FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          Contact: Maryam Judar
August 24, 2015                                                   Executive Director/Community Lawyer
                                                                                   Citizen Advocacy Center (630) 833-4080

ELMHURST - On August 21, civics became law in the Land of Lincoln. A standalone civics semester will be required at all Illinois public high schools starting with the Class of 2020. The Citizen Advocacy Center (CAC) has been a tenacious advocate for bringing back civics to Illinois public schools and played a major role in the strong coalition effort that resulted in this successful outcome.

“Civic education is core to the work of CAC as community lawyers routinely answer basic information about the structure and function of government. In addition, CAC community lawyers have worked with schools for over two decades to help teachers convert classrooms and communities into civic labs,” explained CAC Executive Director Maryam Judar.

CAC’s advocacy efforts for civic education policy reform at the state level include: authoring and suggesting reform recommendations within the Illinois Civic Health Index 2010 that was published by the National Conference on Citizenship and in collaboration with the Robert R. McCormick Foundation; writing the “Advocacy and Policy” chapter within the Illinois Civic Blueprint that was published by the Robert R. McCormick Foundation; spearheading and advocating within the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition Public Policy Committee; spearheading the creation of the Civic Education Legislative Task Force which was charged with assessing Illinois civic education standards and making reform recommendations; and advocating for hands-on civic education as an appointee to the Task Force.

“On behalf of CAC, I would like to acknowledge the partners and collaborators who played a leading role in the effort to bring civics back to Illinois public high schools,” said Ms. Judar.

DuPage County Regional Superintendent Darlene Ruscitti has been a longtime advocate for civic education through supporting civic efforts throughout DuPage County, including the convening of two county-wide Civic Summits for high school students and advocating for the passage of the “Year of Civic Engagement” Resolution by the DuPage County Board.

Former Attorney General Jim Ryan who established the Center for Civic Leadership at Benedictine University, is a vocal advocate for civic education of youth, and was pivotal in the creation of Illinois’ Legislative Task Force on Civic Education charged with assessing the current state of civics in Illinois.  

Shawn Healy, Civic Learning & Engagement Scholar at the McCormick Foundation and Chair of both the Task Force and the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition, is a champion for high quality civic education for all Illinois students, the promotion of the Democracy Schools program, and has been indefatigable in his efforts to strengthen civic education.
 
“There are many additional organizations and people who came together to bring civics back to Illinois. CAC is proud to have worked with many outstanding collaborators and to have played an instrumental role to change the civic landscape that will impact all youth,” said Ms. Judar.

“The commitment of the Robert R. McCormick Foundation was essential to the successful effort of returning civics to all public school students,” said Ms. Judar. “They have been a leader in promoting civic education for years through supporting organizations engaged in civic education. They have taken on a leadership role in advocating for legislative reform and in the implementation of their vision to hurdle financial obstacles through the establishment of a public-private partnership of foundation and corporations that will fund professional development to ensure that civics teachers receive adequate support to teach a high-quality, standalone semester of civics.”

The Citizen Advocacy Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan community-based legal nonprofit dedicated to building democracy in the 21st century by strengthening the citizenry’s capacities, resources, and institutions for self-governance. Visit www.CitizenAdvocacyCenter.org for more information.

###

Download the letter or read below.

Commissioner William Waldack
c/o Village of Downers Grove
801 Burlington Ave
Downers Grove, IL 60515


VIA EMAIL

July 2, 2015

Dear Commissioner Waldack:

This letter responds to concerns you expressed at the June 16, 2015 Downers Grove Village Council Meeting about Citizen Advocacy Center’s comments that had been made at the previous Council Meeting regarding a perceived, potential conflict of interest and the general level of public participation with respect to the Village’s presentation of the Clyde Estates project. You also asked on whose behalf Citizen Advocacy Center (CAC) appeared at the meeting and about the research on which CAC drew conclusions.  Your comments and questions provide an opportunity for me to discuss CAC’s mission, as well as our purpose in attending the Council Meeting on June 9, 2015.  CAC recognizes that, even though public officials invest substantial time and energy into making informed decisions in the best interest of the community, when issues and decisions are controversial not everyone will be satisfied with the result.  The Clyde Estates project certainly seems to be a case in point.  

General Information Regarding CAC
CAC was founded in 1994 as a nonpartisan, nonprofit community law office located in Elmhurst.  The mission of CAC is to build democracy by strengthening the citizenry’s capacities, resources, and institutions for self-governance.  CAC community lawyers use civic tools to promote meaningful participation in the democratic process.  This strategy includes traditional lawyering, community organizing, public policy research, coalition building, media outreach, leadership development, legal advocacy, civic education, and litigation.  CAC has a long history in working with community members and public bodies.  We advocate for government decision-making processes where government entities not only comply with minimum legal standards but become models of the democratic process through adopting practices that maximize government transparency, accountability, and accessibility.  

Citizen Advocacy Center most often becomes involved with an issue when a concerned citizen, public official, or member of the media contacts our office.  CAC answers questions about what the law is in a particular area, what government bodies are required to do to comply with the law, how an individual can participate to improve a government process, and how an individual can advocate for a position using legal and civic tools.  Community lawyering assistance is based on government process issues.  As such, the word “advocacy” in our name does not refer to advocacy for an individual’s specific issue but rather how to engage in advocacy for one’s cause.

When CAC identifies and seeks to address a systemic issue, we do so through a community lawyer or an intern who is supervised by a community lawyer.  CAC has a highly regarded internship program that since 1994 has hosted over 200 students, the majority of them law students.  The internship program offers a unique opportunity for students to gain hands-on experience in understanding how government operates.

CAC Issues of Concern Raised in Downers Grove
CAC was contacted by a Downers Grove resident who raised concerns about disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and about the significance of resident input for the Clyde Estates Project.  After reviewing available information and documents with respect to the questions brought to our attention, CAC identified some ways in which we believe democratic practices could be improved.  

With respect to the conflict of interest issue, CAC conducted research, reviewed publicly available materials, materials made available through the FOIA process, and spoke with concerned residents.  CAC concluded that a conflict of interest was not present.  However, considering the controversial nature of the project it was understandable how there could be a perceived conflict of interest among the general public.  CAC identified specific procedures that could be adopted to increase standards.  CAC recognizes that it is your viewpoint that clear disclosures were made to the Village Staff and members of the Council members during the planning phase.  CAC, however, addressed the issue of what processes are in place to ensure that the disclosures are also clear to members of the public seeking to educate themselves on proposed projects.  Working toward our mission to address systemic issues of concern related to the democratic process, CAC commented on how to address perceived, potential conflicts of interest at the June 9, 2015 meeting.  While the comments were in reference to the Clyde Estate project, the adoption of higher standards would apply to all proposed projects in Downers Grove to avoid similar concerns in the future.  

With respect to the public engagement piece, after speaking with concerned citizens about the meetings that took place, reviewing documents, and having a CAC community lawyer observe the Council’s interaction and response to the public, CAC concluded that while the process may have been quite extensive and certainly complied with the law, still more could have been done to engage the citizens and give them a voice in the project.  As such, the public comment made by a CAC community lawyer regarding a “no” vote was not a commentary on the substantive project but rather a commentary that the Village Council should withhold approving the project until a higher standard of public engagement had been met.  While CAC recognizes that not everyone could be completely satisfied with the outcome of such a controversial project, we advocate for the most transparent, accessible, and interactive process that is possible.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss how Downers Grove may increase democratic protocols to become a model of government transparency, accountability, and accessibility.  If you think that an additional discussion could be helpful, I would be happy to meet with you.

Please accept my personal invitation to you and all the Commissioners to join us on July 28, at 7 p.m. at the CAC office located at 182 N. York Street in Elmhurst for Intern Democracy Night, where current students will be sharing their internship experiences.

Sincerely,  

Maryam Judar
Executive Director/Community Lawyer

cc: Mayor Martin Tully, Commissioner Bob Barnett, Commissioner David Olsen, Commissioner Greg Hosé, Commissioner Gina Vattimo, Commissioner Bill White

For more information: Maryam Judar, Executive Director, Citizen Advocacy Center (630) 833-4080

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In a ruling with important implications for newspapers and the public throughout Illinois, on November 18 DuPage Circuit Court Judge Dorothy French Mallen dismissed a defamation lawsuit [DuPage case number 14 L 413] filed by Winfield Village Trustee Tony Reyes against his community's struggling sole newspaper, The Winfield Express.

The newspaper published an account of a citizen's remarks addressing a public meeting of the Winfield Plan Commission concerning a theoretical future development. The citizen made reference to a controversial action by the local high school board in 2004 to sell some valuable public property to the low bidder at a price almost $6 million less than another bid. The article then described for the reader the history of the transaction, including that the developer soon resold the property for an $8 million profit. The citizen was concerned that one of the persons on the high school board back then, Mr. Reyes, was now on the village board and he feared a repeat.

The article also noted that an outside real estate attorney hired after-the-fact to review the transaction wrote that there “appears to be a violation of the spirit of a statutory requirement that school boards attempt to liquidate their properties at the highest price.” The article concluded with various rhetorical questions residents still ask about the matter, including speculation about bribery, but reminded readers that prosecutors had never investigated the transaction and that everyone involved remains legally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Without first contacting the newspaper to complain, submit a statement, or request a retraction, Mr. Reyes filed his lawsuit shortly after the article was published, claiming that it defamed him and cast him in a false light. Mr. Reyes, who has vehemently denied any wrongdoing in connection with transaction, has further claimed that the transaction was the best deal offered to the school district at the time.

A tactic often used by developers and others who want to shut down criticism is to file a frivolous suit against a critic or ringleader for a breath-taking amount of money, knowing that other members of the public will be frightened to raise their voices lest they too be sued. Even though innocent, the costs and trouble of dealing with a lawsuit have a chilling effect that scares others into silence. That technique is known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“Fortunately, in 2007 Illinois passed an anti-SLAPP law, called the Citizen Participation Act (CPA), that allows such suits to be quickly dismissed,” says Maryam [correct] Judar, executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center that the newspaper turned to for help when the suit was filed. The non-profit Center assists the public in exercising its rights under the Sunshine Laws to hold local governments accountable, and it contacted The Collins Law Firm to represent the newspaper.

The newspaper’s attorney filed a motion for dismissal under the Citizen Participation Act requesting not only that the suit be dismissed, but further requesting that the court order that Mr. Reyes pay the newspaper's legal fees. The motion won.

The judge found that the suit was without merit, filed in retaliation against the paper for a story he did not like, and was intended to chill further criticism. Mr. Reyes has been barred from re-filing his suit, and ordered to pay the newspaper's legal expenses and attorney's fees. “Judge French Mallen is one of the most well-respected judges in DuPage County for her careful reading and consideration of all the motion papers and legal authority,” says Robert Dawidiuk, a partner at The Collins Law Firm who argued the case for the newspaper. “Her decisions are well thought out and reasoned. We were fortunate in this case because the CPA is still somewhat of a developing area of law.”

In her ruling, Judge French Mallen went through the newspaper article point-by-point, dismissive of each complaint on various grounds. She summed up, saying “the lawsuit is meritless because every one of those statements that is complained about either doesn't refer to Mr. Reyes specifically, is true, is innocent construction, or is opinion. None of it rises to the level of defamation. …. So I am finding that this is a meritless lawsuit in that the statements are not defamatory and there is no proof of any actual malice. …. The plaintiff has not provided clear and convincing evidence that the paper and Mr. Greer's motivation was not solely to participate in the constitutionally-protected free speech and government.”

Mr. Reyes was ordered to pay the newspaper's legal costs, a rarity in American courts, but specifically authorized and required by the Citizen Participation Act as a deterrent against filing SLAPP actions to stifle public discussion.

Standing outside the courtroom, Mr. Greer said he was “relieved” because paying any judgment would have closed down the newspaper and jeopardized his house, “which is what that politician has threatened to do to others.”

Mr. Reyes did not attend court, and his attorney, Thomas E. Sullivan, did not volunteer any opinion on whether they would appeal.

Mr. Dawidiuk, the newspaper's attorney, said “I think that the judge got it right and this decision should stand if appealed. It is important to our democratic process that public officials and politicians can be questioned and challenged with tough questions in the public forum – especially newspapers.”

COMMEMORATE CONSTITUTION DAY, CELEBRATE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS,
AND INSPIRE CIVIC PARTICIPATION

WHAT: CAC Constitution Week Forum,  FREE & OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

WHEN: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7:00 P.M.
          
WHERE: Elmhurst Public Library* 125 S. Prospect Avenue,  Elmhurst, Illinois 60126

Constitution Week commemorates the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787.  Celebrating this momentous event in our country’s history gives us pause to remember the importance of a document held in esteem worldwide for empowering “We the People” with the rights and responsibilities to engage in the democratic process. The First Amendment Freedoms, (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition our government, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion) are essential components that ensure a healthy democracy and the capacity to hold government accountable.

“Constitution Week recognizes the importance of our founding document by introducing students and adults to constitutional issues through dynamic speakers with first-hand knowledge of what it means to fight for freedom. Mr. Rashid’s experience demonstrates the importance of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause to American democracy, while sharing a remarkable personal story,” said Andrea Alvarez, community lawyer at the Citizen Advocacy Center.

In collaboration with area high schools and with support from the McCormick Foundation, Mr. Qasim Rashid will be speaking at high schools in DuPage and Kane County and at a public forum to discuss the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment as an important thread in the fabric of our democracy. 

Mr. Qasim Rashid is a vocal human rights activist.  Mr. Rashid is the author of The Wrong Kind of Muslim, an autobiographical personal journey into his heritage and religion as a vehicle into the history and ongoing phenomenon of faith-based persecution and target-killings in Pakistan – starting with a childhood bullying incident in Chicago. He blogs for The Huffington Post, Washington Post, and CNN. His work has appeared in USA Today, National Public Radio, Richmond Times-ispatch, Virginia Pilot, San Francisco Chronicle, among various other national and international outlets. Mr. Rashid regularly interviews in a variety of media including the New York Times, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International, Huff Post Live, NBC, CBS, the Christopher Gabriel Program, Voice of America, among several other national and international outlets. He also regularly lectures on Islam and human rights at various universities and places of worship worldwide.

Mr. Rashid has won numerous awards for his community service, activism, and writing. He serves as the current Chairman of the Muslim Writers Guild of America, serves as a Volunteer Chaplain for the Virginia State Prison system, and also offers pro bono legal assistance to victims of domestic and sexual violence through the Virginia Poverty Law Center. Mr. Rashid  is a practicing attorney in Richmond, Virginia.

Born in Pakistan in 1982, Mr. Rashid  migrated to the United States in 1987 and to the western suburbs in 1988. He is a graduate of Glenbard South High School. In 2007, he received his Bachelor of Science in Marketing from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Mr. Rashid received his juris doctorate from the University of Richmond School of Law in 2012.

In previous years, Citizen Advocacy Center hosted dynamic speakers showcasing other precious First Amendment freedoms.  These include: Mary Beth Tinker, free speech advocate and plaintiff in a landmark Supreme Court free speech case; Toni Locy, free press advocate and award-winning reporter and professor at Washington and Lee University; Jessica Ahlquist, freedom of religion advocate and plaintiff in a successful lawsuit challenging her high school’s endorsement of religion; and Kelly Hayes, advocate for our freedom to peaceably assemble and community organizer for large scale protests in the City of Chicago.                                                                               

The Citizen Advocacy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan community based legal organization dedicated to building democracy for the 21st Century by increasing the citizenry’s capacities, resources, and institutions for self-governance.

* This meeting/program is not an Elmhurst Public Library activity

On June 3rd, CAC had the pleasure of kicking off its 2014 Summer Speakers Series with CAC founder and first executive director, Theresa Amato. Ms. Amato currently serves as executive director of Citizen Works, an organization devoted to rebalancing the power between corporations and citizens.  She is also the Director of its Fair Contracts Project.  Ms. Amato brought a very important message concerning consumer law, specifically, adhesion contracts.  Here’s a brief recap with some history on the subject:

“The meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit.”  This excerpt from Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book, The Jungle, graphically describes the meatpacking industry’s practices at the turn of the 20th century, which led to a wave of consumer protection laws being passed.  At this time, the United States was experiencing unprecedented growth in the manufacturing industry, which spread to all facets of life.  Consumer protection was not a widespread issue until after the release of the book.

This newfound consumer awareness led to the first wave of major consumer reforms through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which created the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the interest of providing more information on the products to consumers.  As the economy kept growing, the market for new goods and services grew with it. In 1938, after about 100 people died due to poisoning from elixir sulfanilamide, a popular strep throat medicine turned into liquid form, the government recognized and responded to the need for increased safety regulations by passing the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  This was the second wave of consumer laws focused not just on awareness, but more importantly on safety, by including the testing and approval of new products.  In 1958,  in his book The Affluent Society, John Kenneth Galbraith critiqued the economy for its championing the supremacy of commercial values without attention to public values, thus shedding light on corporate marketing tactics on unsuspecting consumers.  

In the 1960s and 1970s, consumer legislation saw its heyday.  By the 1960s, with the rise of affluence in the middle class, the automobile became an extremely hot commodity.  According to the US Census Bureau, the number of registered vehicles doubled from 1950-1970 to a total of 110 million.  Ralph Nader, a young lawyer seven years out of Harvard Law School, noticed an increase in fatal car accidents and those ending in serious injury, especially in the Chevrolet Corvair.  After some investigation, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a book that criticized the poor safety standards of many American cars with a focus on General Motors (GM).  His work quickly became recognized around the country, and he was summoned to testify before Congress.  The country was riveted to the televised hearing held against the industry giant GM.  The prevailing attitude was, “What is good for GM is good for America.”  In an effort to discredit Nader and alter his testimony in front of Congress, GM hired a private investigator to tail him.  The Washington Post, among other media outlets, exposed GM’s plot, and Nader won a lawsuit against GM for $6 million for harassment.  The head of GM had to apologize to Nader in front of Congress for intimidating a witness testifying before it.   This began the third wave of new consumer activism, and Nader used the money to set up various consumer-friendly organizations.  Meanwhile, Congress passed bills to protect our water, our air, our safety rights in the workplace, and our rights to access government records.  

After this event, there was a lull in the fight for consumer rights. For 30 years there were virtually no laws until the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection was passed in 2010, in which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created.

Although there was much improvement in consumer advocacy during the first half of the 20th century, there is still much work that has to be done.  It is estimated that 70% of the United State’s gross domestic product (GDP), or the sum of all spending in the economy, consists of consumer spending.  According to Trading Economics, the United States has a GDP of roughly $15.6 trillion, which comes close to $11 trillion in consumer spending.  It is the duty of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to monitor this spending; yet, the FTC has fewer than 1,200 employees and an annual budget of $300 million--not quite $1 per U.S. resident per year.  In addition, the Internet age has created a whole virtual world that must also be regulated by the FTC with no additional funding or employees.  Overall, there are simply not enough people on the side of the consumer to make it a fair fight.

This brings us to the current issue of adhesion contracts. Have you ever clicked “agree” to terms and conditions to use services or software such as iTunes?  If so, did you ever take the time to actually read these contracts?  Most likely you did not.  These contracts are typically very long and complex, causing many people to simply agree without truly understanding the agreement., which is not surprising since they can number 75,000 words and written at a post-graduate reading level.  These are known as adhesion contracts, meaning that they are an agreement by two parties to do a certain thing that are drafted up and heavily favor one party over the other.  Particularly troublesome is that most adhesion contracts are standard across entire industries, which leaves consumers with no other choice but to agree.  

Even more troubling are the arbitration clauses that are included in many of the contracts, which require that consumers resolve their disputes outside of the courts.  The Supreme Court of the United States favors the power of corporations to pre-dispute  mandatory arbitration clauses.  This is a major disadvantage for the common consumer who does not understand the implications of waiving their right to sue in court.  Arbitration is private and expensive; there is no rule of law or precedent; and the arbiter need not be a lawyer.     

While, it seems like this issue is an uphill battle for the common consumer; however, it is not a hopeless fight.  One simple tactic to try to battle these contracts is to ask for an explanation of what the contract actually says.  This will typically cause frustration for many companies that use these contracts with the intent of increased efficiency.  Recently, General Mills decided to change its Legal Terms to include arbitration clauses on its coupons and claimed application to all General Mills products.  This revision of the Legal Terms was met with widespread opposition from consumers, causing General Mills to quickly rescind their modifications and return to the original Legal Terms that the consumers supported. This is a perfect example of educated consumers successfully challenging a major corporation without lengthy court trials or large financial loss. 

This program was made possible in part by a grant from the Illinois Humanities Council, which is supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Illinois General Assembly.