Possible 10th CD candidate Krislov on TV tonight and this week

Clint Krislov: I would even look at amending the 2nd Amendment, if you will

Jeff Berkowitz: You would want to amend the 2nd Amendment? Wow, that’s news.

Clint Krislov: I think that when you get rid of handguns, it may--people say that it won’t change things today, but in 20 years, in 30 years, in 50 years when there is, when there is a silence—
***********************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Clint Krislov [D-Wilmette], who is thinking of running in the Democratic Primary in the 10th Cong. District for the opportunity to take on third term Republican incumbent Congressman Mark Steven Kirk [R-Highland Park, 10th Cong. Dist].

See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.” Also, our show with Krislov has a special supplemental airing tonight at 7:30 pm on Comcast Cable, Ch. 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The show with Clint Krislov will also air in 24 additional suburbs tonight in the regular Public Affairs 8:30 pm time slot on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or Ch. 35 [See the airing schedule at the end of this blog entry for more details].

Finally as to scheduling, the show with Clint Krislov will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on this coming Monday night, June 6 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
********************************************
Clint Krislov heads the law firm of Krislov and Associates, self-described as a public interest and class action law firm. Krislov started a run in the 1996 Democratic Primary for the U. S. Senate and in the 1998 Democratic Primary for Illinois Attorney General. In 2003, he gave some thought to running in the Democratic Primary for the 10th Cong. Dist. seat.

Senator Susan Garrett [D- Lake Forest, 29th Dist.] is also mulling over a run in the 10th Cong. Dist. Her state senate seat is not “up” in 2006, so she would have a free bite at the apple, so to speak. Garrett will be our guest in two weeks on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs.”

A partial transcript of the show is included, below, and see here for background information about the 10th [and 8th Cong. Dist.] races.
**********************************************
Next week’s guest on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” is media personality and conservative icon Tom Roeser.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …You point out that [Cong. Mark] Kirk is pretty close to the Democrats whether it is you, [Senator Susan] Garrett or [2004 Tenth Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate] Lee Goodman on certain issues: on Pro-Choice, he’s pretty pro-Choice-- in terms of abortion, right.

Clint Krislov: He’s [Cong. Kirk] fairly pro-choice. There are things that he’s been absent on.

Berkowitz: Anything that you would criticize him on, in terms of his voting, or his views on abortion.

Krislov: You know, at the moment, I am just talking about running for, about whether to run for—

Berkowitz: But, he’s pretty close on that [to the Democratic position]; on gun control, most Democrats are pretty happy with him, right?

Krislov: I don’t know if that’s true. Gun control is not an issue on which he’s—

Berkowitz: There are some issues that you would have with Mark Kirk on the gun issue if you did run against him?

Krislov: Yes, I think—

Berkowitz: What would they be?

Krislov: I would even look at amending the 2nd Amendment, if you will


Berkowitz: You would want to amend the 2nd Amendment? Wow, that’s news.

Krislov: I think that when you get rid of handguns, it may—people say that it won’t change things today, but in 20 years, in 30 years, in 50 years when there is, when there is a silence—

Berkowitz: 2nd Amendment. How would you amend it? What does it say now? And, what should it say under Clint Krislov’s regime?

Krislov: Under the way it reads now, people interpret it as being somehow absolute and I don’t think that it should be absolute.

Berkowitz: Absolute in what sense.

Krislov: In the sense that there is gun regulation—people are talking about, on the right, getting rid of the database of gun owners. Frankly, I don’t think handguns have any good place in this society.

Berkowitz: Kirk isn’t talking about that [getting rid of the database], is he?

Krislov: No.

Berkowitz: But, I am talking about- Are there issues between you and Mark Kirk? Forget now other Republicans with whom, if you were elected to Congress, you might—

Krislov: Yes, except, you can’t, you can’t just say well, you know, what are his issues on this? The fact is when the Congress selects the Speaker [Kirk will be voting with the Republicans]

Berkowitz: I know, you made that point before.

Krislov: When the vote comes on lots of things—

Berkowitz: But, when people look at you- if you were running or they look at Mark Kirk, on Gun Control, putting aside the selection of the Speaker, is there any difference?

Krislov: I’m looking at running as Clint Krislov. As issues develop--

Berkowitz: But following up—challenge me if you like, but it seems like [Republican Cong. Mark] Kirk has cracked into the Democratic constituency in the 10th Cong. Dist. on pro- choice, on gun control, on the Jewish population and their support of Israel, on gay rights and on environmental issues. All of those issues are traditionally Democratic issues and I think people would be hard pressed to say, “Here is an area on one of those issues in which the Democrat running, whether it is you or [Senator] Susan Garrett, would be likely to be much different from Mark Kirk.”

Krislov: But, I think you are identifying this as being a party sort of thing and--

Berkowitz: No, I’m [focusing] on the issues—

Krislov: People who run on one issue as being the key thing, I think, are why we [10th CD Democrats] wind up with people who get 20 or 30 per cent, rather than somebody who is willing to address all of those issues.

Berkowitz: So, that’s the idea. The whole package, you are saying, of Clint Krislov, would be quite different from the whole package of [Cong.] Mark Kirk, am I getting that right?

Krislov: I think so.

Berkowitz: Okay, Social Security…give us a brief—
********************************************
Clint Krislov [D- Wilmette, 10th Cong. Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 22, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” tonight and this week [week of May 30] and as will be airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, June 6 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV]. See, conclusion of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*********************************************
Clint Krislov debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the politics of the 10th Congressional District, giving Japan a nuclear capability, Social Security Reform, tax cuts, jobs, fomenting Democracy, the Bush Foreign Policy regarding Iraq, Iran and North Korea, International Trade, abortion, guns, Cong. Mark Kirk, gay rights, and much, much more.
*******************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The “Public Affairs,” show with Clint Krislov will have a special airing tonight, Tuesday, at 7:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Zorn, blogging and navel disarmament

The more things change, the more they same they same. Almost two score years ago, it was The Medium is the Message, or the Massage. This Thursday morning [11:00 am], at Columbia College, more on the medium is the message, but this time—it is styled, "Blogging and how it's transforming the media landscape.”

Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn will be there as a panelist and is now blogging about the moderator’s blogging about his blog. Zorn ties this into navel gazing, but should he really be thinking about the consequences of naval disarmament? Or, since that is now outdated, perhaps navel disarmament.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Dave McSweeney [R-8th CD candidate] on Social Issues

Jeff Berkowitz: Isn’t that a religious issue… why would the government have the right to say—we think two males, or two females, shouldn’t marry? Why would that be a government decision? Isn't that…a personal values decision?

Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?

Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—

Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?

Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage…
**********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills], who is running in the Republican Primary in the 8th Cong. District for the opportunity to take on first term Democratic incumbent Congresswoman Melissa Bean [D- Barrington].

The show airs throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Memorial Day] at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See here for more about the topics discussed on tonight’s show with Republican U. S. Rep. candidate David McSweeney, as well as a listing of many of the communities in and other attributes of the 8th CD, as well as for partial transcripts of tonight's and other shows with McSweeney An additional partial transcript of tonight’s show is included, below.

See here for background about the 8th [and 10th] Cong. Dist. Primary.
******************************************
Federalism and Teri Schiavo:

Jeff Berkowitz: What about something like the Teri Schiavo issue. You were a supporter of the federal legislation to have that matter, a state matter some conservatives would say, reviewed by the federal courts after it had been reviewed extensively by the state courts [of Florida]. Was that a consistent [position]? People would criticize you and say—why do you want to take that and put it to the Feds [in that instance] when you just said you are a federalist-- you want to try to keep things on as low a level of government [as possible] city, state—where you can, right?

Dave McSweeney: Not inconsistent at all. In fact, what the Republicans originally tried to do, Jeff, was have a broad Act [of legislation] that said for these Right to Die cases that are in controversy—that there would be federal review of these cases—just like you would in death penalty cases. The Democrats shut that down. They wouldn’t allow that legislation to move forward. They made it a Schiavo specific piece of legislation. We are talking about life and death. We have a federal review process for death penalty cases. That’s all that Republicans tried to do in that case—is to allow the federal court to review a life and death case. The federal courts reviewed it. They reached a different decision, but at least there was a review. Just like we have federal—

Jeff Berkowitz: Life/Death issues. Should they be decided by the state government? Should abortion be a state issue? Or should it be, as it was under Roe v. Wade taken out of the state government and made a [right], by judicial fiat, essentially saying this is a constitutional right, a woman’s right to choose. The state legislatures, all fifty of them, would not have a say in that.

Dave McSweeney: Ideally, it would be a state issue. But, since we got—

Abortion:

Jeff Berkowitz: Abortion would be a state issue?

Dave McSweeney: Ideally. However, let me finish please, Jeff. We have such an activist judiciary, right now, that I do favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It is the same thing as gay marriage, at this point, in that you have such an activist judiciary—[which is] what we have seen in the last couple of years—that I think there is no other choice at this point. I am very, very cautious about ever supporting amending the Constitution, but I think in those two cases, right now, abortion and gay marriage, we have such a situation-- like we do with gay marriage in Massachusetts, [where] we are seeing the courts step in and make laws. Then, I think under that situation—in an ideal world you would have the states handle the issue. But, because of the activist judiciary, I think we have to have a constitutional amendment.

Jeff Berkowitz: You are 1000 % pro-life, would you say?

Dave McSweeney: I am very pro-life. In fact—

Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to see, as you say, a constitutional amendment that would protect the unborn?

Dave McSweeney: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: That would allow an abortion only in the case if the life of the mother were at issue, right?

Dave McSweeney: And reported cases of rape and incest.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you would give those as exceptions, too.

Dave McSweeney: Reported cases of rape and incest.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, in a sense you are not 1000 % [pro-life] because some people would say, “That’s a life.” You know, we have conservatives say that on this show. The unborn, whether he or she is a result of rape or incest, hasn’t done anything [wrong]. That is an innocent life. And, yet, you are saying that you would favor taking that life, or allowing somebody to have the opportunity to do so.

Dave McSweeney: No, no. What I am saying is that I favor an exception for life of the mother and reported cases of rape and incest. Obviously that is a very difficult issue in different situations but that’s my position on that issue.

Hyde Amendment:

Jeff Berkowitz: Same thing on the Hyde Amendment? You favor continuing that?

Dave McSweeney: That’s how the Hyde Amendment is structured,

Jeff Berkowitz: That’s how it reads now.

Dave McSweeney: That is exactly how it reads.

Jeff Berkowitz: And you favor continuing it that way? You don’t think low-income women should have the same choice to have an abortion as higher income women?

Dave McSweeney: I don’t think taxpayers should pay for abortion, Jeff. Absolutely not, I support the Hyde Amendment.

Same Sex Marriage:

Jeff Berkowitz: Same Sex Marriage…You are saying there [that] you favor a constitutional amendment, right?

Dave McSweeney: I do. I do think a marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman, only. And, we certainly can’t allow a situation where we allow same sex marriages to be accepted in society.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think the family, as you know it would be hurt if gays, lesbians, male gays, homosexuals, were allowed to marry? Do you think that would somehow harm heterosexuals who choose to have a more traditional family?

Dave McSweeney: Jeff, I just don’t think the federal or state government should sanction gay marriage. The people have the right to do whatever they want in their own private situation.

Jeff Berkowitz: Isn’t that a religious issue… if a person wants to get a license to marry, why should the government, other than that they say—here, we are going to promote—there are certain institutional arrangements, legal arrangements—why would the government have the right to say—we think two males, or two females, shouldn’t marry? Why would that be a government decision? Isn’t that a religious decision? A personal values decision?

Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?

Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—

Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?

Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The impact of religion on politicians and public policy:

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you mind talking about your religion? Do you think politicians should talk about religion? Should that be a part of public life?

Dave McSweeney: Well, faith is obviously an important—

Jeff Berkowitz: What is your religion?

Dave McSweeney: I am a Lutheran.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you don’t mind talking about that?

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely not.

Jeff Berkowitz: Deep convictions?

Dave McSweeney: I have deep convictions.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do they shape your views on these issues? They shape your views on same sex marriage?

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.

Jeff Berkowitz: They shape your views on abortion?

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.
******************************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 15, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs tonight, Monday night, May 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV].
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************

Berkowitz on Roeser tomorrow night: A free fire zone

I will be a guest tomorrow [Sunday] night on Tom Roeser’s Political Shoot-out, WLS 890 AM Radio, from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Upset with something I said on my show? something I wrote on this blog?—this is your chance to fire back. A free fire zone, so to speak. Also, you can help shape the show by calling in with your questions and comments—312-591-8900. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and others are, of course, all welcome.

I don’t know the topics—which are determined by Mr. Roeser and are kept under seal until just before the show. However, I would guess they will include education issues, Chicago and elsewhere; the resolution of the State budget/tax issues in Springfield; the Republican Gubernatorial Primary and yes, what looks to be a contested Democratic Gubernatorial Primary, as well. And, of course, much, much more.

The wrong “shared mindset,” of many school administrators and their board members.

If you have skipped the posting immediately below this one because you don't live in Winnetka, the North Shore, or even in Illinois, think again.

To borrow some recent wording from that famous phrasemaker, State Senate President Emil Jones, there is a "shared mindset," at work here. The below post is about the common mindset that is "shared," by a great many senior administrators and school board members across a great many suburban schools in this great land of ours.

Yes, the post is about the Winnetka Public Schools Superintendent [CEO] and her board, but I would bet, dollars to donuts, there are similar actions and events that could be written about a great many of the suburban school boards and school administrators in and out of Illinois. I think this is most likely to be the case for affluent and middle class suburbs, but not exclusively so. Moreover, although the challenges to educators, administrators and board members are quite different in the inner city areas of the country than they are in the suburbs, one finds, even in the inner city areas, common strands to the “shared mindset,” to which I refer.

It is a mindset of arrogance-- a mindset that pays lip service to democracy and parental involvement, if not control, of their children's education. It is a mindset that thinks it is acceptable for administrators to hide information from board members and certainly from residents, parents and the public at large, even when there is no rational basis for classifying the information as "executive session" material. And, here, I note that the failure to disclose relevant information to her board by Superintendent van der Bogert, discussed in the post below, based on "confidentiality," as she put it, could only make sense to a Schools Superintendent and school board members with that "shared mindset."

The primary statutory reason for having School Board Executive Sessions is precisely so that certain "personnel" information can be withheld from disclosure to the public. Thus, the option that Winnetka Public School superintendent van der Bogert had to discuss the truly confidential information with her board in executive session behind closed doors was truly a viable one, and one the Winnetka School Board uses monthly [and perhaps over-uses monthly]. An appropriate use of executive session, for example, would be to discuss reference check information assessing prospective personnel.

However, information such as the fact that a prospective employee of the School District is named in a public, civil lawsuit is not what any reasonable person would call "confidential" or "executive session" material. That type of information should have been disclosed not only to van der Bogert’s Board, but to all residents of the Winnetka community—the so-called Community of Learners.

Only those who have that peculiar "shared mindset" of Dr. van der Bogert, her Board and the others I am talking about would have withheld such information from everyone, as did the Winnetka Public Schools [District 36] superintendent.

Think about it, Winnetkans are reading in the Chicago newspapers during the last week what their Schools Superintendent, van der Bogert, chose to withhold—the fact that the prospective Winnetka Greeley school principal, Kevin Dorken, was named as a defendant five years ago in a lawsuit that is being tried this week in a public courtroom in the Circuit Court of Cook County-- from her Board, from the Greeley School Principal Search team and from all the residents of Winnetka prior to the School Board voting in public session on December 14, 2004 [at least I hope it was in public session] to hire Mr. Dorken as the next Principal for the Greeley School.

Moreover, when the Winnetka community learned about the the Dorken lawsuit and related information last week, the Winnetka School Board, based on its public statements, at least, seems to have responded by saying it has no problem with its Superintendent's failure to disclose relevant information to it or to the community at large, information that I have noted clearly should not have been withheld from either the Board or the community at large.

The Winnetka School Board response to Superintendent van der Bogert's failure to disclose is a good example of that shared mindset at work. The mindset of one Winnetka School Board Member, for example, as reported by Lisa Black [without characterization by the reporter] in her May 25, 2005 Chicago Tribune article. Ms. Black wrote that Winnetka School board member Robert Linn, when contacted before the meeting Tuesday, defended van der Bogert's handling of the situation:

"The superintendent's job is to hire her staff," he said. "The board's responsibility is to hire the superintendent. I think my job is to listen to what the parents have to say and evaluate that based on the facts that come out."

Linn, a board member for six years, said: "I trust her and I trust her judgment."

The wrongful-death lawsuit alleges that Casey [a sixth grader in the Glenview school district] was left unsupervised with her class June 4, 1999, at Hoffman Elementary School, shortly after [Kevin] Dorken introduced the class to Chubby Bunny.

The lawsuit filed by Casey's parents, John and Therese Fish, alleges that Dorken [the next Winnetka Greeley School Principal] left the room to talk to a janitor, and that when Casey began to choke and turn blue, classmates had to run into the hallway to seek help, said Francis Patrick Murphy [of Corboy & Demetrio], the family's attorney.

But, wait a second-- School Board Member Linn, why is it that the School Board is required to vote on the hiring by District 36 of school principals? to rubber stamp the recommendation of your Superintendent? Or, to be presented with all relevant, factual information relating to the hiring recommendation of your superintendent, so you can exercise your fiduciary and oversight duties as a board member. That is, Mr. Linn, so you can question your superintendent, respectfully, but vigorously-- in short—so that you, Mr. Linn, can exercise due diligence.

If Supt. van der Bogert was not concerned about the fact that her recommended Greeley School Principal was named as a defendant in a lawsuit that raises issues of whether the Glenview School District and the next Greeley School Principal were "exercising ordinary care" relating to an activity that ended in the death of a 6th grade student, why was van der Bogert not concerned? Dr. van der Bogert, more than five months after the school board voted to hire the next Greeley School Principal, sent a document to me that stated, "I believe I had sufficient facts that assured me there was no negligence on Kevin's [the next Winnetka Greeley School's principal] part."

That statement of "belief" by Supt. [Becky] van der Bogert was written two days before the trial of her new Greeley Principal began. Perhaps Dorken's wife, who I understand was also a teacher at the Glenview Hoffman Elementary School the day sixth grader Casey Fish died, might have marital confidence in her husband's story, but what would account for what appears to be blind faith on the part of Supt. van der Bogert? And, why couldn't Supt. van der Bogert share the basis for her "faith" or "belief" with her Board? And, if the facts were so strong for her future employee, why did Dr. Rebecca [Becky] van der Bogert fail to disclose even the existence of the lawsuit to her Board and the Winnetka Community?

Talking about blind faith, let's ask some questions of School Board Member Bob Linn. Mr. Linn, did you ask your Superintendent about "her facts." Did you question her vigorously, intelligently and armed with all appropriate information. Did your colleagues on the board do so? But, how could they or you have done so? She hadn't told you about the lawsuit. Did you do your own research to discover the existence of the lawsuit. Did you talk to the lawyer for the family of the deceased sixth grader-- the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against the next Greeley School principal? Did you in any way probe or question your superintendent or others as to the viability or credibility of the point of view taken by the plaintiff in the lawsuit against your next Greeley School Principal.

If so, did the family’s lawyer have a different opinion of the facts than your Superintendent? If so, how did you resolve those differences? Did you know that those different opinions would be the subject of a jury trial, being conducted as I write this, before Judge Dooling in Room 2609 of the Daley Center-- a trial that is expected to continue through next week.

Perhaps, school board member Linn, you will want to inform yourself further by attending portions of the trial of your next Winnetka Greeley School Principal, Kevin Dorken. Indeed, you might want to find out from Dr. van der Bogert if Mr. Dorken will be taking the stand to testify next week and maybe you will want to stop by, to see what he has to say about the death of 6th grader Catherine "Casey" Fish, who suffocated to death on marshmallows playing a game called "Chubby Bunny," and about what he did or didn’t do related to the “incident” as your superintendent calls it.

The plaintiff, in the lawsuit which was not disclosed to you by your superintendent, contends that the Glenview School District and your next Greeley School Principal did not exercise "ordinary care" while supervising students, including the deceased, despite knowledge that there could be impending danger.

What does Mr. Linn have to say about this? I don’t know, Mr. Linn, along with four other board members, did not return my phone call messages, in which I identified myself both as a constituent of his and as a member of the media.

Indeed, perhaps not just school board member Linn, but maybe the other Winnetka School Board members, that is Board President Anne Kelly and her colleagues, who "remain unanimous in their support of the Superintendent’s hiring process of Kevin Dorken as the next principal for the Greeley school,” will want to take a peak at the trial of the next Greeley School principal.

Do those folks on the Winnetka School Board, who say their motto is Winnetka: A Community of Learners, have any intellectual curiosity? Do they have any sense of their due diligence obligations to the community who elected them? Hard to know, Board President Kelly and her school board colleagues have not returned my phone calls to ask about such issues, other than Kelly’s reading of her prepared statement to me, followed with “Goodbye.”

And, more importantly for my gentle readers or viewers who may live outside the North Shore, from the Gold Coast to the Soul Coast [in the words of my previous show guests], from Zion to Springfield, from Ravenswood Manor to Cicero, from Lake View to Moline, from Chicago to Los Angeles to New York, I ask you-- does any of the above sound familiar? A “shared mindset,” among public school administrators and their school boards: arrogance, indifference and failure to exercise due diligence.

Of course, I am not saying that the above applies to all public school administrators and school board members. How could I- I once was one. Obviously, there are many school superintendents and board members who would not act, as those described above, and would not tolerate, for one second, such behavior. But, the above is common enough to identify it as a "shared mindset" among many education administrators, and their school boards, who simply don't take the notion of due diligence seriously-- at least seriously enough to act on it, as opposed to mouth the words.

And, of course, that failure to exercise due diligence by school board members reflects the mistaken idea that the role of a school board member is simply to rubber stamp and approve whatever her school superintendent tells her. Never question. Never probe. Always accept. Those are ideas, but they are the wrong ideas.

That is especially true for a school district that prides itself in calling its village “a community of learners.” And, as the Winnetka School Board will learn, and as was used as a title of former University of Chicago Professor Richard Weaver’s book, “Ideas [like actions or failure to act] Have Consequences." And, so will their [The Winnetka School Board's] ideas. Have consequences, that is. But, I don’t think they will be good for our community— the broader community of true learners.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Loss of trust: A Winnetka Schools Supt.[CEO] and her Board go astray

Are the events, described below, happening in your suburban school district with your Superintendent and your school board?

Or, are the Winnetka Public Schools Superintendent and her Board an aberration?
****************************
The … actions and attitude of the eleven-year, highly paid [almost $300,000 per year] Winnetka Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Rebecca van der Bogert, who oversees a District of some 2000 students [District 36], have drawn some sharp criticism in the community….
********************************************
In the statement that Dr. van der Bogert sent me, she said, “…Why didn’t I share this information with everyone…I believe I had sufficient facts that assured me there was no negligence on Kevin’s part …”
*******************************************
Did Supt. van der Bogert ask the family’s lawyer why Catherine Fish’s friends ran out of Kevin’s room looking for more teachers if, as van der Bogert apparently has decided, the students had two teachers right there—present at all times?

I asked the lawyer for the family, Francis Patrick Murphy [of Corboy and Demetrio] this evening, after he had concluded the first day of his trial in the lawsuit his client filed against the Glenview School District and Kevin Dorken [the next Greeley School principal]… “Did Becky, the [schools] superintendent from Winnetka ever contact you to discuss this?” Murphy responded, “Not at all.”
***************************************************
***************************************************
The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday [May 25 Tribune article] that Winnetka Public Schools [“WPS”] Superintendent, Dr. Rebecca van der Bogert, failed to disclose information that seems highly relevant, if not dispositive, to a school board and the parents and residents of a community in the North Shore’s [District 36] hiring of a new principal for one of its schools. The remarkable thing about this is not just the failure to disclose by the Superintendent, which is itself shocking, but also that the Winnetka School Board doesn’t seem to care about the Superintendent’s failure to disclose. Can you imagine a private corporate Board reacting in the same way?

On the other hand, the Pioneer Press reported today that, “[Winnetka] residents expressed anger at Tuesday's School Board meeting after learning Dorken [Winnetka Greeley School’s new principal to be] is a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit set to go to trial today (Thursday).” [See, here, Winnetka Talk, May 26, 2005]. The Talk noted, “more than 50 residents complain[ed] they were kept in the dark about a lawsuit that names the former Glenview School District teacher [Dorken] as a defendant."

After calling all board members, I was only able to speak to two. One WPS board member, Pete Cruikshank [also a former village of Winnetka Board President], declined to discuss the issue or anything about the Board’s or his actions and thoughts, referring me to the Superintendent and President of the School Board. The Superintendent confirmed that she had not disclosed the information to the Board prior to the Board’s vote to hire Dorken as the next Greeley school principal and then declined to answer any questions, instead faxing me a statement by her that she said was read by her at Tuesday’s school board meeting.

The Winnetka School Board President, Anne Kelly, taking a page from her superintendent, said to me [on May 25] she had only one thing to say to and then read a statement, saying, “As a Board, we were unanimous in acting on Dr. van der Bogert’s recommendation to hire Kevin Dorken last December and after lengthy consideration we remain unanimous in our support of the Superintendent’s hiring process of Kevin Dorken as the next principal for the Greeley school.” When I started to ask Ms. Kelly, “when did you first learn--” Kelly cut me off and said, “That is the only statement I am prepared to make and I really appreciate your calling to get our perspective, but that’s all I am going to say at this time. Beyond that, we will speak to the Greeley community directly.” I responded by saying, “this is a part of the public record. When did you vote—“Again, School Board President Kelly cut me off with, “I really appreciate your call, Goodbye.”

None of the other six WPS school board members returned my calls. School Board member Bob Linn seemed not to mind, at all, the Superintendent’s failure to disclose to his colleagues and him relevant information to the Board's hire of the next Greeley School principal . He told a Tribune Reporter [See the above linked Tribune article of May 25, 2005], “I trust her [van der Bogert] and I trust her judgment.”

However, the above described actions and attitude of the eleven-year, highly paid [almost $300,000 per year] Winnetka Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Rebecca van der Bogert, who oversees a District of some 2000 students, have drawn some sharp criticism in the community, as referenced, above. That criticism has come from parents with kids at Greeley School, one of the District’s three K-4 grade schools. See yesterday’s Chicago Tribune article [linked to above], which refers to “75 people jamming a school board meeting,” on Tuesday night.

One of the parents at the Winnetka School Board meeting spoke of a giant lapse of judgment [by Winnetka Schools Superintendent van der Bogert] and another of trust being violated [by Superintendent van der Bogert], reported the Tribune. Having attended almost 200 Winnetka school board meetings, I can report that attendance of Winnetka School Board meetings usually is in the five to ten residents, or so, range. This was a hot issue in the not easily aroused North Shore village of Winnetka.

The WPS consists of about 2000 students in five schools [three grade schools that are K-4, one transition school that is 5-6 and another middle school that is 7-8. The School District feeds into New Trier High School [Winnetka and Northfield], along with five other school districts.

Now, what could possibly cause Winnetka’s sedate, if not sedated, residents to rise up in arms at a school board meeting. Well, let’s take a look at the underlying allegations involving “the incident and tragic loss of life,” as Dr. van der Bogert belatedly referred to the matter at Tuesday night’s school board meeting. The incident involved Kevin Dorken, the Glenview teacher and administrative intern hired last December by the WPS to be the new WPS Greeley school principal.

The allegations apparently relate closely to the subject of this week’s trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, all of which Dr. van der Bogert decided were “confidential,” and apparently so confidential that no one involved in the hiring process of Kevin Dorken as the new Greeley Principal, nor any parents or residents of Winnetka, nor any WPS Board Member should know what the Winnetka Community is now reading about in Chicago newspapers.

Apparently the WPS board and its superintendent think trials are generally not open to the public and the media or the WPS District’s parents and residents do not read newspapers. They are wrong on both scores.

On Friday of last week, the Chicago Tribune reported [May 20 article, See here] that the Glenview elementary school district was scheduled to go to trial this week in connection with the death of one of its 6th grade students, nearly six years ago. The Tribune reported that the family of the 6th grader, Catherine “Casey” Fish, who suffocated while playing “Chubby Bunny,” at the Glenview school’s Care Fair to benefit charities, alleges that the student was left unsupervised with her class, shortly after a teacher introduced the pupils to the Chubby Bunny game.

The Tribune reports that the family’s lawsuit alleges that while Glenview teacher Kevin Dorken left the room for a few minutes to talk to a janitor, the family’s daughter began choking. The Tribune quoted the lawyer for the family as saying that, “She [Catherine Fish] went into distress, there’s no teacher in the room and she tries to get to a water fountain.” "She's turning blue; she's falling down."

The lawsuit further alleges that the student’s friends ran into the hallway to get help from teachers and from the school nurse, who contacted paramedics and that the student died three hours later in Glenbrook Hospital.

"What we have always contended is it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the danger of a game [Chubby Bunny] in which you're stuffing your face with a food product [marshmallows] while you're saying `Chubby bunny,'" the family’s lawyer Murphy said.

It turns out that the WPS voted to hire in December, 2004, Kevin Dorken, referenced above as a Glenview teacher in 1999 involved in the Chubby Bunny "loss of life incident," to be the Principal of one of its three K-4 grade schools, Greeley, starting apparently in Fall, 2005.

Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune article [linked above as the May 25 article] reported that WPS’ Superintendent, Dr. van der Bogert, had not previously informed the Winnetka School Board of Dorken’s involvement in either the Chubby Bunny “incident,” nor apparently of his involvement in or relationship to the Glenview school district and his lawsuit that is being tried this week. The WPS school board, made up of seven elected members, must approve, by Board vote, the hiring of school staff, including school principals.

Further, it appears that Superintendent van der Bogert informed neither the parents at Greeley school of Dorken’s involvement in either the Chubby Bunny incident or of his involvement in or relationship to the lawsuit that is being tried this week, nor the parents and others who sat on the Greeley Principal Search Team [See today’s Tribune article]. In short, Dr. van der Bogert appears to have kept this all to herself.

I say “appears” because when I called Dr. van der Bogert yesterday, she confirmed that she had not disclosed the above referenced information about Kevin Dorken to the WPS Board, but declined to answer any other questions, which I tried to ask her, such as whether she thought her failure to disclose to her Board the above discussed issues relating to Dorken might be analogous to a corporate CEO in the private sector withholding relevant information from a corporate board, prior to a Board vote on a key issue or hiring of a key new officer. Dr. van der Bogert said she would fax to me a statement she read to the audience at Tuesday night’s Winnetka School Board meeting-- but she declined to answer any questions. She did, in fact, fax me her statement.

In the statement that Dr. van der Bogert sent me, she said, “…Why didn’t I share this information with everyone…I believe I had sufficient facts that assured me there was no negligence on Kevin’s part and therefore, I had no concerns about his judgment as Greeley’s principal. Once I have concluded that a candidate is appropriate, the information that is gathered in private conversations is considered confidential.”

Dr. van der Bogert’s statement, which she indicated was delivered at Tuesday night’s school board meeting, also said, “The student [the now deceased, then sixth grader Catherine “Casey” Fish] was not a child in Kevin’s homeroom, but had chosen to take part in an activity that was being run by a team of three teachers including Kevin. Two of those teachers were present at all times.”

So, it would appear that Dr. van der Bogert held her own trial as to Kevin Dorken’s culpability, or lack thereof. Dr. van der Bogert’s statement reads, without citation for support, “The Glenview Public Schools investigated the incident thoroughly and found no negligence on Kevin’s part…due to the community’s confidence in Kevin, the administration has been preparing him to be Principal in Glenview.”

But did Dr. van der Bogert talk to the family of Catherine Fish? To anyone involved in the “incident,” who had a conflicting view? To the lawyer for the family who said, “She [the deceased Catherine Fish] went into distress, there’s no teacher in the room and she tries to get to a water fountain.” "She's turning blue; she's falling down."

Did Supt. van der Bogert ask the family’s lawyer the basis for their allegations that “the student’s friends ran into the hallway to get help from teachers and from the school nurse, who contacted paramedics and that the student died three hours later in Glenbrook Hospital.”

Did Dr. van der Bogert ask the family’s lawyer why Catherine Fish’s friends ran out of the room looking for more teachers if, as van der Bogert apparently has decided, the students had two teachers right there—present at all times?

I asked the lawyer for the family, Francis Patrick Murphy [of Corboy and Demetrio] this evening, after he had concluded the first day of his trial in the lawsuit his client filed against the Glenview School District and Kevin Dorken [the next Greeley School principal]-- a trial that he anticipates will go another week, or so-- “Did Becky, the [schools] superintendent from Winnetka, ever contact you to discuss this?” Murphy responded, “Not at all.”

Did van der Bogert talk to the janitor who the family’s lawsuit contends Dorken [van der Bogert’s new principal] was talking to [or looking for] outside the room when Catherine Fish began choking?

In short, did Supt. van der Bogert talk to all sides, including witnesses for the family, and decide Kevin Dorken’s story was the truth and the family’s story false? If not, was her decision making process appropriate? Even if she did all of that, was that the appropriate path to take?

And, what will it mean if a true trial, this week, concludes that the defendant the Glenview School District was negligent? If Kevin Dorken [the next Greeley Principal] was negligent? Would Dr. van der Bogert then seek to terminate the District’s contract with Kevin Dorken? Is a provision for such a contingency included in the Dorken contract? If not, should it have been? And, if there were no such provision and van der Bogert did seek to terminate the contract, as discussed above, would Dorken have a good cause of action against District 36 for wrongful termination? And, would the Winnetka School Board continue to back its superintendent’s decision making process. Did the Winnetka School Board consider any of these factors when it approved the Dorken contract? How could it, its Superintendent did not disclose the underlying facts that would give rise to such considerations.

Alternatively, if the trial verdict this week finds the Glenview School District not negligent, and finds defendant Kevin Dorken not negligent--will that validate Dr. van der Bogert’s secret trial and secret verdict. Will it validate her decision to withhold relevant information from the Board, who hired her, and the Community, who pays her almost $300,000 yearly salary? Will community members who feel their trust has been “violated,” find that it has now been restored?

Think about it, the superintendent’s information, which was gathered about a potential principal, is confidential, according to the Winnetka Public Schools superintendent, and not to be shared with her Board, even though the Board is charged with the responsibility of making a decision, by vote, on hiring the Principal. Indeed, the Board is allowed, by state law, to meet in Executive Session to discuss such confidential matters, if indeed all of the above is truly “confidential.”

And, of course, Dr. van der Bogert apparently chose not to share or discuss any of this [even that which was publicly available information] with the Search Team, charged by the District with helping to search for and assess candidates for the Greeley Principal position, as commented upon in yesterday’s Tribune article [linked to above] by one of the search team members, who also doesn’t seem to care about Superintendent van der Bogert’s failure to disclose.

Think about the analogue to a public corporation and its CEO and Board of Directors. If a CEO for such a company had withheld relevant information from her Board about the hiring of one of the Company’s top five officers, wouldn’t you expect the Board to be up in arms when it found out about such a failure to disclose. And, what if the Board responded by saying to the public “why should we care. We are just the Board-- if our CEO recommends something, why would we need all relevant facts before we vote on a decision to hire one of our top officers. Better that she not trouble us with too many conflicting facts.”

If the above had happened, wouldn’t the Board and its CEO be sued in a shareholder suit faster than you can say, “Public Affairs.” Indeed, perhaps even represented by one of the “trial lawyers,” living in Winnetka. As such a lawyer, or his firm, now represents the family of Catherine Fish. It’s a small world.

Well, a lot of questions-- but not many answers. And, you know why? Because the Winnetka Public School Superintendent, Dr. Rebecca van der Bogert, is not answering questions. At least not the hard ones. And, her Board, they aren’t answering any questions either. At least, not the tough ones. Perhaps more importantly, for their own fiduciary duties to the people of Winnetka, are the Winnetka School Board Members asking any tough questions of their Superintendent? Did they do that Tuesday night? Or did they decide it was too late for that?

Welcome to the Winnetka Public Schools, whose motto is, “Lifelong Learners.” Perhaps it should be “mums the word.”
*******************************************
As a matter of full disclosure, Jeff Berkowitz was a member of the Winnetka School Board when Dr. Rebecca van der Bogert was hired by the District in 1994 and he has been active in commenting on WPS issues, and attending School Board meetings, including the period before and after his four year tenure on the School Board.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Sen. Pankau to run in 6th CD

This just in.

Gentleladies and Gentlemen, we now have a bona fide race in the 6th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary.

Of course, State Senator Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] officially announced a few weeks ago he is a candidate in the Republican Primary for the 6th Cong. Dist., running for the opportunity to take Cong. Hyde's seat when he steps down, after 32 years, in January 2007. JP "Rick" Carney, former DuPage County Recorder of Deeds has already announced he is running, but people have questioned how credible a candidate Carney is, notwithstanding a large wallet.

State Senator Carol Pankau [R- Roselle], widely rumored to be getting into the race, confirmed to me this afternoon that she is getting into the 6th CD primary, and is looking to raise $200,000 by the end of the June, 2005 federal filing date.

It appears that former State Rep. Tom Johnson and Elmhurst Mayor Tom Marcucci will not join the race, leaving it up to Roskam, Pankau and Carney for now.

Pankau will try to paint herself as the centrist, with Roskam to her right and Carney to her left, at least within the Republican Party spectrum. Pankau referred to her claim that she is more moderate on social issues than Roskam, stating that she would like to see abortion illegal, but would make exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest. Roskam's only exception is for the life of the mother. Pankau also noted that she thinks she is more moderate on gun control than Roskam, stating she favors closing the gun trade show loophole and also favoring mandatory trigger locks.

Also, Pankau noted-- Gender counts. You know, two guys and a lady. Women like women and men like men-- or do they?

McSweeney on TV: Running to Take on Cong. Melissa Bean

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you expect Cong. [Mark] Kirk [R- Highland Park] to support you?

Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills, 8th CD Candidate]: When I win the nomination, absolutely.

Berkowitz: Before then, you think he [Kirk] is staying neutral?

McSweeney: I think he is gonna stay neutral.
***********************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney, who is running in the Republican Primary in the 8th Cong. District for the opportunity to take on first term Democratic incumbent Congresswoman Melissa Bean[D-Barrington, 8th CD].

See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule and for more about the topics discussed on this week’s show with Dave McSweeney. This show will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on this coming Monday night [Memorial Day], May 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

McSweeney is the only declared Republican in the race at this time, having filed his statement of candidacy and having said he will officially announce around the end of June. A partial transcript of the show is included, below, and see here and here for partial transcripts of our previous show with candidate Dave McSweeney that aired in February of this year.

Congresswoman Bean beat 35 year Republican 8th CD incumbent Phil Crane last fall, 52-48, after losing to him 57-43 in 2002. McSweeney, himself, lost to Cong. Phil Crane in a Republican Primary in 1998 65-35, when Crane was telling people, as McSweeney reminds us, that Crane was about to become House Chairman of Ways and Means. Of course, that did not happen and the rest is history, as they say.

The 8th Congressional District appears to be "Republican," as President Bush beat John Kerry 56-44 in the 8th last fall. Yes, Senator Barack Obama won the 8th CD, but everybody knows that does not tell us much about the general R/D split for that area, or any other.

The 8th CD is composed of about 25% North West Cook County residents, 60% Lake County residents and 15% McHenry County residents, including all or portions of the following communities: Palatine, Hoffman Estates, Hanover Park, Schaumburg, Elk Grove Village, Wauconda, Bartlett, Rolling Meadows, Streamwood, Barrington, Barrington Hills, Inverness, Grayslake, Gurnee, Round Lake, Roselle, Antioch, Lake Zurich, Lake Villa, Lake Barrington, Long Grove, Mundelein, McHenry, Woodstock and Zion, as well as other areas not listed, above.
**********************************************
Next week’s guest on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” is media personality and conservative icon Tom Roeser.
**********************************************
Embryonic stem cell research, Cong. Kirk and gun control:

Jeff Berkowitz: …Embryonic Stem Cell research, [Cong. Mark Kirk and Cong. Judy Biggert] have a hearing tomorrow on that—he [Kirk] supports that, [Cong.] Biggert [R-Hinsdale, 13th CD] supports that—he [Cong. Kirk] has legislation to try to override the President’s Executive Order that was intended to slow down embryonic stem cell research [or at least had the effect of narrowing the number of embryonic stem cell lines that could be used for federally subsidized research]. You and Mark differ on that issue, right?

Dave McSweeney: Yes, I support the President 100% [on that].

Berkowitz: Do you expect Cong. Kirk to support you?

McSweeney: When I win the nomination, absolutely.

Berkowitz: Before then, you think he is staying neutral?

McSweeney: I think he is gonna stay neutral.

Berkowitz: But you support him. You said you would endorse Kirk and he should be re-elected, right?

McSweeney: Absolutely. I think Mark Kirk fits the—

Berkowitz: Even though he is very moderate. Your views are quite different.

McSweeney: Mark Kirk is doing a great job on the War on Terror. He represents his district well and, in fact, he is doing such a good job that maybe even Melissa Bean, his constituent, will vote for him.

Berkowitz: On guns, you oppose gun control?

McSweeney: I do. I believe you can’t disarm the honest citizens, you should punish criminals.
********************************************
Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Federal spending, Freezes and deficits:

Dave McSweeney: Jeff, remember that the Democrats controlled Congress when Ronald Reagan was in office. He made an investment in a strong national defense—

Jeff Berkowitz: But, did he veto legislation. He could do that. Did he—

Dave McSweeney: Ronald Reagan stood up many times—

Berkowitz: Did he try to cut spending by vetoes?

Dave McSweeney: He sure did. He sure did. If congress had enacted the spending reductions that Ronald Reagan had proposed, we would have had a balanced budget by the time he left office.
**********************************
McSweeney: When he [President Reagan] left office in 1988, the deficits were coming down dramatically, as a percentage of GDP…he made an investment with congressional approval in a strong national defense and that was money well spent because it helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Berkowitz: Let’s go forward to the present President, George W. Bush. Has he reduced spending in the time he has been there?

McSweeney: Not as much as he should [have]. I am a big supporter of President Bush but—

Berkowitz: Now domestic spending has mushroomed considerably.

McSweeney: That’s correct. And I think, again, President Bush—

Berkowitz: Now, would you be a critic of that mushrooming of domestic spending under President Bush—

McSweeney: I would be a proponent of reducing the growth of federal spending. I have a specific program for doing that, Jeff, and let me tell you a little bit about it. We should freeze the total level of federal spending, excluding national defense, social security and homeland security. We can allow increases in some areas, but we should freeze the rest of that budget on an aggregate basis.

Berkowitz: Freeze means no increase in aggregate in spending on the rest of that budget.

McSweeney: On the rest of the budget…what that means is that you can allow increases in areas like, for example, breast cancer research by the National Institute of Health but you need to pay for it. So, how I want to pay for that is I favor a 10% cut in the operational and administrative budget of each federal department and agency, eliminating unnecessary programs like the National Endowment for the Arts …, the Legal Services Corporation and we need to reform entitlements. What that means is that programs such as Medicaid—we should block grant that back to the states from the Federal Government. Allow them to experiment, as they are in Florida and actually bring about change…my program would actually reduce the deficit in half over five years…
************************************************
Federalism, Legal Assistance, Lynn Cheney and the Arts:

Berkowitz: You want to cut out the National Endowment for the Arts?

McSweeney: Correct. Federal Government has no business in the—

Berkowitz: Lynn Cheney. Was she running that program for a while?

McSweeney: No, that was the National Humanities.

Berkowitz: So, you are going to keep National Humanities?

McSweeney: Yes, I think it is a valid program, but even that, I would cut back on.

Berkowitz: Even though Lynn was there? You are a fan of Lynn Cheney’s?

McSweeney: I am a fan of Lynn Cheney’s, but it doesn’t matter, I would—

Berkowitz: Now, the National Endowment for the Arts, you sure [you want to eliminate that]? A lot of low income individuals might have access to that for summer programs—a variety of programs that might help kids who otherwise wouldn’t get familiar with the arts. You understand that?

McSweeney: I am a big supporter of the arts. But, it should be privately funded and that’s the best way to fund the National Endowment for the Arts.

Berkowitz: The Legal Services Corporation. You want to cut that out?

McSweeney: Absolutely. It’s become the legal advocate program for special interests.

Berkowitz: But, if it were to help people on landlord tenant issues? A variety of criminal issues that may occur. A person may be wrongfully accused. Would they have access to legal services for that?

McSweeney: Sure, the state should pay for that, not the federal government. Again, this is the federal government involved in this.

Berkowitz: So, you are a states’ righter, so to speak.

McSweeney: I am a federalist.

Berkowitz: You want to cut spending where you can and push it from the federal side to the state side? Is that right?

McSweeney: No, I want to eliminate unnecessary spending and where the spending is more appropriate at the state level, then the state should pick that up and local government should pick it up if it is valid.
********************************
Dave McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 15, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” this week [week of May 23] and as will be airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, May 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV]. See, conclusion of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*************************************************
Dave McSweeney debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Social Security Reform, Controlling the Federal Budget, tax cuts, jobs, the Reagan successes and failures, the Bush Foreign Policy regarding Iraq, Iran and North Korea, International Trade, abortion, guns, God, Embryonic Stem Cell research, Cong. Mark Kirk, gay rights legislation, judges and much, much more.
*******************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

State Rep. candidate Judith Ross on TV Tonight

Revised slightly on May 23 at 3:45 pm:

Jeff Berkowitz: House Bill 750 [the Tax Swap bill], do you support that?

Judith Ross: …Yes, I do.

Berkowitz: Some people say that is an increase in revenue for the State from anywhere from four to seven billion dollars…Do you agree that that estimate is correct?

Judith Ross: …That estimate sounds halfway decent. I am not sure it’s totally correct.
**********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Judith-Rae Ross, who is running in the Democratic Primary in the 17th District for the opportunity to take on nine-year moderate Republican incumbent State Rep. Beth Coulson [R-Glenview].

The show airs throughout the City of Chicago tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See here for more about the topics discussed on Tonight’s show with State Rep. Candidate Ross, as well as for partial transcripts of the show. An additional partial transcript is included, below.

See here for the trials and tribulations experienced by Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan over the last few years as he unsuccessfully sought to remove moderate Republican Beth Coulson from the State House [This is starting to resemble an Elmer Fudd cartoon], as well as more about the background and experience of State Rep. Ross.

Ross, a Ph. D. in history and a former Niles Township trustee for more than two decades, is giving this North Shore contest an early start, having announced her candidacy in April, eighteen months before the 2006 general election and eleven months before the primary.
******************************************
Judith Ross: …There could also be an ease on [the state deficit from] a tax swap. I think you mentioned it on education.

Jeff Berkowitz: House Bill 750, do you support that?

Judith Ross: …Yes, I do.

Berkowitz: Some people say that is an increase in revenue for the State from anywhere from four to seven billion dollars…Do you agree that that estimate is correct?

Judith Ross: …That estimate sounds halfway decent. I am not sure it’s totally correct.

Berkowitz: Some critics call that a whopping tax increase. Are you in favor of a whopping tax increase if you favor House Bill 750?

Judith Ross: …Critics are easy to characterize. What that would do would give property tax relief so grandma and grandpa wouldn’t have to move. At the same time, give more money to the local schools. And, give more money to the states. And, that two percent increase—

Berkowitz: But, it’s a whopping tax increase. The income tax is going to go up from 3% to 5% [on individuals; for corporations-- it almost doubles].

Judith Ross: …For the top 40% only [of individual income earners], and there it is a 2% increase. That’s a cup of coffee and a bagel.

Berkowitz: What’s the income of the top 40% in Illinois? What does it start at in Illinois?

Judith Ross: …I believe it starts at 90 [thousand dollars], but I am not sure.

Berkowitz: Okay, so it is a whopping tax increase for people with 90,000 [dollars annual income] and above.

Judith Ross: …Two percent of $90, 000 and above.

Berkowitz: So, if somebody is at $150,000—two percent of 60,000 [dollars]—some quick math, what is that?

Judith Ross: …Two percent of 60,000—you’re talking—I’d have to have a calculator.

Berkowitz: $1200. [The $1200 figure is incorrect. My on-air math was fine, but my analysis was off and I apologize to all. The 2% increase applies, according to what Ross suggested, to individuals [or those married and filing jointly] with an income greater than $90,000, but the higher tax applies to all of the individual’s income, not just the portion above $90,000, as I mistakenly calculated above, on the show. So, for an individual with $150,000 in income, the increased 2% tax applies to all of the individual’s income, i.e., $150,000, resulting in an increased state income tax payment of about $3,000-- making the total state income tax payment for such a taxpayer equal to $7,500, up from $4,500. Exemptions or deductions may lower this amount. And, the tax swap contemplates some reduction of real estate property taxes, so that savings needs to subtracted from the higher income tax payment—at least to the extent that the real estate tax is actually reduced, to determine the net projected increase in taxes. Also, I believe that the tax swap's higher income tax may kick in at $70,000 in income, rather than the $90,000 income level, as stated above.]

Judith Ross: …$1200.

Berkowitz: That’s okay with you? If you’re talking to the voters, they are going to say it is Okay?

Judith Ross: …There are an awful lot of people who support House Bill 750.

Berkowitz: Okay, you are a supporter of House Bill 750. The tax swap.

Judith Ross: …There are some tweaks that have to be made.
*************************************
Judith-Rae Ross [D- Skokie, 17th Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 8, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs tonight, May 23 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************

Rauschenberger to GOP leaders: Pick a GUV candidate.

Jeff Berkowitz: As you look at it now, there are eight candidates being mentioned as potential [Republican] candidates for Governor, including you. There appear to be five or six who probably fall in the category of conservative; one or two in the category of moderate. Do you have to prune down that field? If you have six conservatives [on the Republican primary ballot], do you give the nomination to a moderate such as [State Treasurer] Judy Baar Topinka?

State Senator Steve Rauschenberger: I think the Republican Party has a great opportunity, we can learn from the last cycle. We can either run the Jack Ryan [2004] senatorial primary again where we have a field of eight and the voters never get to know any of the candidates—where name recognition trumps qualifications, or we can have a race like we had in Southern Illinois [in Fall, 2004], where the Party coalesced around a qualified candidate, in Lloyd Karmeier, Judge Karmeier, for a [State] Supreme Court seat, and defeated the Democrats in a Democratic district, even though they [the Republicans] were outspent. So, we can either coalesce around a candidate and be successful in retiring [Governor] Rod Blagojevich, or we can put the Party in a lottery of seven, eight or nine candidates that the voters never really get to know and hope for the best.

Berkowitz: When you say [the Party should] coalesce, who’s the Party? Is it the State GOP Chairman, Andy Mckenna, Jr.? Is he the Party?

Rauschenberger: I think the real leadership in the Party today is really vested in about four people: Frank Watson, the Republican leader in the Senate; Tom Cross, the Republican leader in the House. They stand the most to gain … if we have an effective gubernatorial candidate. We also have Denny Hastert, Speaker of the U. S. House- who is a national leader as well as a statewide leader and [State GOP chairman] Andy McKenna, of course.

Berkowitz: So, you think you could get those four people in a room: Watson, Cross, Hastert, Andy McKenna, Jr., and get them to support State Senator Steve Rauschenberger, is that what you have in mind?

Rauschenberger: I think they don’t have any choice but to get into the room sometime in the next few months and come out with a consensus on a candidate who’s qualified, who’s got the press credibility and who has been able to unite the party in the past. There’s not another candidate in the field that ever put [moderate/liberal] Rosemary Mulligan and [conservative] Chris Lauzen on the same endorsement sheet. I am the only candidate ever to win 27 out of 30 [media ?] endorsements in an eight way race. We need that kind of credibility and experience. I may not be the only one but I am a good example of what the party needs.

Berkowitz:If they do that, if those four individuals rally around you, do you expect that Pat O’Malley and Jim Oberweis defer to them and defer to that decision?

Rauschenberger: It almost doesn’t matter. If candidates choose to run against the core of the party in this kind of situation with Rod Blagojevich and all of his resources, people are going to take a message from that. This is a time to pull the party together, not to tear it apart. The party’s appetite for people who are running just for ego and who won’t listen to leadership is pretty limited.
**************************************************
State Senator and likely Republican Primary candidate for Governor Steve Rauschenberger [R- Elgin], interviewed this afternoon by “Public Affairs,” television show host Jeff Berkowitz, after Rauschenberger spoke, along with five other actual or potential Republican Primary Guv candidates—Oberweis, Brady, Birkett, O’Malley and Gidwitz, at the Cook County GOP Caravan Lincoln Park Zoo event, which was the fourth of six such scheduled gatherings for the GOP GUV candidates and the Republican Party faithful, yesterday and today-- May 21, 2005. Indeed, the Saturday Night Live Caravan event at Joe's on Weed Street [See here], energized by Pat Daly [Republican Professional Network] and Bill Hogan [Republican activist working out of Springfield, Wheaton and elsewhere] is occurring as this is being posted.

Of course, the entire Caravan across Cook County event was energized by Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien and Cook County GOP Executive Director Pat Sutarik, aka the Dynamic Duo of the Cook County GOP Organization, which has been shaking up Cook County politics of late, to the point where Republicans are talking of a serious challenge for the Cook County Board Presidency, in the form of declared candidate and Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica or perhaps Cook County Commissioner Liz Gorman, who has said she is thinking about a run for the County Board Presidency, but has not yet declared. And the latest buzz on the Democratic side of that race is that incumbent President John Stroger, much to Mayor Daley's dismay, is not likely to seek re-election.
*****************************************************
Potential Guv. Primary Candidate Cong. Ray LaHood [R- Peoria] told the Cook County GOP he could not make it on the Caravan across Cook County due to a conflict. State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka told the Cook County GOP she would not be on the Caravan this weekend because—yup, you guessed it, notwithstanding the poll she commissioned and distributed to her media favorites about how much voters thought of her as a GUV candidate, she is not a candidate for Governor, or at least not yet. Of course, skeptics think she was off the reservation—I mean, off the Caravan-- because (1) Topinka is not ready to talk state issues and (2) Judy Baar does not want those she thinks might be “lesser lights” to benefit from the often favorable media lighting that shines upon her public appearances.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

The Quick Wit of Senator Barack Obama

Jim Anderson [News Director, IRN]: Senator, what do you think Senator Fitzgerald [R-IL] would say about the United Airlines situation if he were still in the Senate:

Senator Barack Obama [D-IL]: I told you so.
**************************************************
Exchange between Obama and Anderson after the conclusion of a Press Conference on the “Transportation Bill,” in the Loop on Monday, May 16, 2005

Former U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL] was the only U. S. Senator to vote against the 15 billion dollar airline bailout despite the fact that United Airlines is based in Illinois and American Airlines has a major hub at O’Hare.

Senator Fitzgerald's place in the United States Senate was filled by Senator Obama, with Senator Obama winning election in November, 2004 over Republican candidate Alan Keyes [70-27] after Senator Fitzgerald decided not to seek re-election in 2004, and Keyes was selected by the Republican State Central Committee to replace primary winner Jack Ryan, after Ryan withdraw following a controvery relating to the court ordered release of his divorce/child custody records relating to his attendance of sex clubs with his then wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************************

Bye, Bye, Mr. American Pie: Sirott to leave WTTW?

Rob Feder has reported on the recent departure of Randy King, WTTW’s EVP of Television [King lingers on as a consultant, but was said to have “resigned in frustration”]. Feder reports that Mike Leiderman, executive producer of Chicago Tonight was abruptly fired, with conflicting official and rumor explanations given for Leiderman’s demise. King’s role has been assumed by Dan Schmidt, President and CEO of Window to the World, Communications—WTTW’s parent. Mary Field, Executive Producer/news, has taken over for Leiderman.

King, a colleague and friend of Bob Sirott from Fox, was introduced to WTTW by Sirott when Sirott did a “documentary” for WTTW after Sirott left Fox in 1999. After King signed on with WTTW, he brought Bob Sirott on board [the Sirott two step] to be the host and Managing Editor of Chicago Tonight, when the show expanded to an hour in 2002. Sirott, more at home as a television disc jockey than as a serious public policy guy, was an odd pairing from the beginning with prior Chicago Tonight host Phil Ponce.

The odd choice of Sirott as “Managing Editor,” was noted in a prescient and perceptive article by Steve Rhodes in the October, 2002 issue of Chicago. Rhodes quoted Chicago Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington as reporting essentially that Chicago Tonight would be “dumbed down.” As is so often the case, Washington was “spot on,” as Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn likes to say.

And, in large part, that is what has happened under Sirott. Perhaps in an attempt to revive ratings that had been near the basement when he arrived [50,000 per night—a good local access program might beat that], Sirott has cut the public policy portion of the show to about 18 minutes, or so, on average and on occasion, he has bumped the lead public policy of the show for what appears to be his favorite segment, sports. The remainder of the show is filled up with Sirott talking with others about films, plays, gadgets, plants, music, food, etc. In short, Sirott has contributed by adding a public TV version of commercial local news features to Chicago Tonight. As Laura Washington predicted, this has been the dumbing down of the once, proud, hard news and public policy program. Ponce has broadened his "range" by joining Sirott in some of the commercial local news features, and Phil does that well, to his credit.

On the plus side, Sirott does a nice two minutes of local news that WTTW viewers want to hear about: 30 seconds on weather and sports, and quickies on important press conferences of the day with the Mayor, the Governor, etc. And the music between segments is also good—maybe even good to dance to. Give credit to DJ Sirott for that.

Occasionally, the clips of the press conferences expand to three or four minutes and that is a nice innovation. Also, Sirott will often “interview” correspondents Elizabeth Brackett [who is also a substitute anchor] , Eddie Arruza and Rich Samuels about the press conferences or that day’s city or state corruption story.— Samuels has gotten quite good at that and should be given an expanded role at Chicago Tonight. Sometimes Brackett, Arruza and Samuels report as correspondents at news events and those reports generally work. Arruza has been a good addition to the Chicago Tonight news team.

On the negative side, the one hour Chicago Tonight has never jelled. The mixture of features and public policy probably pleases neither set of viewers. It is possible that Sirott has a base who want to see him do his light, fluffy features. I haven’t seen the ratings, or the breakdowns. But, if Sirott has that base, spin off the miscellaneous Sirott features and put Chicago Tonight back as a serious public policy show, either for a half hour or an hour.

Ponce has recently started hosting a new, weekly half hour show, Chicago Sunday. His first two shows have had somewhat serious interviews with U. S. Senator Barack Obama and former D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge and White House Counsel Ab Mikva. The remainder of Chicago Sunday has been filled with “Chicago Places” and “Artbeat Chicago.” The format is kind of a half hour version of the Sirott Chicago Tonight, and fails for the same reason discussed above. The good news, for Ponce and WTTW, is that the Chicago Sunday pilots are a reminder that Ponce can handle Hosting and Managing Editor duties, as well as the public policy interviews and panel discussions he leads. Of course, everybody should have already known that, from the numerous times Ponce has stepped in for Sirott, without missing a beat, so to speak.

What Chicago Tonight needs is some serious spicing up of the public policy panel discussions and interviews. Maybe add someone who is at home doing tough, aggressive and provocative—but fair interviews. That would be a good complement for Ponce’s low-key style.

The complement to Ponce should be someone who knows and enjoys discussing city, state and national issues, and who has the breadth and depth of knowledge in law, politics and economics to do that interviewing by asking unscripted questions. And, of course, WTTW could use some balance. They have so many who seem to tilt left. They need someone who tilts, ever so slightly, to the right- and who understands conservatives as well as liberals, and Republicans as well as Democrats. But, who that could be- I just don’t know. I just don’t know, as Joseph said.

Such a shift would liberate Chicago Tonight from the DJ, stilted, idea lite style of Bob Sirott. And, it would satisfy the need to return Chicago Tonight to a public policy show, and yet would give it a chance to compete for strong ratings, something with which Sirott appears not to be helping.

Similarly, giving Sirott his walking papers, at least from Chicago Tonight, would be a blessing in disguise for Sirott. Feder says the departure of King could “mean trouble” for Sirott, whose contract with Chicago Tonight expires in June. But, that’s completely wrong. WTTW should liberate Bob Sirott, who is a talented television guy- just not for Chicago Tonight.

When mistakes are made—those involved need to admit them, clean up the mess and move on. Isn’t that what they taught us in grade school? I think the Window to the World, Communications Board, Dan Schmidt and everyone involved knows this. So, what are they waiting for?
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************

ABC's Terry Moran, Free Speech and Judge Lefkow

Terry Moran, ABC News White House Correspondent: You said that the retraction by Newsweek Magazine [of its apparently insufficiently fact based story on the Qur'an being abused by the U. S. Military] is a good first step.
What else do you want this American magazine to do?

Scott McClelland, President Bush’s Press Secretary: This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives.

Terry Moran: With respect, who made you the Editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States [POTUS on West Wing] to tell an American magazine what they should print?

McClelland: I’m not telling them. I’m saying we would encourage them to help—

Moran: Pressuring--

McClelland: No, I’m saying that we would encourage them—

Another correspondent: Are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek satisfy you, here?
********************************************
White Housing Briefing and Questions and Answers, May 18, 2005, as cablecast, in part, on the FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, May 18, 2005.
******************************************
Brit Hume, Special Report anchor, leading a discussion of the substance of the above video-clip: Well, the story has changed. Newsweek acknowledged error in a retraction on Monday, and by Tuesday and now Wednesday, the story has morphed and we now have some obvious interest in the White House Press Corp. in the behavior of the White House on all this. What about all this?

Morton Kondracke: Executive Editor of Roll Call: I don’t know why it’s not appropriate for the White House to suggest that Newsweek report on the issue of what is the treatment of the Qur’an-- official policy on the treatment of the Quran in military interrogation centers. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing and if Newsweek finds that the treatment of the Qur’an is respectful, then that would help the United States to report that fact. It would also be the truth – if that were the case.

Brit Hume: Let’s suppose that we all decided at this desk that this really was pressure by the White House on Newsweek. Does Newsweek have anything to fear from the White House?

Mara Liasson, NPR senior correspondent: No, I think it’s impossible to actually pressure-- as much as might or might not be tried at the White House to pressure Newsweek into writing a certain story…
************************************************
Discussion on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, May 18, 2005. Special Report airs on the Fox News Channel every weekday at 5:00 pm and 11:00 pm on Cable in the Chicago Metropolitan area, [Comcast Cable Ch. 54 in the suburbs].
*************************************************
Well, this is kind of an interesting juxtaposition of events. Yesterday, Terry Moran, ABC News, was quite upset about the White House encouraging Newsweek to do more than simply retract its story- a story that Newsweek concedes was ill founded or false. Moreover, the story arguably sparked riots and numerous deaths. Apparently, the White House sought to encourage Newsweek, having gotten the story wrong, to perhaps do another story that gets the facts right—however Newsweek finds the facts on further investigation.

It appears from Terry Moran’s reaction to the suggestion that he thinks Newsweek’s first amendment rights to free speech are being infringed by what he suggests is White House pressure on Newsweek. Here, the media are quite concerned about an infringement on the First Amendment. Perhaps because the potential infringement is on the media.

Let’s look at another possible First Amendment issue. Judge Lefkow testified yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the federal government’s security services for judges who may feel physically threatened as a result of the cases they are handling. See here for the AP report of this testimony by Judge Lefkow. Of course, Judge Lefkow suffered, earlier this year, the extremely sad loss of her husband and mother, at the hands of an apparently mentally disturbed, if not legally insane, litigant before her whose medical malpractice suit she had dismissed.

But Judge Lefkow went further than asking for more physical security for judges. She also sought to have Congress take actions that would seem to be intended to affect speech, both by members of Congress and by various public figures outside of Congress.

Judge Lefkow said, Congress should "publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary" that have occurred in the days since after [sic] the Teri Schiavo case. See the above linked AP article. She went further, noting, "Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or on the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them." See the above linked AP article.

A few responses perhaps are in order to Judge Lefkow's suggestions. First, I know the judge from my days as a practicing lawyer and she has my deepest sympathy for her loss. Second, the comments by Senator Santorum, House Majority Leader Delay, Senator Cornyn and Christian Coalition Founder Pat Robertson, all cited in the linked AP article, do not necessarily reflect the way I would analyze the Teri Schiavo matter and the gist of the comments are not necessarily my cup of tea. That having been said, do I want to see the judiciary lobbying Congress to “repudiate attacks on the judiciary.” Should the repudiation extend to legislation? Should the judiciary be lecturing the Congress if the Congress is not allowed to lecture the judiciary?

If Terry Moran is going to go bonkers over suggestions from the White House regarding follow-up action to the retraction by Newsweek, should Mr. Moran be a bit concerned about the judiciary or an individual judge telling Congress it should try to limit or constrain what individual congressmen or private citizens say about the judiciary? Was judge Lefkow suggesting that Congress, or their judiciary committees, go easy on the oversight of judges? If so, should Terry Moran be as concerned about these matters as he was about his perceived undue influence of the White House on the press.

On the matter of security for judges, I am sure that society should be looking at how best to provide appropriate security for judges in certain cases. But, should the federal government be buying home security systems for judges, as I think is provided for by the recently passed legislation? I would estimate that most federal judges who are married have family incomes in the $300,000 range and those who are single are in the $150,000 range. Do those folks warrant subsidized home security systems more than all other citizens in the country? If you think my numbers are off, shouldn’t we at least “means test,” the subsidy. I would imagine, at a minimum, 7th Circuit Judges Posner and Easterbrook would agree. Have they said so publicly?

Finally, Judge Lefkow, in her testimony yesterday, seemed to be quite critical of the lack of a coherent proposal to her for security from the U. S. Attorney’s office prior to the tragic murders of her family members. But, my understanding is that she chose not to invest in a home security system, or at least it was not operative at the time of the murders of her family members. If so, shouldn’t that have been discussed as perhaps minimally prudent action that judges can take on their own, if they are facing a dangerous situation, such as the one Judge Lefkow did.

Lest I be misconstrued, none of this is meant as a personal criticism or lack of sympathy for Judge Lefkow. But, having injected herself into the public policy analysis of how to handle the judicial security situation, her ideas cannot be immune from intellectual criticism, and I know the judge would, of course, not want it any other way.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************