the American taxpayer will be stuck with the bill for these adventures, both sooner AND later.

Alignment Rockford comes anew with a top-down plan to turn high schools into theme-based academies. Its coalition appears intent on destroying the teachers’ union as a precursor. Four years into Rockford’s unimpressive charter experiment, the same social engineers who advocated school closures to make way for Legacy, Galapagos and CICS are ready to unveil a major restructuring of Jefferson High School into quasi-privatized small learning communities (a strategy since abandoned by Bill Gates). We have no evidence that our charters save District 205 any money. Indeed, they are now trying to explain their poor performance to Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey (I). Alignment’s new deal is before us at the same time as the teachers are being forced to face a strike vote.

In early October, Alignment Rockford announced a fall calendar of public events aimed at turning the community against teachers. In November, District 205 posted to its website its explanation of the status of contract negotiations and attempted to construct an argument that 205 teachers are overpaid at twice the rate of the average Rockford worker. Reportedly, the district offered to remove their online attack only if Rockford Education Association President Karen Bieschke would instruct teachers to stop protesting at Board of Education meetings. Readers can see the teachers’ responses on YouTube: ROCKFORD BOARD OF ED FORCING TEACHERS TO STRIKE? Perhaps the most provocative display on the 205 website is a list of programs the schools could have but for the high cost of teachers.

No accounting has been made to the community of the cost of hiring and the generous payoff given to former Superintendent Dr. LaVonne M. Sheffield, the escalating cost of dozens of $100,000-per-year administrators, the misdirected Evans Newton Inc. ($5 million) scandal, open-ended $1,000-per-day crony consultants Peebles and Bingham, the failed experiment at Leadership and Learning Academy, a new expensive $2 million headquarters, the loss of career educators to the district, OR the cost to the community of a two-year struggle against a fabricated deficit crisis, the teacher firings and school closings it was intended to justify — all over just the last two years.

Alignment Rockford has side-stepped each ensuing wreck insisting they do not support charters, an assertion barely credible given their sponsorship of Waiting for Superman star Geoffrey Canada as Chamber keynote speaker this week. And that the founders of Alignment and the founders of Rockford Charter Initiative are one in the same. Alignment kept the Sheffield debacle at arm’s length, although those who engineered her hiring and directed her disastrous policies are prominent among Alignment’s governing board.

In her speech to her backers at the Chamber of Commerce one year ago, Sheffield made statements that stirred racial enmity. Now, the board turns this divide-and-conquer strategy to set the community against those who teach our children. Rockford should ask if the solutions to today’s problems include fomenting discord, degrading professional teachers, re-segregating students into industry-based theme schools, unequally distributing resources among schools, and the one-time discount selling off chunks of America’s system of public education to casino capitalists gambling with our children’s future. Yet, these are the strategies being vigorously promoted by Alignment Rockford now exerting direct control over the Board of Education.

David Stocker is a writer and musician in Rockford. He has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Cornell University and a master’s degree from Yale University.

From the Dec. 7-13, 2011, issue

The Rockford Chamber of Commerce — with the United Way, Alignment Rockford, Zion Development Corporation and the City of Rockford — is sponsoring an Education Outlook Luncheon from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., Thursday, Dec. 8, at Cliffbreakers Riverside Resort. Cost is $35 for one or $350 for a State of the Schools corporate table for 10.

Surely, the cost and time will prohibit most public school educators from attending, but then, perhaps that was the purpose!

Geoffrey Canada, renowned advocate of the charter school movement, is speaking about his leadership of the Harlem Children’s Zone, Inc., a charter school in New York City. According to the information on the Rockford Chamber’s website, Mr. Canada will share his successes in bringing about positive change in a highly urban school system for the past 20 years.

Canada was featured as a successful education entrepreneur in the Waiting for Superman movie featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show for two episodes in September 2010. The film was financed by corporate interests for privatization of public schools, similar to the sponsors of this Education Outlook Luncheon. The film enhanced the national recognition of Mr. Canada’s efforts in education reform, and The New York Times lauded him as leading “one of the most ambitious social experiments of our time.”

Now, how impressive is that, especially in Harlem, NYC! Why not, Rockford, USA, you say? Why, of course, that is probably what led the esteemed business leaders in Rockford to sponsor his speaking engagement, and we wonder at what cost!

Unfortunately, how many of our business leaders have opened their minds to the true debate by also seeing the documentary opposing Canada’s success, The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman? This documentary was produced by a grassroots production team called Real Reform Studios which is composed of educators, parents and a social worker that counters the agenda of Waiting for Superman and discourages the privatization of education. The theme song for their documentary is “The Hero is You.” These educators believe an equitable education should not be a cash cow with a silver bullet solution, and propose resisting corporate reform methods advocated in Waiting for Superman by such reformers as Canada.

Canada’s HCZ (Harlem Children’s Zone) has surpluses of $200 million and continues to collect millions in public funds and real estate deals while taking money and resources away from public schools’ neediest students in NYC.

According to The Inconvenient Truth, Canada’s approach to student enrollment at HCZ is discriminatory and motivated to create excellence on standardized test scores. By culling his students and releasing an entire class from the middle school, he was able to restart the program from the kindergarten level.

Another charter school movement across our nation, KIPP (the Knowledge is Power Program), also selects students who are less disruptive and those with fewer special needs, such as ELL (English Language Learners) or special education qualifications.

Pity to the poor public school educator whose mission has always been and continues to be to serve ALL students as equitably as possible, regardless of their testing abilities, socio-economic needs, academic strengths or weaknesses, dispositions or challenges! Because of the democratic principles that are fundamental to public schools, public educators still need to educate the neediest students, who seem wayward, disruptive or searching for direction, trying to direct them to a career or college where they will succeed and contribute to society. We cannot handpick only the potentially productive and progressive students that would promote an image of exemplary success by numbers. We paint not by numbers but by broad creative brush strokes trying to teach holistically and humanely.

Do we need educational reform in America? Obviously, we do if we are to compete globally, nationally or even locally, for that matter. We need highly-trained educators, smaller class sizes, less emphasis on standardized tests, more parental, community and benevolent corporate involvement, more creativity, more social services, more mentors and more technology, literacy, communication and respect. Remember, a public school must take rejects from all other schools: parochial, private and charter schools, and still try to succeed with even disenchanted, disruptive or discarded students.

According to The Inconvenient Truth’s website: “Only 1 in 5 charters is successful in America. In Finland, a system that now ranks No. 1 in the world, ALL students are given an equitable education with small class sizes and no high-stakes standardized tests.”

Success with homogenous students is far less challenging, but we are a diverse nation built on pluralism. Watchdogs for Ethics in Education (WEE) believes ALL students deserve an opportunity for an education that enhances their abilities, regardless of socio-economic factors or potential.

WEE believes education is the key factor in creating a more enlightened citizenry, compassionate of those who are the neediest or most challenged.

Certainly, Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone Project services educational, social and medical services for its students from birth to college, and should be successful with the monetary support and services provided to their students and families. Then, their students are truly free to achieve because their most critical needs (health, nutrition and housing) are being met. How admirable! However, public educators do the best they can for all they serve with far more limited resources.

WEE advocates becoming informed and seeing both movies (Waiting for Superman and The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman) before making an educated and enlightened decision. Join the debate by hearing both sides and discussing the controversial methods used before aligning with one side or view. Don’t just be a passive part of a social reform experiment in education; be an active part of a solution for public schools!

Know that the true hero is within the public school classroom. Know that the true hero is YOU: the parent, the educator, the student, and all those who are willing to work to achieve such democratic ideals. Remember, The Hero is You!

Online resources

www.waitingforsupermantruth.org/

http://rockfordilcoc.weblinkconnect.com/CWT/External/WCPages/WCEvents/EventDetail.aspx?EventID=980

http://realeducationreformdc.blogspot.com/

From the Dec. 7-13, 2011, issue

Even though the Rockford area suffers from a chronic shortage of living-wage jobs for its residents, it continues to be saddled with a surplus of elected politicians who are unceasingly eager to promote the job-stealing tactics of the People’s Republic of China.

Chief among them is our congressman, Don Manzullo. During the nearly two decades he has spent misrepresenting our interests in Congress and traveling to China to meet with his communist pals, Rockfordians have witnessed the wholesale decimation of our once-thriving manufacturing facilities right alongside an unprecedented increase in cheap labor manufacturing capacity in China. As a result, a tidal wave of Made-in-China imports has inundated our unprotected marketplace and carried away our good-paying jobs.

Congressman Manzullo has been and continues to be one of our country’s most enthusiastic supporters of the trade policies that have swamped his Rockford constituents in this unemployment tsunami. Despite that, he has the nerve to call himself a champion of manufacturing. Strictly speaking, of course, he is correct. Manzullo has been a champion for manufacturing … in China.

If you think that Manzullo’s preposterous claim is something that only a lawyer could love, you could be right because, in imitation of Manzullo, Mayor Larry Morrissey has adopted his twisted logic and jumped on the Red China bandwagon.

In an interview broadcast on WIFR on Nov. 7, Mayor Morrissey informs us that on the strength of his four trips to China, each of them carefully organized and overseen by Communist Party officials, he believes himself qualified to “dispel some of the myths that might be out there that the Chinese have stolen all of our jobs.” It’s not their fault, he claims, but ours for failing to do more to keep those jobs here. [A]

I imagine that Congressman Manzullo would be proud of such an excuse because he has used it himself. Back in 1999, when the news came out that China had stolen our nuclear weapons secrets, Manzullo told the National Journal (May 29, 1999) that the blame for that was mostly America’s for having made it so easy for China to do so! And he got away with it!

Mayor Morrissey further advises us that the Chinese are very entrepreneurial and suggests that we need to follow that example. Is he completely unaware of what really goes on in the factories operated by the “entrepreneurial” Chinese whom he so admires? If so, he would not be the first foreigner to be so deceived.

Some years ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Loretta Tofani discovered she had been bamboozled by Chinese government officials:

When I decided to become an importer, [she writes,] I believed the common wisdom prevailing in America that American trade with China improved the wages and lives of Chinese factory workers and their families. The nice factories I had seen in China as a reporter during the ’90s, under the tow of officials, seemed to support that premise. But the reality I observed as an importer, and later as a reporter interviewing young dying workers and those who employed them, made me arrive at a different conclusion: American trade with China has caused unspeakable suffering among millions of young factory workers, who are shocked to discover that their jobs making cheap goods for America are causing their deaths.[B]

Ms. Tofani followed up on her discovery by investigating, exposing and denouncing the Chinese government’s complicity with horrific entrepreneurial crimes against factory workers. [C]

Perhaps in ignorance of their crimes, Mayor Morrissey suggests that we follow the example set by the Chinese. Can he still really mean it?

But this is not just about our clueless mayor and useless congressman, or our stolen jobs and China’s brutally abused and unfree working people, although those should be reasons enough to alarm and disgust those of us who still remember what this country is supposed to stand for. It is, more importantly, about our national security.

To enhance the profits of their corporate sugar daddies, our elected politicians of both parties have allowed them to create, through so-called free trade, a powerful, nuclear-armed Chinese Communist monster that despises every freedom we enjoy and every moral value we hold dear. Consequently, we now find ourselves on the brink of a new Cold War, which we could well lose, and our government in the hands of corrupt politicians who are still eager to trade away to our enemies the weapons they will use to destroy us.

How could we have allowed this to happen?

Will we act in time to avoid the awful fate that we have allowed our politicians to make for us?

I’m sorry to have to say that I doubt it.

References: [A] “Morrissey China Talkback” WIFR-TV, Nov. 7, 2011; [B] How I got the story — Loretta Tofani; Backstory: The Dick Goldensohn Fund, Jan. 7, 2008; [C] “American Imports, Chinese Deaths” by Loretta Tofani, The Salt Lake Tribune, Copyright 2007.

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

From the Dec. 7-13, 2011, issue

In his Nov. 16 letter to the editor, “Rebuttal to Tom Harris’s letter and the NIPCC,” Nick Poggioli has chosen to question the authority of the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Second, he asserts that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a more credible authority than the NIPCC.

This is not a good time to be claiming authority for the IPCC, which now has a 15-year-long history of scientific malfeasance that stretches back to its Second Assessment Report in 1995. On that occasion, recommendations from one of the expert science advisory groups were reworded in alarmist terms by a single scientist charged with preparing the wording for the critical Summary for Policymakers.

Along the way since, we have had:

(i) the resignation of leading scientists from IPCC because of their dissatisfaction with its procedures;

(ii) the domination of the 2001 Third Assessment Report by the statistically invalid “hockey stick” graph of global temperature; and

(iii) the discovery of the dysfunctional peer-reviewing of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, in which a full 30 percent of the references have proved to represent student theses and reports by environmental activist groups and the like.

Meanwhile, November 2009 saw the publication of e-mails leaked from the IPCC’s main advisory group for the global temperature record, located at the Climatic Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. As the subsequent “Climategate” affair showed, CRU scientists and their worldwide network of contacts have been abusing basic scientific process for many years, including attempting to manipulate the scientific literature toward their preferred alarmist stance on global warming in support of IPCC intentions.

Finally, and just a few weeks ago, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise published her devastating exposé of the chicanery and corruption that underlie many IPCC processes in a new book titled The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert.

It has been clear for many years, then — and as is to be expected of a body that is composed of government appointees — that the IPCC is dominantly a political body. As such, the organization gives political advice that, in turn, rests upon politicized and spun views of the basic science (i.e., “Frisbee” science). The IPCC’s reputation as a source of credible and impartial scientific advice is, therefore, now shredded beyond retrieval, and many senior scientists believe that it should be closed down forthwith.

In contrast, the authors and contributors to the NIPCC publications represent independent and often senior scientists who are beholden to no one, and have no political agenda to pursue. NIPCC presents the science as it is, not as it can be spun. In particular, NIPCC volumes contain descriptions of hundreds of papers that argue against the occurrence of dangerous human-caused global warming and which have gone unreported or under-reported by the IPCC.

Readers looking for a balanced and balancing perspective on the vexed issue of dangerous global warming will therefore be well served by consulting the 2011 NIPCC-2 Interim Report, as was initially recommended to them by Mr. Tom Harris.

Dr. Robert M. Carter is adjunct research fellow at James Cook University, Australia, chief science adviser to the International Climate Science Coalition, and a lead author of the 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC: http://www.nipccreport.com).

From the Dec. 7-13, 2011, issue