FALL 1998
WHAT BETTER CAUSE? OUR DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE
Democracy has been an uphill battle in Harwood Heights.
While we live in a great community, we feel there is room for improvement.
In March 1997, residents concerned about issues affecting the rights
of citizens formed the Committee for a Better Harwood Heights. Our
goals are to get more residents involved in the legislative process
and to be a "watchdog" group for our local government. There is
no official membership list nor dues for our committee. Many people
want to remain anonymous. We welcome everyone. Our first project
was a survey, hand-delivered to homeowners asking residents to rate
the current administration; what changes they would like to see;
their concerns about development and zoning; what areas need the
most attention; and if they felt they are receiving enough information
from the Village. The response to this survey gave us our "network"
of concerned citizens. We distributed a newsletter with the results
of the survey and other comments. Later, our flyers encouraged residents
to attend our planning meetings so that they could give their opinions
of proposed developments. One of our greatest concerns is that village
ordinances are voted on and passed all in one meeting without the
input of the citizens. There is no "reading of the ordinance." In
fact, we must file a Freedom of Information Act request in order
to see the ordinance, which we don't receive until after it is passed
and signed by the Mayor. We are being denied the right of being
involved in the legislative process. Our democracy is at stake.
We have been fortunate that one of our local papers recognizes us,
our issues, and even asks for our comments after Village Board Meetings.
But we have not made much progress with opening up our local government.
They have told us that we voted them in to govern our village and
if we don't like it, we can vote them out. We are not discouraged.
What better cause than to ensure democracy for the citizens of Harwood
Heights?
--Margaret Fuller Harwood Heights
Call the Center for our free brochures on the Freedom
of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act at (630) 833-4080.
C.O.R.E Citizens Organized to Restore Elmhurst
WHAT: A new group of Elmhurst Citizens committed
to restoring Elmhurst, and concerned about the direction our local
government was, and is, taking. We are a positive force for change.
HOW: By Citizens taking an active interest
in City government. By looking for candidates to run for City offices
as Aldermen, Mayor, or other important offices.
WHY: Too many important elected and appointed
positions in Elmhurst city government have been filled with little
or no opposition, or even discussion.
FOCUS: The primary focus of our government
should be to continually improve the quality of residential life
for all Citizens of Elmhurst.
ISSUES: Tear-downs; review existing zoning
ordinances; zoning compliance; street and sewer maintenance; reforestation
program-parkway trees and maintenance; tax increment financing (TIF);
enhanced public participation in meetings-especially televising
the City Council meetings. There are many other issues facing our
community. Why don't you join us and add your own! For more information
please call (630) 832-2999 or mail to CORE, 207 N. Larch, Elmhurst,
IL 60126.
SOCIAL SECURITY : MISINFORMATION AND MISCONCEPTIONS
While YOU may not be a recipient of Social Security,
it IS important that you keep informed about the "reform" plans
being proposed for Social Security for the sake of your children
and grandchildren! I have read a bit about the alleged problems
of the Social Security program and have come to the conclusion that
there is a lot of misinformation and misconceptions being bandied
about by many self-serving "experts." The reason for this article
is to provide you with some "handles" to assess the barrage of plans,
proposals, and promises that have been appearing it the media. Have
you heard any of these MYTHS concerning Social Security?… 1. Myth:
Social Security is going broke. Truth: it isn't; there are $560
billion currently in the Social Security trust funds. It will start
running on a deficit budget in 2030 if some financial policies are
not changed. 2. Myth: the Social Security Administration is plagued
with mismanagement and waste. Truth: the System is well-managed
and efficient with a less than 1% cost to administer. 3. Myth: Social
Security is a welfare program for seniors. Truth: Social Security
retirement benefits is an insurance program; a "safety net" that
has been paid for by the entitled seniors. 4. Myth: if people invest
their money themselves, they will get a higher return than if they
leave their Social Security taxes with the government. Truth: this
may be true for some people, but not for the majority. 5. Myth:
it is absolutely necessary to increase Social Security taxes and
reduce benefits. Truth: not so; this is a scare tactic to induce
citizens to look favorably on "privatizing" Social Security. It
is well to consider who is bankrolling the rush to privatize Social
Security. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington,
Steve Forbes, billionaire former presidential candidate, several
representatives and senators in Congress and other "reformers" who
are strongly supported by the financial services lobby companies
that would immensely benefit from workers' personal investments
in the stock market or other private markets. There are several
minor alternatives to "privatization" which should be considered
BEFORE Congress approves any major reform: 1. Remove the cap on
Social Security contributions. Presently, wage earners' annual contributions
apply to only their first $68,000 of income. Any income above, $68,000
is exempt from the Social Security tax. 2. AFTER the cap on Social
Security contributions is removed, then Congress should consider
raising the Social Security tax by 1.1%. 3. Over the next 20 years,
gradually raise the age at which persons would be eligible to receive
Social Security benefits. These minor changes would alleviate the
need to "reform" Social Security in the foreseeable future. These
minor changes would not jeopardize the guaranteed benefits of the
Social Security system. I urge you to listen carefully and to read
carefully (and be sure to read BETWEEN the lines!!) so that you
can discern when you are being manipulated into believing that "something
must be done to save Social Security."
--Milt Honel CAC Advisory Council
To learn more, read the Social Security Trustee's
report online at www.ssa.gov .
FREE The AIRWAVES TO CLEAN UP POLITICS
Bill Moyers recently had a television report on Channel
11 reviewing campaign funding abuses. He reported that for the 1996
elections, both parties raised $2.1 billion on all federal political
races. Of that amount, $1.8 billion was for broadcast time. It should
be noted that broadcasters have free air time because they were
given exclusive use of a scarce public resource without payment
to the nation. Broadcasters pay nothing to the people of the US
for their licenses. They have 24 hours of free time, 365 days a
year-time they sell to advertisers. This need not be so. In Great
Britain, political parties are entitled to free air time on radio
and television a month before the elections. The campaign programs
are shown on all the channels at the same time, helping voters become
well informed. "We now have a colossal irony," Newton Minnow writes,
"Politicians sell access to something we own: our government. Broadcasters
sell access to something we own: our public airwaves. Both do so,
they tell us, in our name. By creating this system of selling and
buying access, we have a campaign system that makes good people
do bad things and bad people do worse things, a system that we do
not want, that corrupts and trivializes public discourse, and that
we have the power and the duty to change." To learn more about this
issue, call Walter Cronkite's group Alliance for Better Campaigns
at (312) 621-9050 or surf the group's website at www.bettercampaigns.org.
--John Connelly CAC Advisory Council
FREE The AIRWAVES TO TEACH
Behind the camera at Channel 6 TV, the government
access channel for the Village of Lombard, interns are learning
TV production skills while creating programs for the community.
It's a win/win situation that other communities should consider:
the interns gain practical experience and, with the increased programming,
the citizens of Lombard can learn more about goings-on in their
community. For more information about cable access stations and
your telecommunication rights, call the Center for our free brochures
at (630) 833-4080. The Citizen Advocacy Center thanks the hundreds
of volunteers, foundations, businesses, professionals, and others,
who have contributed thousands of hours, dollars, and services to
the Center's work throughout the last four years. No institution
like the Center can survive without the dedication and support of
many civic-minded individuals and organizations. To all of you,
we extend our heartfelt gratitude.
SPRING 1998
WHEN CENSORSHIP PREVAILS, DEMOCRACY FAILS
One would think that the halls of education would
be the model for open communication, sharing of public opinion,
and the fundamentals of democracy. Unfortunately, after dealing
with my local board of education, I see many of the same obstacles
noted by others who have written about their experiences in the
pursuit of consideration by governing bodies. I first became involved
as a citizen's advocate two years ago when I read about a plan for
a thirty-year agreement between my school district and park district.
When I nervously spoke at my first school board meeting, I was surprised
to be the only citizen in attendance. I was ready to quit except
I received a phone call a couple of weeks later. Another citizen
had read my comments in a local paper and wanted to pursue the issue.
Someone had the same concerns as I did! So we began a small grassroots
organization to let the people's voice be heard. There was a great
deal of opposition to the board's plan, and eventually we were able
to get over one hundred concerned citizens to attend an open meeting
and voice their overwhelming opposition.
Of course, the opposition was not viewed by the boards
as a majority opinion. Their plan was already well on its way to
approval by each board and their attorneys. Despite the controversy,
their plan and $1,000,000 of taxpayer dollars was approved. There
was a tendency to give up after the first issue, but I decided not
to be a single issue person and continued to attend board meetings
twice each month. I ran for school board last November, but lost
to an individual notably more in tune with the board's philosophy
and who had several times my campaign budget. I did manage, however,
to raise several important issues and earn the respect of many individuals
who read about them.
I will always appreciate those people who educated
themselves and sought out the issues. I had hopes that a respectable
number of votes would bring the board to realize that my views were
shared by many people in the community who may not feel comfortable
voicing their opinions. More people began to attend meetings, although
numbers were still light. Then last January, another issue began
to generate interest. A petition had been circulated and submitted
to the school board regarding a transportation issue. More than
a dozen parents (a lot for a school board meeting) attended the
meeting to voice their concerns. At that meeting, the senior board
member singled me out, calling me a liar and instigator in an outburst
one might consider slanderous. As upset as I was, I maintained myself
and demanded an explanation of his remark. Unable to defend his
statement, he apologized saying he was wrong and had misspoke.
My point in addressing this incident is three-fold.
First, censorship by elected officials should never be tolerated.
How effective can a board be when its members resort to intimidation
or slander of the very constituency it is elected to represent?
Second, any acts of intimidation or censure discourages public participation
and the very principles of democracy. This elitist attitude promotes
fear rather than encouragement, trust, guidance, or leadership.
Third, it is up to citizens like yourself to stand up against such
misuse of power. If I had given into such acts of intimidation,
I and others like me would no longer have a voice in our democracy.
People must have the tenacity not to give up or give in to intimidation
or censure by anyone who would discourage the democratic process.
I encourage you to stay informed and educate yourself regarding
the facts and issues in your community. Don't be a one issue person.
Share information with others and get their opinions. Contact your
elected officials and local newspapers to get your message across.
Influence comes with numbers and knowledge. Get involved and participate
in the democratic process. Go to a local board meeting, and be sure
to vote in local elections and primaries where decisions that affect
you most directly are made. Don't let others with your views stand
alone or expect someone else to do the work for you. Give them your
active vocal support. Lastly, don't give up or let governing bodies
intimidate or censure you. Each person is important to the function
or dysfunction of the democratic process.
--Deborah H. Schultz Citizen, Carol Stream
TO ENCOURAGE WHISTLEBLOWERS
How can we encourage greater citizen participation
in government and discourage dishonest government in the state of
Illinois? How can citizens point out corruption inside our government?
What are the benefits of such deeds? Well, there is an overlooked
act that many people are unaware of: -The Whistleblower Reward and
Protection Act. A person with knowledge of fraudulent or corrupt
behavior of an elected official or a contractor doing business with
a taxing body can go to the State Police to prompt an investigation.
The State Police will contact the Attorney General to further investigate
and, if the facts warrant, eventually prosecute. Also, citizens
who spot inappropriate behavior may take the alleged wrongdoer to
court if the Attorney General decides not to prosecute.
The person who reports the wrongdoing, the "whistleblower,"
can collect up to 30% of the damages incurred. If the case becomes
a civil lawsuit, then the whistleblower can be awarded 25% of the
damages and all of the legal fees. In addition to rewarding the
whistleblower reporting government fraud, there are substantial
benefits to the taxing body, as well. If the suspected offender
is found at fault, the offender is obligated to pay three times
the amount of reparations. This pays for the whistleblower's reward,
replaces the damages looted from the taxpayers, and provides extra
revenue to the taxing body. Another positive aspect is that it doesn't
cost anything for the local taxing body to adopt or enforce the
act. The Act protects against petty and frivolous suits because
the evidence has to go to the Illinois Attorney General for review
first. There must be imposing evidence to suggest a need for investigation.
The Act imposes significant penalties against someone for making
false accusations about government corruption. This Act does not
tolerate people who lie to earn money or harass public officials.
If there is no real evidence for a case, judges can make the plaintiff
pay for the defendant's court costs and damages.
Because this Act has nothing but good provisions,
it seems quite strange that only a couple of towns have adopted
the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act. Perhaps many citizens
are completely unaware of how much good this act can do, so it is
hoped that a better knowledge and understanding of this law, as
well as adoption of this act by governing bodies, will happen soon.
FACT: Not a single municipality in DuPage has yet
adopted the Whistleblower Reward & Protection Act.
--Ryan Schwebel Lake Park High School intern
IT'S A SWINDLE!
It's that time of year again when you start to worry
that the General Assembly has rushed through the end of the session
and passed all kinds of legislation that the members haven't even
bothered to read-much less understand. Remember that extortionary
cable late fee that almost got through last year? Well, the swindle
du jour to be concerned about is mutual insurance. More than 3 million
Illinoisans have mutual auto, health, or life insurance policies.
Policyholders rather than shareholders own the assets of mutual
insurance companies. In Illinois, mutual insurance companies have
billions of dollars of assets, including at least $35 billion in
surplus. Under current law, if a mutual insurance company wants
to become a stockholding company, it would have to go through a
demutualization process that would compensate policy holders for
their equity in the company. But now these mutual companies have
a fast one all lined up and already through the House Insurance
Committee.
Their greedy plan, opposed by other insurance companies
and consumers alike, would gouge policyholders like this: SB 1901
would allow mutual companies to create holding companies, or parents
of the mutual company. The holding company would issue stock and
be responsible to stockholders, who have shares and who want the
company to focus stockholders' interests-profits-and not necessarily
the interests of policyholders-like keeping premiums low. Under
the proposed legislation-your assets as a policyholder in the mutual
company would be converted to the assets of the shareholders in
the mutual holding company. A typical policy holder could lose thousands
of dollars in assets that under the current law the company would
be forced to give the policyholder if is changed its status from
a mutual company to a stockholding company. The proposed law doesn't
even require the company to explain to you your rights. Oh, and
by the way, there is nothing in this legislation that limits executive
enrichment. So your company managers can give themselves a bunch
of stock options all while they are supposed to be managing the
company for the benefit of the policyholders-you. This plan is all
about more money for the insurance company and no money, no control,
and no rights to information about demutualization to the policyholder.
It is an outright swindle. Policyholders have rights too, and this
is a downright sneaky attempt to rip off billions of dollars of
our assets!
--Theresa Amato Executive Director Citizen Advocacy Center
CITIZEN INITIATIVE AWARD
Recognize the efforts and power of a citizen who is
acting as a catalyst for citizen participation in the democratic
process by nominating him or her for the Citizen Initiative Award.
Recipients of the Award will have demonstrated significant and informed
civic participation in their communities and by their example will
have inspired others to build democracy. Nomination forms are available
at the Center and are due by Wednesday, July 1. Recipients will
be honored at the Citizen Advocacy Center's Fourth Anniversay Civic
Celebration. CALL TODAY TO NOMINATE AN OUTSTANDING CITIZEN! 630/833-4080
Can you contribute?
The Woods Fund of Chicago has presented the Center
with a challenge: if the Center raises $10,000 from individual donations,
the Fund will match every dollar of the next $5,000 we raise. We
are only half-way there and need your contribution! Can you help
us? Please support the Center's ongoing efforts to protect our public
assets, to improve civic skills, and to make our local institutions
more accountable! Make a donation in the enclosed envelope today!
SUMMER 1998
INTERN ISSUE All year long, but especially
in the summer, interns invade the Citizen Advocacy Center! With
their assistance, the Center will print more brochures, host more
workshops, and be better prepared to hold open the doors of government
to the people. Thank you to all of their supporters, including:
the Public Interest Law Initiative, the University of Michigan Law
School, NAPIL, the University of Illinois College of Law, Elmhurst
College, DePaul University College of Law, and Loyola University
College of Law. And thanks to Natalie, Patra, Steve, Monica, Tom,
Keith, Ellen, Tim, Rob, and Greg for choosing to share your talents
here!
--The Center
Should the People PayThe DuPage Seven's Legal
Fees?
As a legal intern at the Citizen Advocacy Center,
I have had the opportunity to learn about one outrageous way the
County government is spending taxpayer dollars. No, it is not on
an expensive toilet seat or hammer. This time the County has seen
fit to pay the legal fees, over $1 million, of former employees
accused of official misconduct and obstruction of justice in their
prosecutions of the murder of Jeanine Nicarico against Rolando Cruz,
Alejandro Hernandez and Stephen Buckley. All three men were cleared
of all charges after both Cruz and Hernandez spent many years on
Death Row. The DuPage 7 include four deputies of the DuPage County
Sheriff and three former Assistant State's Attorneys, one now a
sitting judge.
Originally, the County Board decided to follow the
typical route for these kinds of cases. Virtually all counties pay
the legal fees of county employees if they are found not guilty,
and not pay if they are found guilty. Recently, however, a slim
majority of the County Board changed their mind and decided that
they wanted to pay for the defense of the DuPage 7 right now, whether
or not they are convicted. After the County Board's flip-flop, Judge
William Kelly, the judge presiding over the trial of the DuPage
7, then entered an order requiring taxpayer dollars to be spent
for the defense of the DuPage 7. Whether the fees are paid or not
is a legal issue, not a political one. Normally the elected State's
Attorney would represent the people. In this case, however, the
State's Attorney has worked for and with some of the DuPage 7 and,
therefore, cannot represent the people without a conflict of interest.
And, on top of that, the County Board fired the independent attorney
who was representing the people.
The Center believes that the taxpayers need to have
an independent lawyer, not the State's Attorney's Office, to advise
them. On behalf of citizen Patricia Hicks, the Citizen Advocacy
Center has petitioned the court to appoint a Special State's Attorney
to represent the DuPage County taxpayers on the question of whether
we should pay the legal fees of most of the attorneys for the DuPage
7. If DuPage County is going to set a precedent and pay for the
defense of indicted employees, let's make sure the taxpayers at
least have a say in the matter!
--Greg Fike, Legal Intern University of Illinois College of
Law
Rare Opportunity: See the Living Constitution
Near the end of my first semester of law school my
friend and I looked forward to taking Constitutional Law in the
spring. Our discussion soon turned to how much fun it would be to
practice constitutional law in the real world. Alas, my friend and
I decided that there could not be much of a call for constitutional
lawyers anymore, so we prepared ourselves for a lifetime of taxes,
real estate, and other equally exciting areas of law. Six months
later, here I am studying the First Amendment at the Citizen Advocacy
Center. Much to my surprise, governments are still trying to limit
their citizens' freedom of speech. Government bodies are imposing
unconstitutional, content-based restrictions on public comment at
their meetings, and school boards are putting vague and arbitrary
limitations on student publications. Cities refuse to allow public
interest organizations to hang their banners. All right here in
the Chicagoland area. It turns out there is a call for constitutional
lawyering in today's society.
The most important thing my research has taught me
is that, if the government allows you to talk, you have the right
to say just about anything you want (as long as it's not defamatory).
For example, if a city council allows public comment at its meetings,
it cannot restrict the content of those comments. These comments
are only subject to content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions
(e.g., time limits). The restrictions must be content neutral on
their face and applied in a content neutral manner. I never thought
I would have the opportunity to work on constitutional issues outside
of an academic setting, and I am very happy to have had this opportunity
with the Citizen Advocacy Center. As long as the government keeps
restricting speech, there will be a call for constitutional lawyers.
I am glad I was able to answer that call, at least for a summer.
--Tom Klein Legal Intern University of Michigan School of Law
SELLING YOUR CITY
In DuPage County several municipalities have begun
public relations or marketing programs with the purpose of expanding
economic development, attracting new residents, and developing new
recreational facilities and programs. I sent a survey to village
managers and the like to find out which of the 34 municipalities
in DuPage have these programs. I want to know the purpose and cost
of their programs so that by the end of the summer I can prepare
a cost benefit analysis. Municipalities that have public relations
programs tend to also have web sites. At the beginning of my investigation
I had a negative view towards spending tax dollars to hire public
relation firms to develop these programs. However, midway through
my investigation, I am finding many positive aspects of these programs.
The development of web sites allows citizens to easily locate information
about their community. The majority of the web sites allow citizens
to e-mail their elected officials. This allows the people in the
municipalities to have an easy means of access to their elected
officials, a fundamental facet of democracy.
--Tim Silver Intern Elmhurst College
KEEPING THE CENTER UP TO DATE
This summer, I am working part-time at the Citizen
Advocacy Center. I have been working on two discrete projects outside
of the office. My first project is updating the Center's brochure
on federal campaign finance reform to include the most current campaign
spending limits. After the spending excesses by both parties in
the 1996 election, federal campaign finance reform has become a
hotly debated issue in Congress and in the American electorate.
There is widespread concern that the loopholes in the current campaign
financing laws allow the wealthy to influence and taint the election
process. Recent reform proposals have included a constitutional
amendment that mandates that limits on campaign spending do not
violate the First Amendment, the elimination of corporate contributions,
voluntary spending limits by candidates in exchange for public financing,
and more stringent disclosure laws. I am also helping to compile
recent cases on the Illinois Freedom of Information and Open Meetings
Acts. Currently, I am working on what's new in enforcing your right
to gain access to public records.
--Monica Patel Legal Intern, Northwestern University School
of Law
THERE'S HOPE!
To make a long story short, I have always had very
little faith in government. I always believed that the elected officials
in America were supposed to uphold the ideas of the citizens they
represent, but constantly found that the only ideas they held had
nothing to do with the beliefs of the community that elected them.
Seeing this year-in and year-out made me feel like there was no
chance that this would ever change. I eventually accepted that corruption
was inherent in politics, and I accepted that I would always be
voting for the lesser of two evils. When I first started voting,
I thought that my vote counted for something. I thought my vote
gave me access to the political realm. It was like a slap in the
face when I realized that all of the promises given to me by these
politicians, my former grade school teachers, and particularly,
the Constitution of the United States, were half-truths. I gave
up. I no longer voted for the candidate I thought would advocate
my ideas. Instead, I voted for the candidate that would not mess
up the system as it was. Hope for a government that was ruled by
the people, for the people faded, and I was not the only one. People
don't care about the atrocities that modern politicians commit because
their hope is gone. Without hope, there is only apathy. People begin
to accept corruption as a part of a politician's job description.
This just isn't the way it is supposed to be. All elected officials
should be held accountable to the people for their actions. They
should advocate the community's goals above their own. They should
follow the rules that their predecessors made to make America a
better place to live. Is it too much to ask for politicians to do
their job? It shouldn't be. This is why I identify so much with
the Citizen Advocacy Center. I used to believe that nobody cared,
that there was no chance to change the system. Through its efforts
in the community, the Citizen Advocacy Center has given me hope
that, over time, the country will truly become a government of the
people, by the people, for the people.
--Keith Allen Legal Intern University of Michigan School of Law
TIF ABUSES PROLIFERATE
As a legal intern for the Citizen Advocacy Center,
I had an excellent opportunity to evaluate the complicated and bankrupt
realm of tax increment financing programs in Illinois (TIFs). TIF
programs operate at the intersection of public policy, statutory
law and local politics, thereby providing a rich case study for
examining how institutions and economic development interact. TIF
districting provides a local redevelopment tool for generating economic
activity in stagnant areas, but TIFs are highly prone to both misuse
and abuse. My summer project required me to develop a constitutional
challenge to TIF plans in Pilsen, an immigrant Mexican-American
neighborhood in Chicago. Even in the "best" scenario, a TIF can
gentrify an area, displace lower income residents who can no longer
afford rising property taxes, and skim money from the coffers of
non-municipal local taxing bodies such as school districts, who
may then pass on additional taxes to the residents. In the worst
scenario, municipalities twist the requirements of the vaguely drafted
TIF statute to authorize a TIF in an area that is not in fact "blighted."
This explains why DuPage County, not known for blight, has over
40 TIFs. Such abuse makes a mockery of the legislature's intentions
of using TIFs to fight economic stagnation. On the bright side,
the Illinois General Assembly will address TIF reform in its fall
veto session. I'm preparing testimony for an Illinois House hearing
this summer. For the sake of fair and effective government, I hope
the legislature addresses the current TIF abuses and passes meaningful
reform. If not, organizations like the Citizen Advocacy Center and
empowered citizens will continue to challenge TIF plans and seek
democratic accountability and fiscal responsibility from their local
governments.
-Natalie Brouwer Public Interest Law Initiative Intern,
Cornell Law School
WINTER
1998
MONEY AND POLITICS OF TORT DEFORM
With refreshing candor, the president of the Business
Policy Group complained in the February 8, 1998 [Chicago Tribune]
Voice of the People that organized Illinois businesses and professional
interests were "heavily shortchanged" because they "committed millions
of dollars to assure a successful legislative effort only to have
the law [the Illinois Civil Justice Reform] judicially sliced to
pieces." Isn't it disturbing to know that business and professional
interests spent "millions of dollars to assure" our legislators'
votes on tort deform? It is no secret the Illinois State Medical
Society, the Illinois Manufacturers Association, and a group called
the "Illinois Civil Justice League" - a misnomer if there ever was
one - spent all kinds of resources to assure the passage of legislation
to protect wrongdoers from being held accountable in court by ordinary
citizens.
In December, the Illinois Supreme Court wisely put
an end to the resulting folly "tort deform" and ruled the whole
law completely unconstitutional. What does that tell you? Indeed,
business interests have spent lots of money trying to make everyone
think that all kinds of people are filing frivolous lawsuits and
clogging the courts. The fact is that our courts are clogged primarily
with divorce cases and businesses suing businesses. Nine of ten
people who are harmed from dangerous products and doctors never
get their day in court. It usually costs them too much to get to
court, or they are up against well-heeled doctors and companies
that can afford the best defense. That's why it is big news when
a jury awards some large amount of money - because it happens so
infrequently. Even then, the amount is often reduced by the judge.
From our perspective, it is a good thing that the Court "sliced
to pieces" this law, and we can't feel too sorry for the businesses
and professionals who spent millions of dollars "to assure" that
injured people wouldn't have their day in court. Indeed, the Citizen
Advocacy Center - we testified against this legislation in 1995
- would like to ask the complicit businesses out there to ask their
members, shareholders and boards whether they think that spending
millions of dollars to lubricate the legislative process to enact
patently unconstitutional laws that keep injured citizens out of
court is a wise way to spend corporate assets. If businesses want
to "assure a legislative effort," why don't they start by seeking
to reform a system that hits them up for payola to "assure" legislative
efforts in Illinois? FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL THE COALITION FOR
CONSUMER RIGHTS (312) 939-4566.
BEWARE HIDDEN COSTS OF CELLULAR PREPAY
Cellular telephone companies may surprise consumers
who prepay for telephone service by claiming unused service money
at the end of the service period. When a telephone subscriber prepays
for service, the cellular company has been given the right to wipe
out minutes that remain if these minutes were not used within a
specified time period. Example: A subscriber purchases 50 minutes
for $30 on December 1, 1997, and if not used by February 1, 1998,
the cellular company automatically erases the minutes that remain.
Many consumers use the cellular prepay system to avoid long-term
contracts with $200 to $300 cancellation charges because it may
be inconvenient to take out a long contract due to change of location,
work changes, or low telephone minute use. Even though the prepay
system does alert the consumer upon activation that minutes remaining
after the specified service period will be wiped out, it is easily
forgotten because the cellular prepay service does not submit a
monthly bill which would serve as a reminder of the number of minutes
remaining. Also, there is no means for the consumer to check the
accuracy of the minutes remaining for use except through an automated
voice which responds when a call is placed and gives the remaining
surplus minutes. A subscriber can dial a special number and get
information concerning the quantity of remaining minutes; however,
there is no written statement submitted on a regular basis that
permits tracking of these minutes and how they were used. In other
words, the cellular prepay service is not obligated to remind consumers
that they may lose money. This is not fair, and consumers must be
alerted to the details in their cellular phone contract. Write or
call your local state Senator and Representative and register a
complaint. Send a copy of this article to their attention.
--Ken Doenges Member, DuPage Citizen Corps
IS IT REALLY FREE AND PAINLESS?
The first time you exercised your rights under the
Freedom of Information Act, much to your surprise, it went without
a hitch. You requested information from your local government body
and you were supplied same in a friendly and timely manner. Not
bad, you thought! The second and third requests were handled similarly,
but this time, it took all of the seven working days for them to
respond. You wondered why it took so long, but brushed it off as
within the law. The fourth request threw you for a loop. They presented
you with what they called an "FOI Request Form," a form you never
saw before, and told you that you must fill this out before they
can provide the information. You labored over the form giving them
all of your personal information, shy of your social security number.
One question really stumped you: Why were you asking for this information?
You really did not know what they were after, and you did not want
to say anything wrong after all, so you wrote, "for my own education."
Being proud that you were able to finally complete the form, and
now feeling important, you handed it to the receptionist. You heard
nothing in seven working days, so you called them and inquired into
the status of your request. You find out that the information has
been sitting there for over a week - Where have you been, you should
have known this! Embarrassed by your absent-mindedness, you pick
up the information with little fanfare. Request No. 5. The secretary
tells you that you do not have to fill out an FOI Form, that she
will just make copies for you. You are forever thankful to her because
look at all the trouble she saved you. If she would only handle
all my future FOI requests, the world would be a whole lot better.
So much for luck. Request No. 6. The secretary was not available
so you had to fill out the FOI Form. A week and a half later, you
receive a letter from the City Clerk, advising you that the information
you requested did not exist. What do you say? "I know it exists,
I saw the document with my own eyes!" In a telephone conversation
with the Clerk, you find out what the problem was. You dummy, you
asked for a "specification," instead of a "request for proposal."
Shame on you, you should have known better! You have to go back
and fill out a new FOI form with the proper terminology. More than
a week passes, and learning from experience, you pick up the telephone
and again find out the information is ready to be picked up. When
you get there, you are approached with "that will be $6.50, Mr.
Citizen." What's this, a charge for free information?! "You see,
Mr. Citizen, we must charge you 25¢ per page to cover our administrative
and copying costs. You have made too many FOI requests and you are
starting to disrupt our everyday operation." The charge is paid
in protest. Later, upon reviewing the information you received,
you find that they did not copy an attachment, very much a part
of the whole story. They respond, you did not ask for the attachment,
but if you must, they will go back and copy it for you for another
$3.50. Request No. 7. A thick envelope arrives in the mail for you.
You open it up and find a four page letter from the Clerk, salutations
and greetings. The letter does not state the subject, but you read
a whole lot of line and verse from the Freedom of Information Act.
You assume this pertains to request No.7. You finally get the picture
after you finished reading page three. These are their reasons,
straight from the FOIA, why they are declining your request. You
think, "They cannot do this to me, I am a citizen. I have my rights!"
Wanna bet? The list was too long to fight-it would take an attorney
to win this one, so you contemplated another angle, forgoing legal
costs. Request No. 8. The disappearing act- every show has one.
They advise you verbally that the information you requested has
been "discarded," in other words, destroyed. No, they will not confirm
this in writing, why should they? You sit there in amazement wondering
why the file was destroyed since the project has not been officially
completed. Boy, following government is getting tough. Request No.
9. Also denied, because "the powers that be" should have the right
to discuss it before it becomes public. And you thought it was already
a public document. Request No. 10. A request to review an entire
file. OK, you can review the file, but they are only going to give
you 30 minutes. They are very busy, you see, and cannot afford you
all the time you want. The file is 12 inches thick. You wonder if
you should prepare by taking a speed reading course. Request No.
11. For some reason they do not trust you now. Since you have been
a bad person, all of your future reviews of files must be in the
presence of a hall guard. You wonder if you may also be subject
to a strip search before you leave, just so they know you are not
stealing any of their documents. Request No. 12. There will now
be a 35¢ charge per page for your requested information. All the
administrators must have gotten a raise! Request No. 13. Ah forget
it, I am tired, I think I'll go home and get some rest. When I awake,
all fresh, I want to reread that Freedom of Information Act and
see if I missed anything. I must have!
--Ron Klimek, Member, DuPage Citizen Corps
DON'T GET THE RUNAROUND. FOR OUR CITIZEN GUIDE TO
THE FOIA, CALL THE CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER AT (630) 833-4080, OR
VISIT YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY AND ASK FOR OUR FOI PACKET.
Making a Federal Case Out of It
On January 22, CAC community lawyer Myrrha Guzman
appeared before a federal appellate court arguing that Congress
requires community input in a real public hearing before federal
funds are issued for airport expansion projects. The Center believes
that the dog and pony show staged by the DuPage Airport Authority
(DAA) in 1994 did not meet federal requirements. The DAA sponsored
the event in dispute as an Open House on a Friday before Christmas.
The event provided no information to consider the economic or environmental
costs, no policymakers showed up, no one answered the many public
queries about the justification for this project, and no complete
record of the event was ever made, as Congress requires. Can a government
agency hold a cocktail party, for example, and label it a "public
hearing," and be eligible for public funds? We don't think so! Citizens
deserve a chance to give meaningful input into major projects that
will affect the community.
GROWN UP PETER PAN CHILDREN DEMAND TRUTH
The Citizen Advocacy Center is co-counsel with Gessler,
Hughes & Socol, Ltd., in a case against the Central Intelligence
Agency for information regarding the airlift of thousands of children
from Cuba in the early 1960's. Operation "Peter Pan," run by the
CIA through three Presidential administrations, brought some 14,000
children without their parents into the United States, many with
visas issued by the Catholic Church. Families were split apart,
and some were never reunited. Maria de los Angeles Torres, a professor
at DePaul University and a former "Peter Pan," filed a lawsuit against
the CIA to seek the release of documents about the largest airlift
of children in the western hemisphere. After she waited six years
for answers to her Freedom of Information Act requests, the CIA
finally told Ms. Torres that the agency could not find a single
document about the operation. This lawsuit is telling the CIA "to
go back and look again." The American people and the children who
were separated from their families, many now in the Chicagoland
area, deserve to know what happened.
--HOME
--
