Love the idea! I am especially drawn to the last graphic. South Dakota knows how to do it right!

The Park board has jerked the neighborhood, and the area, around a lot. It is time for some new park board members.

@conrad :
Definitely! And they need to be willing to restore/renovate the bridge in Glen Oak Park.

@conrad: Johnson has been there since 1996… Harant since 2016… the rest are all newer, including two who just completed their first year.

I live in the Central District. Johnson, Harant, Montez and Hill should start looking for a new gig.

@conrad: Just be careful what you wish/vote for. Montez has a deeper understanding of Parks & Recreation policies and procedures than nearly anyone else who would ever run for a Board slot. Then again, his is only one vote per issue.

@Turnit10 :
I don't disagree. The Central District reps have been too deferential to Johnson, though, and have become part of the problem.

I think the bigger problem is the relationship between Cahill and the Board of Trustees. Who is in charge? Who works for whom? Cahill works for the board and not the other way around. Too often it seems that Cahill is setting the policy, the broad vision, the agenda, and not the Board of Trustees. I do think Johnson needs to retire. But who would take his place? It is an unpaid thankless job that effectively is probably a full time position. Who wants that grief? The last election cycle, the answer was clear, no one.... cept Johnson.Cahill, for her part, is perpetuating Bonnie Nobel's disastrous ever expanding increase in park district obligations. The obligations and burdens expand, without any expansion of the tax payer base. Park District staff don't seem to understand that we are community of neighborhoods and seem to treat every project as being for some homogenous community that simply does not exist. The more money spent on Donovan park is less money spent south of War Memorial. I would hazard to guess, that most folks south of War, could care less what happens to Donovan, and wouldn't spend a dime on it. It's an ok park... but I don't use it. I don't live next to or near it. It is wasted resources. Meanwhile, the four original parks, Bradley, Trewyn, Glen Oak, and Madison continue to rot and be neglected in key ways.

Another way to highlight this... comes to pools. The Peoria Park district operates two public pools, John Gwyn, Proctor, and nominally a third, the Riverplex pool. In the district's eyes, they are open for and available to everyone... which again is technically true. John Gwyin and Proctor are both located on the south side. There is some satisfaction in seeing an injustice righted by having the most under served area be the only location for public pools in Peoria. Let's be real. For residents in the central and north districts of Peoria, there are no public pools. Swimming has effectively been privatized for anyone living north of Moss. Folks up north are not going to be driving to the south side for swimming lessons. Those on the south side are not going to be going up north either, if the situation was reversed. The two south side pools serve the south side. That's fine. That is a community GOOD! They are neighborhood pools serving the south side neighborhoods. The north sees it that way. The south sees it that way. The Park District can't seem to wrap their head around the whole neighborhoods concept. Lakeview should never have been closed. Pools are expensive to run but they fall solidly in the public domain that is the park district. The district... because of it's gross over extension of obligations, shuttered it because it could not afford to keep running it. The park district used to run the Central Pool too, by Central HS, but that has been fully privatized. For 3/4ths of Peoria, there is effectively no pool. If you want to learn to swim you have to either go private or go to another city. For the poor and underprivileged, you are probably SoL or you make the drive/commute south.

@Mahkno :
I agree with you that the Executive Director lacks direction from the board and seems to have forgotten that the Trustees are in charge. All the more reason for electing a board who will deal with that situation and others.

@Mahkno :
I agree with you that the Executive Director lacks direction from the board and seems to have forgotten that the Trustees are in charge. All the more reason for electing a board who will deal with that situation and others.

The best scenario for any efficiently run Park District is striking a solid balance between the Board and the staff, and then maintaining that balance. Easier said than done. The fact is, potential Board members run for a whole variety of reasons and stay various lengths of time once elected. They bring with them a wide range of work experiences, but quite often have little knowledge of public service work or Parks & Recreation philosophy, policy-making, or those related principles. Now enter the staff side of the equation. These are folks who work the issues every day, year after year, and sometimes decade after decade. While they are intensely aware that the final authority rests with how the Board votes, they also know one consistent fact - the Board RELIES on staff's expertise. They may ultimately reject it, modify it, table it, or accept it. But they do RELY on it, as well they should. So if it sometimes seems that the balance gets turned upside down insofar as authority appears to look, that is most often initiated by a Trustee requesting that the staff research a particular issue and report back to the Board as a whole. It's then up to a vote, which is typically made after a staff recommendation. The current high level staffers, with the exception of Cahill, have been with the Park District for 20 - 30 years, and are very talented in what they bring to our community. Emily has been in her Executive Director slot since 2016, but had worked directly with Bonnie Noble as her assistant for several years before being promoted.