Boone County’s new budget

 

The pictures and comments below are from the The Facebook account of The Rhubarb

The

The Rhubarb added 4 new photos.Like Page

21 mins ·

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

October 31, 2016

Dear Editor of The Rhubarb,

The Boone County Special Finance, Taxation and Salaries Committee met on October 24, 2016 and brainstormed ways to plug the $1,900,000 deficit in the 2017 budget. Many revenue ideas, proposed cuts and other ideas were noted on a large whiteboard. Any and all ideas were to be included. Nothing was discussed at great length or any decisions made. One idea generated during the first meeting was an across the board 2-3% cut in the budget. That line left me wondering why it did not read 12%, closer to what is needed to balance the budget.

The same committee met on October 27, 2016. This three and half hour meeting included crossing many of the items off of the white board, moving some to a future ideas board, and several items were notated that more information was needed. Just before adjourning the meeting, the county administrator was asked to prepare what he did last year, a proposal of sorts. He asked what they wanted in the proposal and was told the public safety sales tax revenue.

It became quite clear that these two budget meetings were nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Using the estimated $1,400,000 of public safety sales tax revenue just happened to leave a deficit that can be eliminated with an across the board cut of ……2-3%. Wow, what are the odds?

It is no surprise that these same people voted to eliminate the end date of 2018 from this tax as they spend every dime in revenue. Now is time to reduce our expenses!

The next Boone County Special Finance, Taxation and Salaries Committee meeting is November 2, 2016 6:30pm 1212 Logan Ave. in the county board room.

http://www.boonecountyil.org/…/special-finance-committee-me…

William Randall
Candidate for County Board Dist. 1

Photos provided by William Randall III.

Diane Hendricks, the richest woman in Wisconsin, has pumped nearly $5.5 million into a conservative super PAC

 

 

Wisconsin’s richest woman uses super PAC to denounce Clinton, Feingold

Michael Beckel

October 28, 2016

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" />11 Comments

Diane Hendricks, the richest woman in Wisconsin, has pumped nearly $5.5 million into a conservative super PAC that’s spending millions of dollars on attack ads in her home state.

The Reform America Fund has raised almost $5.9 million since it was launched in July 2015, meaning Hendricks accounts for 93 percent of its war chest.

Since mid-September, the super PAC has spent $3.4 million on ads critical of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and another $2.2 million lambasting Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold, who’s in the midst of a rematch with incumbent Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.

According to data provided to the Center for Public Integrity by ad tracking firm Kantar Media/CMAG, the Reform America Fund has aired about 2,400 anti-Clinton ads in Wisconsin — accounting for roughly 55 percent of all presidential-focused ads in the state since the primaries ended.

No other group has been as big a player on the TV airwaves in Wisconsin in the presidential race.

This story is part of Source Check. Click here to read more stories in this series.

Don't miss another Politics investigation: Sign up for the Center for Public Integrity's Watchdog email.

The ads’ messages

On its website, the Reform America Fund says Clinton — a former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady — “simply can’t be trusted.”

It’s a message the super PAC has hit repeatedly in its TV and digital ads at a time when Clinton has been battling criticisms of potential pay-to-play politicking, foreign influence peddling and mishandling of classified emails.

“C is for Clinton, whose campaign is sliding,” a narrator states in one of the group’s ads. “And C’s for the classified emails she’s hiding.”

The theme of a second ad was “C is for cover-up.” While a third anti-Clinton spot accused Clinton of selling access to foreign governments as secretary of state.

A second website operated by the Refund American Fund allows people to share various “C is for Clinton” memes online.

Who’s behind it?

Hendricks, co-founder and chairman of ABC Supply, the largest wholesale distributor of roofing in the United States, is well known in GOP circles.

Before supporting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this year, she backed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s failed presidential campaign.

Hendricks donated $5 million to a super PAC that supported Walker — about one-fifth of the group’s overall receipts.

In May, Hendricks was named a vice chairwoman of the Trump Victory committee. Since then, she’s donated $212,700 to the joint fundraising group that benefits Trump’s campaign as well as the Republican National Committee and several state parties.

Among her other notable political contribution this election: Hendricks has donated $4 million to the Freedom Partners Action Fund, the super PAC backed by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. And she gave $400,000 to the committee that hosted the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.

Money in

As a super PAC, the Reform America Fund may collect unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and labor unions — so long as it doesn’t coordinate its spending with candidates’ own campaigns.

In addition to Hendricks, who also serves on Trump’s economic policy council, several other Midwestern business executives rank among Reform America Fund’s top donors.

Among them: FABCO Equipment CEO Jere Fabick, who's given $150,000; TAMKO Building Products CEO David Humphreys, who's given $100,000; and Uline CEO Richard Uihlein, who's given $100,000.

Don't miss another Politics investigation: Sign up for the Center for Public Integrity's Watchdog email.

Money out

In addition to the $5.6 million that the Reform America Fund has already spent directly attacking Clinton and Feingold, the super PAC has also transferred about $740,000 to a related super PAC called the Reform Wisconsin Fund. That money has been spent on additional anti-Feingold ads in Wisconsin’s Senate race.

Why it matters

Wisconsin’s Senate seat is hotly contested, with Johnson in danger of losing to Feingold, who has maintained a modest lead in recent polls.

The winner of this seat could help determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the U.S. Senate come January.

Wisconsin is also a state Trump has hoped to wrest away from Clinton, who’s currently leading in the polls there.

Moreover, super PACs like the Reform America Fund make it easy for wealthy individuals with political passions to become more involved.

Hendricks, herself, has expressed a desire for Wisconsin to turn into a “completely red” state.

Such motivated megadonors often make it onto politician’s radars.

Earlier this month, at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Trump himself praised Hendricks, who was in attendance, as “amazing” and called her one of the state’s “great successful people.”

Above is from:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-richest-woman-uses-super-192357574.html

What the Illinois comptroller race is really about

 

Crain's illustration

Both are self-made women. Both say that in this time of fiscal trouble, Illinois needs an independent watchdog as its chief financial officer. And both claim to be that person.

Yet for most voters, the contest for Illinois comptroller between appointed GOP incumbent Leslie Munger and the Democratic challenger, Chicago City Clerk Susana Mendoza, isn't so much about them as it is about two men: Bruce Rauner and Mike Madigan.

Call it the battle of the surrogates. Though there are plenty of good issues to debate in the contest for comptroller, the election fundamentally is a test of strength between the strongwilled GOP governor and the equally stubborn Democratic speaker of the Illinois House.

Photo by AP Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger

Munger, 60, who got the job when then-Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka died shortly after winning re-election in 2014, hails from Joliet. A University of Illinois graduate, she ran the domestic hair-care business at Helene Curtis under CEO Ron Gidwitz, who also was the state's top GOP fundraiser. She ran, unsuccessfully, for state representative in the northern suburbs in 2014.

"I feel we've been fighting for Illinois' financial future," she says. "I've been working very hard to bring fiscal responsibility."

Mendoza, 44, was a soccer star at Bolingbrook High School and Northeast Missouri State University (now Truman State), where she earned a degree in business administration. Her political activity goes back almost that far: Elected a state representative from a Back of the Yards district at age 28, she served into her sixth term before becoming Chicago city clerk.

Photo by AP Chicago City Clerk Susana Mendoza

"This race is about getting people to elect an independent truth teller," she says. "The question is, who will focus on the fiscal health of the state?"

While both meet the qualifications for being the state's chief bill payer, whether either qualifies as independent is debatable. In fact, each has plenty of ammunition against the other, and both are firing away.

Mendoza points out that Munger not only was appointed by Rauner but has allowed her campaign fund to "launder" big contributions from top Rauner allies, transferring $3 million to the Illinois Republican Party within days of receiving $5 million from Ken Griffin and Richard Uihlein. The move was intended to help Rauner circumvent campaign donation caps, since the money was parceled out by the state party to other candidates, Mendoza suggests.

Munger replies that she just was following rules written by Democratic lawmakers in an effort to create "a level playing field" with Madigan's candidates.

Mendoza, in turn, was a loyal Madigan partisan in the House, accepted a salary for being a state lawmaker and a city planning official simultaneously, and gained when the speaker helped ease another Democrat out of the comptroller's race, Sen. Dan Biss. ("I made a judgment she has a level of support," Biss says. "There's no question [Madigan] was a crucial supporter of hers.")

Mendoza replies that she was careful not to accept a city salary for days in which she was in Springfield on state business. Records she supplied indicate she gave back roughly a third of her city pay in most years but still earned $114,000 combined in 2008. Mendoza also says she originally won office by twice having to overcome Madigan-backed candidates.

In fairness, both have shown streaks of independence. Munger, for instance, bucked Rauner on withholding union dues. Mendoza was an early advocate of impeaching then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Still, I suspect most voters, after seeing the smear ads on TV, have figured out that more is at stake on Nov. 8 than electing the better finance manager.

Whoever wins likely has a bright future—comptroller is one of the better steppingstones to higher office in Illinois. But first, she has to win. For those who can't wait for Rauner's presumed re-election race in 2018, consider this contest a foretaste.

Above is from:  http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161029/ISSUE05/310299991/munger-mendoza-race-for-illinois-comptroller-is-all-about-rauner

Resolution opposing the Great Lakes Basin railroad moves to county board

 

By Sabrina Bennett | 

Posted: Wed 9:06 PM, Oct 26, 2016

ROCKFORD,Ill. (WIFR) -- Folks living inside the Winnebago County lines are feeling some relief tonight as the Winnebago County zoning committee unanimously approves a resolution opposing the Great Lakes Basin Railroad.

Several of the zoning committee members at tonight's meeting said this is the most calls, texts, and snail mail in opposition they've received on any issue they've ever come across.

"It's important for us to listen to our constituents and they want to her from us, that's why we get elected. When something happens you turn to your leaders, most people do and say what are you going to do about this. Can you help me," said Winnebago County board member Jim Webster.

The matter will now go to county board and will need to get approval there tomorrow night. Winnebago county residents are the latest to oppose the 261 mile railroad that hopes to relieve congestion and allow railroads to better handle traffic from Chicago.

There is expected to be crowd participation at tomorrow nights county board meeting. The is one of six proposed routes submitted by developers to the surface transportation board which they are currently reviewing.

Mike Blasack an attorney for the Great Lakes Basin Railroad says the route still needs to go through an environmental study.

Both candidates running for Winnebago County board chairman Frank Haney and John Nelson oppose the project.

Above is from:  http://www.wifr.com/content/news/Resolution-Opposing-the-Great-Lakes-Basin-railroad-is-moving-to-398798941.html

RRTimes: GLB Railroad promises false hopes and raises fears

 

 

 

GLB Railroad promises false hopes and raises fears

October 25, 2016October 25, 2016 Staff 0 Comment

By Paul Gorski
Contributor

The Great Lakes Basin Railroad (GLBRR) is a rail line proposed by a private group that promises to relieve regional freight train congestion. This would be done by developing a new multi-state private rail line that bypasses Chicago and cuts across hundreds of acres of Illinois farmland, including some in western Winnebago County. Suffice to say, many of the landowners and villages in the path of the proposed rail line have serious doubts and concerns about sacrificing their property for a private, toll-based railroad. For good reason.

To those business professionals reading this, imagine someone asking you to partner with them: “I’d like to build this new product. I don’t have any experience building this product, I don’t have any customers signed up for the product, and my potential customers are already committed to using my competitor’s product.” You would say, “Sure, what do you need from me?” No, probably not. Nevertheless, that is what local leaders including Larry Morrissey, Scott Christiansen and Michael Dunn, Jr. agreed to in July of 2015. More on that later.

The sponsor of the GLBRR does not have much if any previous experience in rail transportation. Two of the six major railroads that might use the service have said they will not use it. The remaining four rail carriers have not supported the project. In addition, there is also at least one big project, the CREATE Program which is working to relieve rail congestion in northern Illinois. CREATE has the support and participation of the six major rail carriers in question.

Despite this, the Rockford Metropolitan Agency for Planning (RMAP) stated its support for the GLBRR in its 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan dated July 30, 2015. Among those leaders were: Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey, County Board Chairman Scott Christiansen and RMAP Executive Director Michael Dunn Jr. The RMAP plan has big ideas for the sketchy GLBRR, hoping for rail connections to the Rockford airport.

The GLBRR project has been in the news recently because many local residents oppose the project because of its potential negative impact on the county. Fueling the fire, County Board Chairman candidates John Nelson and Frank Haney have come out on different sides of the debate. Nelson sides with the residents; Haney with the project. Well, sort of, depending on the day.

Haney has twisted and turned on his position regarding the GLBRR. First, he is for it, then he will wait until the environmental review, then he will take in under consideration, and now, apparently he might be against it. I cannot see how he can be against it. The GLBRR project has the support of his mentors: Larry Morrissey, Scott Christiansen and Michael Dunn Jr.

Haney is friends with, served on a college board with, and received campaign help from Dunn Jr. Dunn Jr. is also the son of Mike Dunn Sr., who heads the Rockford airport, which again, figures prominently in RMAP’s plan for the GLBRR. Funny how things like that turnout in this county.

Haney has some of the same big contributors as Christiansen, and has many of the same friends, advisors and campaign contributors as Morrissey. When push comes to shove on a final county board action on the GLBRR, who do you think Haney will side with: residents of Winnebago County; or his friends, family and the big money that put him in office? Follow the money.

Nelson has been consistent, siding with the concerned residents. Most of these residents are raising land use and environmental concerns. I say focus on the basic premise of the plan and the people offering up the plan. Who will use the rail line? Why would the rail carriers support this project and the multi-billion dollar CREATE Program?

I cannot help but feel this project raises the same false hopes the failed proposed ethanol plant did, which was to some people simply a scam, a scam that blinded many with the false promise of jobs and economic development.

The proposed Great Lakes Basin Railroad raises legitimate fears and concerns. I encourage residents to continue asking their questions and demand more hearings on the project. Share this message with family, friends and neighbors. The local insiders supporting this plan will not stop or relent. You should not either.

Paul Gorski is a resident of Cherry Valley Township, Winnebago County and serves as a Cherry Valley Township Trustee. This article was written with Rock River Times publisher Frank Schier in mind.

Above is from:  http://rockrivertimes.com/2016/10/25/glb-railroad-promises-false-hopes-and-raises-fears/

NYT: Fearing Trump, Bar Association Stifles Report Calling Him a ‘Libel Bully’

 

By ADAM LIPTAKOCT. 24, 2016

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by Donald J. Trump’s record of filing lawsuits to punish and silence his critics, a committee of media lawyers at the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Mr. Trump’s litigation history. The report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court.

But the bar association refused to publish the report, citing “the risk of the A.B.A. being sued by Mr. Trump.”

David J. Bodney, a former chairman of the media-law committee, said he was baffled by the bar association’s interference in the committee’s journal.

“It is more than a little ironic,” he said, “that a publication dedicated to the exploration of First Amendment issues is subjected to censorship when it seeks to publish an article about threats to free speech.”

In internal communications, the bar association’s leadership, including its general counsel’s office and public relations staff, did not appear to dispute the report’s conclusions.

 

But James Dimos, the association’s deputy executive director, objected to the term “libel bully” and other sharp language in the report, saying in an Oct. 19 email that the changes were needed to address “the legitimately held views of A.B.A. staff who are charged with managing the reputational and financial risk to the association.”

“While we do not believe that such a lawsuit has merit, it is certainly reasonable to attempt to reduce such a likelihood by removing inflammatory language that is unnecessary to further the article’s thesis,” Mr. Dimos wrote. “Honestly, it is the same advice members of the forum would provide to their own clients.”

Mr. Trump has made frequent threats in recent weeks to file more lawsuits, including ones against The New York Times for publishing parts of his tax returns and accounts of women accusing him of sexual misconduct. On Saturday, he threatened to sue the women themselves.

Members of the committee expressed dismay with the bar association’s actions.

“It’s colossally inappropriate for the A.B.A. to sponsor a group of lawyers to study free speech issues and at the same time censor their free speech,” said Charles D. Tobin, another former chairman of the committee.

Mr. Dimos did not respond to a request for comment. Carol Stevens, an A.B.A. spokeswoman and a former managing editor of USA Today, said the association had only minor and routine objections to the article’s tone.

“We thought it was an insightful article, and we asked them to consider minor edits,” she said.

George Freeman, a third former chairman of the forum, disputed that characterization.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘minor edits,’ ” he said. “Among the edits they wanted to make were the title and the lede,” he said, using newspaper jargon for the article’s opening passage.

The article was titled “Donald J. Trump Is a Libel Bully but Also a Libel Loser.” The bar association’s proposed title was “Presidential Election Demonstrates Need for Anti-Slapp Laws.” The acronym stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. In states with such laws, defendants can sometimes seek early dismissal of libel and similar suits and recover their legal fees.

Mr. Freeman, a former lawyer at The New York Times Company, is executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, a trade association of law firms and media companies. On Friday, the center posted the report on its site [see note below to read the entire 12 page document]

Ms. Stevens, the bar association spokeswoman, emphatically denied that the fear of a libel suit had played any role in the association’s objections. Ms. Stevens declined to comment when she was read passages from Mr. Dimos’s email. “I’m not a lawyer,” she said, “and that wasn’t my fear.”

Presented with the email, which indicated that she had received it at the time, she pointed to a passage in it that raised another criticism of the study. “Mr. Dimos’s primary concern was the use of partisan language,” Ms. Stevens said. “By policy, the A.B.A. is strictly nonpartisan.”

The study was prepared by Susan E. Seager, a former journalist, a Yale Law School graduate and a longtime First Amendment lawyer. She found seven free speech-related lawsuits filed by Mr. Trump and his companies. They included ones against an architecture critic and his newspaper; a book author and his publisher; a political commentator; a former student at Trump University; two labor unions; a network executive; and a beauty contest contestant.

“It’s based on court records, all of it,” Ms. Seager said in an interview. The report includes 81 footnotes.

The report concluded that Mr. Trump had lost four suits, withdrawn two and obtained one default judgment in a private arbitration when a former Miss Pennsylvania failed to appear to contest the matter.

“Donald J. Trump is a libel bully,” the report concluded. “Like most bullies, he’s also a loser, to borrow from Trump’s vocabulary.”

The bar association sought to eliminate that conclusion, which Ms. Seager said was the point of her report.

“I wanted to alert media lawyers that a lot of these threats are very hollow,” she said.

Ms. Seager said the bar association’s action showed that Mr. Trump’s threats work. “The A.B.A. took out every word that was slightly critical of Donald Trump,” she said. “It proved my point.”

Mr. Tobin said the media law committee, the Forum on Communications Law, had been prepared to publish the report without changes.

“Everyone who looked at it on the forum side felt her conclusions were well founded, were backed up by her scholarship and that the A.B.A. should not be censoring a First Amendment lawyer’s point of view about a current presidential candidate’s litigation tactics,” he said.

Mr. Freeman said the bar association’s actions were also at odds with its larger role. “As the guardian of the values of our legal system,” he said, “the A.B.A. should not stop the publication of an article that criticizes people for bringing lawsuits not to win them but to economically squeeze their opponents.”

Mr. Bodney said the country’s finest media lawyers had been ready to defend the bar association without charge had Mr. Trump chosen to sue.

“If push came to shove, as I recently told an A.B.A. representative, one could surely imagine top-notch libel lawyers standing in line to defend this article against a defamation lawsuit on a pro bono basis,” he said. “Evidently, that wasn’t assurance enough.”

Above is from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/donald-trump-lawsuits-american-bar-association.html?_r=0

 

Ms. Seager’s 12 page research paper is available at: http://www.medialaw.org/images/stories/MediaLawLetter/2016/October/Trump_Libel.pdf

Why no one knows about the largest prison strike in U.S. history

 

Why no one knows about the largest prison strike in U.S. history

Jeff Spross10 hrs ago

 

 

© Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom Prisoners have been fighting for these rights for decades.

Something remarkable has gone down in prisons across the country over the last few weeks.

On Sept. 9, the two-year-old Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) announced a nationally coordinated work stoppage and protest across American prisons. Organizers say there have been strikes at 29 prisons in 12 states — Virginia, Ohio, California, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Michigan, and more. "There are probably 20,000 prisoners on strike right now, at least, which is the biggest prison strike in history, but the information is really sketchy and spotty," the IWOC's Ben Turk toldThe Intercept last month.

This new round of protests was meant to commemorate the 1971 takeover of Attica prison, which was brutally put down by the New York state government and its troopers. Just as the uprising of Attica's prisoners was in protest of abuse, racism, and abysmal prison conditions, the new wave of prison strikes has its own grievances: Mass incarceration, three-strikes laws, abusive and dismal conditions — but above all, prison labor.

By some estimates, the prison labor economy brings in $2 billion annually, and employs 900,000 people or more. The labor is often used by state governments to offset costs in their own budgets, and many companies — including IBM, Boeing, Microsoft, AT&T, and Macy's — either currently make use of prison labor or have in the past. At Perry Correctional Institution in South Carolina, for example, where TheNew Yorkerspoke with a striking inmate, the work can range from furniture manufacturing to kitchen duties, landscaping, and janitorial jobs. Across the nation, inmates make clothes, laundry supplies, name plates, park equipment, and food equipment, renovate buses, repair tires, and more.

Supporters of prison labor argue that these work programs give inmates structure and a sense of meaning and purpose — along with increasing their chances of finding employment when they're released. And indeed, there's some research to back up those claims.

The problem, critics say, is that inmates are required to work. They don't have a choice in the matter, and they're often punished (sometimes with solitary confinement) for refusing to work. Prisoners have essentially no way to argue for better compensation or better working conditions. And while inmates are ostensibly supposed to be paid prevailing wages, reality often falls far short of that. Fees, taxes, and deductions eat into inmates wages: everything from deductions for victims' compensation or restitution funds, child support, co-pays for medical treatment, or even to cover the overhead costs of the very work-release programs that give inmates the jobs in the first place. Actual pay at federal prisons runs from 12 to 40 cents an hour, and at state prison systems, sometimes the inmates are paid nothing.

It would cost prison systems hundreds of millions more each year to pay all their inmates minimum wage. Hence the enormous incentive to get by on paying the inmates a pittance. But it's also the strikers' source of leverage: At this point, the prison systems can't operate without their (nearly free) labor.

Almost two-thirds of the prisoners who work under these conditions are not white, versus just 30 percent of the American population as a whole that's non-white. The IWOC has clearly connected the dots between modern prison labor and America's shameful past use of slavery: "Overseers watch over our every move, and if we do not perform our appointed tasks to their liking, we are punished," the union's announcement read. "They may have replaced the whip with pepper spray, but many of the other torments remain: isolation, restraint positions, stripping off our clothes, and investigating our bodies as though we are animals."

Getting solid information on the scale and nature of the strikes is difficult, since prison officials can maintain pretty tight control over the information that gets out of their facilities. The Department of Corrections, not surprisingly, has denied that any work stoppages are occurring. Inmates themselves, along with their families and the IWOC, had to coordinate their activities via mail, stealth conference calls, lawyers and advocates, social media, online forums, and the occasional smuggled cell phone.

Prison strikes have a mixed record of success, and this round may already be winding down. If they don't break through now, organizers hope to boycott the outside world — namely, the companies that rely on prison labor.

It's sort of the point of the American incarceration system to consign people to oblivion; to remove them from our shared social life as punishment for their crimes. But that's also what makes it so hard to show the outside world — or get it to care — when prisoners are the ones being victimized.

Above is from:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/why-no-one-knows-about-the-largest-prison-strike-in-us-history/ar-AAj5csg?li=BB13Rnn&ocid=spartandhp