What Next for PBC? A Golf Course?

I was appalled when I read The Dispatch-Argus’ lead editorial on Sunday, “Rock Island Board, say yes to PBC courthouse plan.”

The editors wrote, “Kudos to the Public Building Commission for voting to set a hard and fast deadline for Rock Island County to either demolish or renovate the old courthouse.

“We urge members of the county board ... to endorse the PBC-approved intergovernmental agreement that says if a buyer has not come forward to purchase the courthouse, or if no funds are available to renovate the building by July 18, 2018, board members will hand the deed over to the PBC for demolition.”

Since my editor has asked us to “share our views,” here’s my opinion ...

On Oct. 1, 1981, the PBC was established by the county board and taxpayers were solemnly assured in the resolution creating that commission, that “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission” was “to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

That “good and sufficient jail” was built and completed 25 years ago. Now, 27 years later, a runaway PBC, an unprincipled county board and an overreaching chief judge want to use that PBC to demolish the antiquated century-old courthouse.

The PBC was created to build a jail. Where was it granted any other power or authority? Where does it get authority to issue ultimatums? To engage in urban renewal? To create landfills, or golf courses? How does any honest public official—judge or county board member—stretch a grant of authority to build “a good and sufficient jail” and claim with a straight face that it authorizes courthouse demolition 26 years later?

This is not a situation where the courthouse had to be demolished so that the land could be used to build the new jail in 1981. The new jail was built on land formerly occupied by the old St. Joseph’s Catholic School, not on the land presently occupied by the courthouse. The old obsolete courthouse remains in use next to the new jail even today.

Make no mistake, I think the old courthouse probably should be taken down for reasons I have expressed in earlier op-eds. But I think the county board should have the guts and integrity to do the job itself.

If a tax has to be levied to pay for the demolition, it is the job of the county board to levy that tax, rather than sloughing off the decision to an un-elected commission.

America fought a revolution over the principle that our taxes were to be levied by our elected representatives—not by a British Parliament—and not by commissioners or dogcatchers.

In 1981, in setting up the PBC, the county board operated under statutory authority granted to the counties by the Illinois Legislature, which gave counties a choice. They were authorized either (a) to set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or (b) to set up a commission for the “limited purpose” of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The Legislature did not require county boards to hold a referendum before initially setting up the building commissions.

Rock Island County chose Option B. Its commission was set up for a limited, sole purpose, providing “a good and sufficient jail. The Legislature also required a referendum “be submitted to the electors ... and approved,” before that purpose can be expanded.


This is the third effort by the county board and the judges to ignore or stretch the plain language of the statute.

In 2001, three criminal courtrooms, with jury rooms and offices, were built in the Justice Center. Fair and reasonable argument could be made for that use of the commission there.

Criminal courtrooms at least have an arguable connection with a jail. (I retired before those courtrooms were finished, and never used them). Then in 2015, a whole new courthouse was begun.

I have expressed my opinion that the use of the commission without a referendum was illegal. Now, in December of 2017, the commission is about to be—in my opinion—used again in a way no rational citizen would ever have imagined back in 1981 when the taxpayers of the county were assured that the commission was created for the “sole purpose” of building a “good and sufficient” jail.

I don’t believe a good end—getting rid of an obsolete courthouse—justifies using means not authorized by law—without the voters first granting approval by referendum.

In my opinion, this all stinks!

Posted: QCOline.com December 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats Seek to Abuse Impeachment Powers

Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Franken (D) have been accused of sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.

Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray, "If Congress is going to probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple, believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump."

But why?


Six Democratic congressmen, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment charges of sexual misconduct?

If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against Conyers and Franken? Members of the House and Senate are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."

Or is the rule, only Republicans should be impeached.

Indeed if candidate Roy Moore has to go based on 40 year-old allegations, why shouldn't Conyers and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?"

Are there photos of Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?

Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article 1 provides that the House has sole power to bring charges of impeachment. If charges brought pursuant to a majority House vote, the Senate must try all impeachments, "and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- thirds of the members present."

The question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's great justices) U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be."

It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion) was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers understood or intended.

The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature.

For example, English Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities - "bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament, according to "The Enduring Constitution," by Jethro Koller Lieberman.


American President Andrew Johnson (1867), Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and William O. Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon also would have been, had he not resigned.

To revisit charges of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before the election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment.

In an impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by another jury - the ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 presidential election.

The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trumpists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters elected Mr. Trump.

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a presidential election - the considered will of the American people.

(I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a president of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).

Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his policies."

Posted: QCOline.com December 7, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea


Authors Note: Below is the op ed as originially submitted to my publisher, before their editorial changes.






                     A LITTLE IMPEACHMENT LAW AND OPINION



Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Frankin (D) have been accused of
sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual
misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.


Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray "If Congress is going to
probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple,
believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump." But why?

Six Democratic Congressmen, the likes of Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach
President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment
charges of sexual misconduct? If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against
Conyers and Franken in their respective houses? [Members of the House and Senate
are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with
the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."]


Or is the rule, "only Republicans should be impeached. Indeed if candidate Moore "has
to go" based on 40 year-old allegations of sexual misconduct, why shouldn't Conyers
and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?" Are there photos of
Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?



Article II, Sec. 4 of the U. S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President,
and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."


Art. I, Sec. 2 [5} provides "The House of Representatives shall ...have the sole  power of impeachment." That means the House of Representatives has the sole power
to bring charges (to "impeach"). That charge is brought pursuant to a majority vote.

Art. 1, Sec. 3 [6] provides, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments. ... and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of the members present."

So the question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted
impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's
great justices) Congressman Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An
impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers
it to be." It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion)
was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers
understood or intended. The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. There, the phrase took its meaning from English Parliamentary experience. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature. For example, the English


The Lord Chancellor, Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities -
"bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against the
Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament. "Our Enduring Constitution," Lieberman, (1997) p. 92.


In America, President Andrew Johnson (1867), and Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and
William O.Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon
also would have been, had he not resigned.

To re-visit the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Mr. Trump before the
election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that
time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment. In an
impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by "another jury" - the
ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 Presidential election.


The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by
the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trump-ists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters discounted the allegations and elected Mr. Trump President. 

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a Presidential election - the considered will of the American people. (I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a President of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).


Finally, Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made
a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his
policies."

A modern-day Christmas Carol

Do you make charitable donations? Christmas donations? If so, how do you decide to whom you will give? Do you ever wonder whether the money that you give really goes for your intended purpose?

As I have grown older, I have come to believe that my donations should go to those who have the greatest need - those incapable of caring for themselves. I also have come to believe my donations should be local. As an old curmudgeon, I want to be in position to see that the organization that solicits my donation is faithfully using the money efficiently and consistently for their stated charitable purpose.

There is an organization in the Quad-Cities simply known as "The Arc." Its main office is on 9th Street in Rock Island. The Arc was founded in 1952 by parents of children with either physical or mental disabilities.


I write to ask you to consider helping The Arc this Christmas and beyond.

I write to say a personal thank you to The Arc. On June 1, 1973, my wife was pregnant. A few days later, our son was born. Hours after his birth, we were told by my friend and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Greenberg, that Tom was seizuring, and that his EEG showed chaotic electrical patterns in all regions of his brain.

Like most parents, we ran from Chicago's Children's Memorial, to Iowa City, to Mayo, in hopes something could be done to change Tom's future. Nothing could. His mom and I raised him into his 20s. He spent time at The ARC's (it was then known as the "ARC" it is now called "The Arc") Opportunity Center in Moline, and then at Blackhawk Special Education.

And then something happened. His mom, who had been on the old ARC Board, learned there was a vacancy at an ARC group home in Moline. She felt this eight-person facility was the best of all the ARC facilities. She felt that the time had come to place Tom.

At first, I balked, but her arguments were persuasive.

We were getting older? A time would come when we'd be incapable of caring for Tom. He'd be well cared for and with peers. He'd have his own home. She convinced me, and we placed Tom (and his Rockola Jukebox).


It was probably the best decision we could ever have made for him. It takes caring people to provide 24-hour care for eight physically and/or mentally disabled adults.

Today, Tom is healthy, and happy. He views the group home as his "home." He enjoys visiting with us every week, but he is always ready to go back to "his house." He has friends, Marla and Joe, there.

Today The Arc runs 14 small six-to-eight-person group homes. In addition, it provides Arc Industries. There, its clients, among other things, make cardboard boxes of every size and shape. (If you need boxes - one or a thousand - call and give them your business).


Other Arc clients clean the Butterworth Center and the Lodge at Blackhawk State Park. The Arc is a 5-1(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Today, it employs a staff of 219 persons; 171 of those are directly involved with care of the disabled clients; 142 provide direct support (primary care), and 29 are either on-site group home supervisors, or case workers. The remaining 48 provide staff support - including the executive director, and the director of development, etc.

Nearly 80 percent of The Arc budget goes to staffing, 4.5 percent to supplies,. 4.7 percent to maintenance. 1.6 percent for transportation (the 18 vans used to transport clients and staff), 3.62 percent covers miscellaneous expenses. and 8.7 percent goes for interest expense.

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote of the duty of the state to provide for those "in exceeding distress ... without any prospect of extricating themselves from their extreme necessity."

When children of God are disabled, unable to care for themselves, and living in our community, should anyone - other than perhaps family - occupy a higher place in our plans for charitable and Christmas-giving?

Do we wait for the state to provide them welfare, or should we, at Christmastime, include these - as well as your favorite needy - in our charity?

Posted: QCOline.com December 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea