Here's what Moline-Coal Valley School Board candidates had to say

My First School Board Candidates’ Forum!

Last evening, I attended the 2023 Moline-Coal Valley School District Board of Education Candidate Forum. It was the first time in my life that I attended such an event.

I decided to attend when a close friend asked me who I was planning to vote for in the upcoming April 4 school board election, and when I had to admit that “I didn’t even know who was running.”

A brochure was available at the door. It contained a photo and a short resume of each of the seven candidates. The seven candidates were seated at a table on the stage of the MH theater.

The moderator was at a podium to the left.

The format was as follows: (a) each candidate was allowed a 90-second opening statement; (b) seven questions were asked (one at a time) and each candidate was allowed to make a 90-second answer; (c) each candidate was allowed a brief closing statement.

A movie screen was situated above the candidates. Each of the seven questions asked was shown on the screen just before, and continuously during the time each of the candidates were answering the question. I found this very helpful. It allowed me to check to see if the candidates were answering the question asked, or ignoring the question and making a canned speech. I was impressed by the fact that all the candidates were clearly making their answers to the question asked. The first six questions were:

1. What motivated you to serve?

2. What are the essential attributes and behaviors for a school board member.

3. How does a board member’s role differ from that of the superintendent or administrator?

4. How can communication with the community be improved?

5. What is your vision for education in the community?

6. What are the strengths of the Moline/Coal Valley School system?

The 7th questions seemed to invite repetition.


No questions were allowed from the audience. That avoided the possibility of a “friend of a candidate” asking a question designed to benefit the candidate, but it also prevented questions touching upon the issues tearing states like Virginia apart.

I was very pleasantly surprise with the presentations made by all seven of the candidates. All came across as intelligent and articulate. I saw no stuttering or stammering. No attempts at obfuscation or redefinition.

Two of the candidate, Audrey Adamson and Justin Anderson, were already members of the board, seeking re-election.

Audrey Adamson spoke of “Equity,” and “Trusting our educators” who were the “librarians to our children.” She spoke of “supporting the superintendent,” and “representing the people who put us in office.” She asked “Who will our decision impact?” And noted the importance of the board achieving “consensus,” noting that each board member was “only one of seven.” “We provide guidance; we set goals; we supervise.” The superintendent implements those goals.” When people come to us for answers, our job is to “connect them with the person with the proper answers.” We want our school to be a school where students “can come as they are; to prepare for the next step; a place where they want to be” — a school that also provides “social and emotional learning” and “recognizes the needs of disparate kids.”


Justin Anderson spoke of his “financial expertise” and the “need for board members to spend wisely.” As essential attributes, he identified “integrity,” openness, and being available,” noting that board members “represent 70,000 people.” He spoke of the need to balance between “holding the line” and “collaborating with the other board members.” He spoke of the need to recognize and set “community goals.” “Be available, act as a sounding board, and be a voice for those who reach out to you.” He believes the schools should be a “welcoming, loving place for whomever.” A “launching pad.” He called for teachers to be given what they need to meet the core needs of the students, and whatever else they need. He sees the district as having a “strong staff and team.” He wants a district were “everyone is welcome, and where various pathways are provided.”

Michelle Carter began by noting that “parental rights must be supported.” While working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she worked with “billions of dollars” and acquired many “transferrable skills.” ”The school board members represent the families in the district; we need to focus on what families want.” “We need to be transparent to the people; to recognize what is possible, and what’s not; and to show their concerns are taken seriously.” “Our mission, on which we must focus, is to graduate students proficient in reading, writing and math. To teach and inculcate the importance of civility.” “We have a lot of good teachers. We must support their efforts to provide for student needs.” “Our students come from many different cultures; this enriches our district.”


Ramona Dixon “worried about pressures” and the “needs of the whole community.” She said a school board member must “know limits.” “We hire an administrator to do a job; our job is to collaborate with him.” “The superintendent is our point of contact.” We provide the “finances.”

In dealing with the people we represent, “we can’t over communicate.” We must provide “equity.” We must prepare our students “for whatever — work, the military, college,” and to deal with things on the horizon such as “artificial intelligence.” She took pride in the “relationship between our students and the police, and in our good staff.”


Jason Farrell spoke of being motivated by “Equity,” the need for “different materials.” He noted that providing good “service is difficult.” He felt his strengths were “explaining the complex in simple terms, working with others, and being a team member.” He also felt that the “superintendent was the Board’s point of contact.” He felt a board member should have “no direct contact with teachers,“ or be involved in “the removal of books.” He felt “tech in the schools could get better.” He spoke of “sexual orientation inclusion,” noted that “education is a fluid process,” and called for “getting rid of outmoded ideas.”


Lindsey Hines indicated she was motivated to run because “teachers are our greatest asset, and because special needs must be better served.” She felt a board member must be “a good listener, empathetic, a team member, and able to work with other board members and employees.” She felt it was important for a board member to “understand what the community wants for its students,” and to stay in touch with the community.” The students must be prepared both for the “jobs available today, and for jobs that do not exist yet.” She sees the District’s strengths in “its staff, and its partnership with the community.”


Mariela Trevino seeks election because the “language barrier still has to be dealt with” and to be "a voice for those who don’t yet know English.” She sees her strengths as being a “good listener, a team member, and someone who can effectively deal with data.” “A board member must represent the families in the district. Our policies should leave no one behind. The Spanish community is underserved. We must listen to their needs and be their resource.” My vision is to “train and educate for success in the real world.” We must provide for diversity, and the need of LGBTQ students and minorities.”

I am not a certified shorthand reporter. I took notes based on what I felt I heard the candidates say. If I have misquoted anybody, I didn’t mean to do that. As I listened, I made notes of what seemed important to me. I knew nothing about any of the candidates when I entered the room. At this point, I know only what I believe I heard them say. If others took better notes, rely on them. You have plenty of time. I make no recommendations as to whom you should elect.



First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 28, 2023.

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

From Moline to Chicago. By Amtrak? Or by Limousine?

Amtrak’s own financial statements conclusively demonstrate that pouring money into Amtrak is throwing it down a sewer.

Amtrak’s Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 2022, show a “loss from operations” of $1,830,051,000.

Amtrak’s Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 2022, show “revenues from contacts with customers,” $2,448,357,000. “Total Operating Expenses:” $4,827,545,000. That produced a “Loss from operations” of $1,830,051,000.

For the prior Fiscal Year (ending Sept. 30, 2021), Amtrak’s “loss from operations was $1,983,997,000.


Amtrak states that 2022 was a good year for Amtrak revenues. They were up 47.8% — “driven by higher ticket revenues” — this, as the result of the upturn of the nation’s economy as our country came out of the shutdowns of the pandemic.

However, on the expense side of the “P & L,” all expenses, save one minor one, were up substantially: Salaries, 26.7%; wages and overtime, 17.3%; employee benefits, 26.2%; employee related, 79.5%; train operations, 33%; fuel, power and utilities, 60.5%; materials, 25.7%; facility, communication & office, 20.7%; advertising and sales, 55.4%, etc.

But can a 47.8% revenue increase be reasonably expected for FY 2023? Once the country comes out of the shutdown, can it do it again? And again? Amtrak doesn’t think so. Amtrak predicts that gross ticket revenues will be back to the pre-COVID annual level by FY 2024.

On the other hand, given the inflation, created by our political geniuses, is there any reason to believe that Amtrak’s loses will not recur year after year?

The people supporting the coming of “high speed rail” between Chicago and Moline blather that “the money will be well-spent.” Really?

If this is such a good investment of $400,000,000, why don’t those who want “high-speed passenger service invest their own personal savings? Why are the taxpayers being asked to come up with the $400 million?

Imagine that you are a business man. You have $100,000 to invest. Would you decide to invest your own $100K in a new high-speed railroad? If it were possible, would you invest your $100K in “Amtrak common stock?” What if you knew that it would take 400 years for you to recoup your investment? 100 years? You, of course, would not begin to “make a profit” until you have recovered all of your $100K initial investment.

The point is this: You will never recover your investment in any company that loses money year after year. The only Amtrak routes that have ever made money are in Amtrak’s “Northeast Corridor.” And the Chicago-to-Moline route would be nearly 1,000 miles from the “Northeast Corridor.”

In FY23, Amtrak projects its “Long-Distance Routes” will lose $709,000,000. Its “State Supported Routes” will lose another $110,000,000.

So, what would be a reasonable time for the taxpayers to recoup their $400,000,000 investment in high speed-rail between Chicago and Moline? If the route can generate a net profit of $1,000,000 per year, the taxpayers would recoup their investment in a mere 400 years. If the route can net $4 million a year, the taxpayers would recover their investment in just 100 years!


One other thought. A car, a van or a limousine can provide regular, daily ground-passenger transport to and from Chicago. I-80, I-88 and even I-90 connect Moline and Chicago. Such services would not require the acquisition of new train depots, right-of-way, the co-operation of any railroad, the tearing up of old tracks, the laying of new high-speed tracks, the purchase of new train engines, and/or modern passenger cars. And we already have limousine companies in the area. Do you suppose that they would provide regular twice-a day service, if they were subsidized? Would a subsidy of $1million per year do it? If so, we could have service for 400 years before we expended the $400,000,000.

The time has come for those who claim that this is a “good investment of taxpayer funds” to set out in detail their projections of (1) Revenues, (2) Expenses, (3) Expected ridership, (2) and Ticket prices.

Unless full and fair — open disclosure is made to the people of the Quad-Cities, this “project” has all the hallmarks of a boondoggle, and the $400,000,000, the appearance of a slush-fund.

Everybody leading the charge here should fully and fairly disclose their financial interest or potential financial interest in the project.

The Rock Island ended its intercity passenger operations to this area on December 31, 1978. That service ended because it could not profitably compete with other modes of transport. Where is the evidence that that is no longer true?

Full Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any limousine-type business. I do own some Lionel trains.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 19, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Losses caused by remote teaching entirely foreseeable

In December 2022, The Dispatch published a long article, captioned “Quad-City schools see historic learning losses.”

The article cited findings from the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress evaluation. The principle finding was “since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic” there have been “historic declines in student performance.”

Among the sub-findings for the 2020-21 year were the following:

•Low-income students saw the biggest drops in learning levels.
• Black middle and high school students saw lower math proficiency rates.
• Urban districts showed greater declines in math skills.
• Losses were greater in districts that spent more time in “remote learning” instruction.

In 17th century England, the education of children, other than those from upper class families, was generally provided by the family and the church, or through apprenticeships. The first public school in the American colonies was the Boston Latin School which opened in 1635. Four years later, the Mather School opened in Dorchester, Massachusetts. It was the first “free” publicly supported school in America.

The reason why public schools came into existence is not hard to understand. Many parents, who themselves had received little or no education, were incapable of educating their own children. Those fortunate enough to have received some education, often were too busy eking out meager livings, and lacked the time, or the will, to educate their children.

This is certainly not to say that educated parents, with the will to do so, are incapable of home schooling. In the years I directed theater at Alleman HS, I was fortunate to become acquainted with a number of kids who had received excellent educations by their mothers through their grade-school years.

But in the first 15 years of my judgeship, especially during those times I was assigned to hear juvenile neglect and delinquency cases, I saw why public and parochial schools were essential to the welfare of children. The one conclusion I drew, that had really stuck with me, was that most of the neglected and delinquent kids who appeared before me were products of a broken home, who had no religious affiliation, and who lacked the ability to read and, therefore, succeed in school.

As a very young boy, I was fortunate to have a dad who loved reading history, geography and detective stories, and who had a solid understanding in basic math. I can recall an evening when we were assigned math homework in subtraction that required “borrowing.” For some reason, when “Sister Mary Arithmetic,” earlier that day taught us how to “borrow,” I didn’t get it. When I tried to do the homework, it seemed impossible. When I told my dad, “I didn’t understand, “how to subtract a bigger number from a smaller number,” it took dad about one minute to explain “borrowing.” After dad’s help, subtracting the likes of 197 from 343 was easy.

But did the math scores really fall during the period of “remote learning” because the kids came from Black or low-income families? I would not draw that conclusion. Based on my life experiences, I would have concluded that the kids who suffered the greatest decline in math and reading skills came from homes were the parents (or parent, in a broken home) didn’t have the skills or the will to supplement the “Zoom” lessons.

Sadly, I think this was entirely foreseeable.

The principle reason for the creation of programs like “head start,” was to fill the void for those children whose parents couldn’t teach because they themselves lacked the education (or the will) to assist their children in their studies.

In my most recent book, "Memories of the Great Depression: A Time Remembered," the first story in the book tells the story of a “low income,” Black family with three children. The mother was a high school graduate, and a fine pianist. The father was a WWI veteran, who found work at Union Malleable. Both parents had a deep commitment to the tiny church, kitty-corner from their home, where the mother served as pianist for 50 years. The parents prayed with their children every night before bedtime. And then, notwithstanding the untimely death of the father, when the oldest son, my story teller, was in first grade, the widowed mother carried on and fought through the hard decade of the “Great Depression” to successfully raise and educate her three young children.

In later years, two of those children served this county as two of our finest probation officers. The family survived and thrived because of the values the mother instilled and cultivated in her children, and her commitment to the education of her children. Fortunately, they had help from their relatives, their little church, and a number of “kind neighbors.”

So, what’s the real cause of kids not progressing in reading and math during the pandemic?

Some children need face-to-face time with teachers far more than others. In homes where the parent(s) lacked the education to do what teachers could do in the classrooms, and could not (or would not) make up for the loss of in-school teaching, that’s where the losses were the greatest.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 12, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Is Amtrak from Moline to Chicago a good use of $400 million

On Feb. 28, this paper featured the following article: “Local officials seek federal intervention.”

The problem seems to be that “About $400 million in state and federal funding is committed to the downtown (Moline) project.” And it seems to be burning holes in the trouser pockets of our city officials.

We are told that negotiations have broken down between the Illinois DOT and the Iowa Interstate Railroad.

Therefore, “The best hope for the project to move forward is to get Amtrak to go to bat for those supporting the passenger route from Chicago to Moline."

I read that to mean, that Amtrak should use a baseball bat to “convince” the nasty folks at Iowa Interstate Railroad to hop aboard the money train so the $400 million can be peed down the political drain.

Before, however, any rational taxpayer or voter hops aboard the “cannonball express” supporting this expenditure, there are some hard questions that need to be asked.

Where is the money going? Which business men or businesses stand to directly profit from seeing rail passenger service come to Moline? Which politicians?

Is rail passenger service from Chicago to Moline a necessary or wise expenditure of $400 million?

Would the money be better spent shoring up Illinois’ major under-financed pension systems? (According to a state report, the funding ratios for the five state retirement systems ranged from 22% to 45.2% as of June 30, 2022).

Or on highways? Bridges? Expanding airport service?

Is there any Amtrak passenger service within 500 miles of Chicago that makes a profit? Within 750 miles?

Amtrak’s net Loss for 2021 was $2,007,073,000, up from a paltry $1,679,032,000 in 2020 (as per Amtrak’s Consolidated Financial Statement). On its longer routes, Amtrak loses more. In 2018, Amtrak’s Chicago to San Francisco route lost $57.3 million; its Chicago to LA route lost $57.2 million; its Chicago to Seattle route lost $51.9 million; Boston to Chicago lost a mere $35.7 million.

How many millions will it cost to upgrade the tracks to accommodate high-speed-rail service? Acquire better right of way? Build new bridges? Overpasses?

How much will new engines and passenger cars cost? Pensions? Salaries?

The Wanderu website indicates that you presently can get a train from Chicago to Moline for just $42, and arrive in Moline in a mere 10 hours and 50 minutes. Would that meet your expectations Are the tracks being used sufficient?

How many trains are going to run each way each day? One? Two?

How many passengers will travel by the trains?

What will the fare be? How does that compete with flying from Moline to Chicago? A bus? Will the fares paid result in the line being profitable? Or will the taxpayers forever be in “bailout mode?”

Once you take a train from Moline to Chicago, where will you disembark? How far will that be from your real destination? How will you get from the train station to your actual destination? Will you go by cab or Uber? What will that cost?

How often would you take this train? What about your family members? Or will it be more convenient and cheaper to simply drive up?

My best guess is that the voters and taxpayers will be far better off if our public officials who are so on fixated passenger rail service would buy a Lionel train, and build a nice layout in their basements.

That way, the $400 million that is burning a hole in their pockets might be put to a far better public use.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 2, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea