Meeting Forrest

I introduced M. Peevie to Forrest Claypool at a party this weekend.  "Forrest," I said, "This is one of your youngest campaign volunteers, my daughter, M. Peevie."  He smiled and reached out to shake her hand.  She looked confused.
 

"You remember waving signs from the overpass a couple of years ago when Forrest ran in a different election, M. Peevie?" I reminded her.  She tipped her head to the side and looked him up and down.

"But I thought we didn't know him," she said.

"You don't," I said, "but I do."

"But I thought he was famous or something!" she said, and he laughed.  "Only in certain circles," he said.

Later, at home, M. Peevie picked up one of Forrest's flyers for his independent candidacy for Cook County Assessor.  She pointed to his photo.  "Oh," she said, "That really was Forrest Claypool."  Because without independent verification, she might not be able to trust that we were telling her the truth.  That her mother was telling her the truth.

What is up with that?

Solving the CTA Crisis

I suspect that the CTA problem is more complicated than it looks on the surface--but it seems fairly obvious that the CTA union bosses are not helping their members by insisting on keeping their raises in place and disallowing unpaid furlough days.

Even other major labor leaders have urged the CTA union to give up the raises in order to save the jobs. Almost 1100 CTA workers will be laid off to make up for a $95.6 million budget shortfall. I bet many more than just the guy in this article would be happy to give up their raises in order to keep their jobs. The omnipresent Father Pfleger stood by CTA union workers asking the union to back the smack off.

It stinks to not get a promised raise, and it's rotten to have to take unpaid furlough days. But that's what many of us are going through these days. Many of us not only have not had raises, but have experienced economic hardships in the form of less overtime pay, fewer clients, lower wages, and unpaid vacation days.

I'm confident that CTA management is not without fault in the matter. As of a year ago, according to the Chicago Sun Times, 150 CTA managers make more than $100,000 per year. The head of marketing makes almost $200k. The CTA union president claims that the number of managers at each bus garage has increased from five in 1994 to 20 today. I have not been able to verify this claim, but if it's true, or even mostly true, then it does seem like bloated management is a big part of the problem.

Meanwhile, it's not just the 1000 laid-off workers that are paying the price. So are students and commuters across Chicago; and in some cases, minority and low-income communities are feeling the biggest hurt. Six of the nine eliminated express routes serve low-income neighborhoods on the South and West sides.

Here's my idea: Get an independent arbitrator into the room with the CTA bosses and the union bosses, with a table but no chairs. No one sits and no one leaves until the problem is solved.

I volunteer. I will need lots of Diet Coke, my brother (who can help me understand and crunch the numbers), a dry-erase board and markers, a bunch of yellow pads, and several boxes of multi-colored Ultra Fine Point Sharpies.

Praying Over Sewers, Liquor Licenses and Variances

The Freedom From Religion Foundation recently targeted Wheaton, Illinois, urging officials to discontinue their practice of offering a prayer at the beginning of city council meetings.

My first thought on this is, Why does a national group with its headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin, need to insert itself into the affairs of a small Illinois town? Shouldn't they trust the citizens of Wheaton to make decisions for themselves?

So I looked into the archives of the FFRF, and discovered that the complaint actually originated with a Wheaton resident, who wrote a letter asking that the invocations be discontinued. So that's a different story, right? He has a right to complain, because it's his city also. He didn't get satisfaction: the Mayor said, "No one has ever complained before!"--which is not an answer. When the complaint comes from one of your tax-paying residents, you have to deal with it.

In response to the FFRE complaint, the city has tweaked its policy about prayers during council meetings. The invocation will be given before the mayor officially bangs the gavel to start the meeting. This is not good enough for the FFRF, whose spokesperson Annie Laurie Gaylor said, "Why do they need to pray over sewers, liquor licenses, and variances?"

Tomes have been written about prayer by ancient church fathers, Reformation-era leaders, and contemporary teachers and theologians, and I won't attempt to give a thorough treatment here. But the short answer is: Prayer is conversation with God, and we pray because we believe God hears our prayers.

The God of the universe hears and answers our prayers! And not just our prayers about so-called spiritual matters, because this dichotomy between sacred and secular is false. Jesus, we believe, is Lord of all things, not just Lord of churchy things. And that's why we pray over sewers, liquor licenses and variances.

But even though the question about praying over variances has theoretical appeal and practical value, it is irrelevant in these circumstances. The issue for Jesus-followers in this situation is not whether it is legitimate to pray about city business, but whether it is a matter of Christian principle to insist upon doing so. The guiding principle, I believe, comes from Romans 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

There is no need for the believers on the city council of Wheaton to insist on their legal right to pray at the meeting, whether before or after the gavel. It's not connected to any Biblical mandate, and it doesn't accomplish anything that prayer at a separate time and place wouldn't accomplish. Insisting on praying at the meeting appears to be more of a flexing of political muscle than a demonstration of Christlike humility and a desire live at peace with everyone.

We'll give Dietrich Bonhoeffer the last word:

The followers of Christ have been called to peace. . . . And they must not only have peace but also make it. And to that end they renounce all violence and tumult. In the cause of Christ nothing is to be gained by such methods. . . . His disciples keep the peace by choosing to endure suffering themselves rather than inflict it on others. They maintain fellowship where others would break it off. They renounce hatred and wrong. In so doing they over-come evil with good, and establish the peace of God in the midst of a world of war and hate. (The Cost of Discipleship)

What do you think?

Backing the Bid. I Think.

I know that loyal Green Room followers (we're up to 16 now!) are eagerly waiting for this blog to weigh in on Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics. No time like the present, because the announcement comes in a little over a day.

At first, I was completely gung-ho in favor of Chicago's bid to host the Olympics. I mean, how great would it be to have The Olympics HERE, in our own backyard? Think of the glory! Think of the excitement! Think of the infrastructure improvements and business opportunities!

Then I started reading more about the bid, from both opponents and supporters. Now I'm all confused and undecided.

This recent opinion piece in the Tribune from Edward Snyder, Dean of the University of Chicago School of Business, superficially suggests that the Games will "result in lasting value for generations to come." Setting aside the barren cliches and repetitive phraseology (the more degrees a person has, the more his writing suffers!), Snyder asks one relevant question--will investing in the Olympics "create lasting value" for the city?--but does not supply adequate proofs for his affirmative answer.

Chicago2016.org persuasively argues that Chicago is a great place for the Olympics in terms of venues, convenience, beauty, and accessibility. But the real question is, will hosting the Olympics hurt Chicago financially in the long run, or help it--and there is substantial disagreement on this point. The 2016 Committee, of course, asserts that the proposed operating budget is realistically in the black.

The Civic Federation's analysis found that the Chicago 2016 proposed operating budget "provides adequate protection for taxpayers" at the same time that it recommends strategies for managing the real financial risks. The International Olympic Committee called Chicago's financial plan "ambitious but believable" with "an extensive sponsorship program."

Our city council voted unanimously earlier this month in favor of a "full governmental financial guarantee" for the city's $4.8 billion bid. I don't know whether the alder-creatures' full support makes me feel more secure about the financial risks of the bid, or more nervous. After all, these are the people who put the parking meter fiasco in motion.

On the opposite side of the bid, we have Chicagoans for Rio 2016, a satirical look at some real reasons to take a pause about backing the bid. CfR2016 even offers an online store selling shirts, bags, mugs and magnets emblazoned with the Chicagoans for Rio logo, featuring a runner dropping the Olympic torch. We love satire here at the Green Room.

Plus, my Edison friend Matt Farmer has been a one-man media blitz, posting his opposition more than once on Huffington Post and even tunefully opposing the bid with a YouTube satirical melody.

No Games Chicago attempts to make the case that we face an either/or choice between creating better hospitals, housing, schools and trains versus hosting the Olympics. I really don't get this argument. Are the nabobs saying that if we don't get the Olympics, the city will spend more on those items? Are they saying that if we get the Olympics, they will suck money away from schools and housing?

Some think that the Olympics will have the opposite effect: The Chicago Tribune recently suggested that "the games represent what could be [Mayor Daley's] best chance of overcoming the financial troubles that have made his job increasingly difficult." As in Snyder's piece quoted earlier, however, the reporter doesn't back it up.

As I said, I'm conflicted. I really, really want to be on board, to welcome the world to Chicago in 2016. I just don't know.

How's that for fence-sitting? And what do you think?

UPDATE: I'm sure you've heard by now that Chicago lost in the first round of IOC voting. I felt like I got kicked in the gut. My heart wanted the Olympics here, even though my head said it would probably end badly for Chicago taxpayers and (many) residents.

Now I'm just pissed off at the people who are using this as yet another opportunity for Obama-bashing. But I guess that's a blopic for another day.

Minority Report: Chicago

Why do people think we need more rules and more laws? Why do people think it's a good idea to make rules or laws governing problems that MIGHT occur at some point in the future?

Some day, when I am the benevolent despot, I will make the inherently ironic law that there are enough laws already, and no more law-making will be tolerated. Don't you think by now we have enough laws to cover everything?

At church, TPTB (come on, you know this one: The Powers That Be) were discussing whether or not to make a rule proscribing coffee in the sanctuary. Why? Because at some point in the future, we might get carpet, and then someone might spill coffee on it. Give me a break.

In the same Minority Report spirit, our city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications will enact a "voluntary moratorium" on alcohol sales in Wrigleyville after the seventh inning of a clinch game "to prevent Cubs playoff celebrations from turning ugly," the Sun-Times reported Monday. In other words, they're afraid something bad might happen.

Don't we already have enough rules, regulations, ordinances, and laws to cover this situation? It's already against the law to over-serve alcohol to already-impaired customers. Drunk and disorderly conduct and driving under the influence are arrestable offenses.

Why can't we just enforce the laws that are already in place--and let those of us who are mature enough to drink responsibly still have a beer? I hate being told what to do; and if I were a bar owner, I'd hate being told how to run my business by a bunch of bored civil servants.

I heard someone suggest that this extraneous rule-making is likely related to Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics. The less negative publicity we have, the better our chances to pluck that primo opportunity; and theoretically, the one-hour alcohol moratorium will reduce the chance that Wrigleyville will erupt into a mad, dangerous, frenzy of out-of-control celebration-related destruction.

But I think it makes more sense to take a less totalitarian approach: Increase police presence. Ask bar owners to increase their vigilance about over-serving--but don't prevent them from making a living serving the 99 percent of people who won't overdo it.

What do you think?

Oh, and go Cubs!

Thank You, Todd Stroger

I guess if we're dumb enough to let it happen, we deserve it. If we're dumb enough to elect a comatose county president, knowing that the Machine of Nepotism would plop his tax-happy son into the seat as soon as Captain Coma could blink out his resignation, then I guess we deserve what we got.

After all, Stroger's unapologetic slogan proclaims "Revenue is Reform."

Stroger and some of his not-so-civic-minded county commissioner colleagues enacted yet another tax hike which took effect today. With the Cook County rate at 9 percent, the sales tax in Chicago is now 10.25 percent, higher than the rate in any other city in the entire country.

I wonder: is this what President Stroger means when he says in his Cook County web site bio that his administration is "committed to reinventing Cook County government, by effecting real change in the government’s operations and finding creative solutions to its myriad challenges"?

Because if so? I call bullshit.

This tax hike is going to hurt everybody. Consumers and businesses alike. This article in the Southtown Star reports that a commercial developer in Tinley Park has already capitalized on the tax increase by urging businesses in south Cook County to consider relocating, citing the tax bite as an unnecessary business buster.

Mr. Stroger has shown himself to be plenty out of touch with reality: After spending Cook County money to upgrade his vehicle to a brand-new SUV that does not meet county vehicle environmental ordinances, he plans to spend Federal Homeland Security money to retro-fit it with computers and communications equipment. Because, Stroger says, "As the president, I'm the head of Emergency Management Homeland Security. So if anything happens...we need a vehicle that will get us [to headquarters]."

Puh-leeze.

We only have one option, people, and that's to start making plans NOW to get this guy and his cronies out of Cook County government. This Tribune editorial has some ideas for how to make it happen. So does Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool.

Let's not make the same dumb mistake twice.

Radio Debut

Question: What do the second amendment, the Chicago Police Superintendent, parental responsibility, and unreached people groups have in common?

Answer: They're all topics that Dave and I discussed on last Friday night's stirring episode of The Dave and Chris Show, brought to you live on The Internet. You would have known that if you had tuned in.

At one point we had upward of four listeners at one time. As a virgin substitute radio host, I have to say, it was exhilarating. Well, OK, not exhilarating. But definitely fun.

We even briefly spoke to my brother DeeDee in Buenos Aires. We called him to ask his opinion about the likelihood of the existence of dozens of tribes un-touched by modern civilization, mostly in South America. He's the closest thing to an expert that we could come up with on short notice.

Plus, when I got home, Mr. Peevie said I had a deep and sexy radio voice. "Your voice on the the radio was deep and sexy," he said, "I was like, 'Whoa!'"

And then I made him say it again. A girl can't get too many compliments like that, you know. I'm used to hearing my voice coming out kind of shrill, in a yelling-at-my-kids kind of way, so I was pleasantly surprised.

Dave is having technical difficulties with posting the recording, but I'm confident that it'll be up soon and you can squander a perfectly good hour and a half listening to my radio debut.

Nepotistic Nonsense in Cook County

Patronage sucks, both literally and figuratively.

I am chafed and incensed that Cook County officials get away with this kind of nepotistic nonsense: a 12 percent pay hike for the CFO--who happens to be the first cousin of Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. She'll make $160,000 after the $18,000 raise.

In a CBS2 news video, Donna Dunnings defended her exorbitant increase, saying, "I work 12- to 17-hour days...the employees of Cook County see me more than my two children...I do have 20 years of experience, and I am the first African-American as well as the first female" to hold the job.

If Dunnings really does consistently work 12- to 17-hour days it doesn't mean she should get a raise--it means she should take some time and personnel management courses. The woman needs to learn to delegate!

And I don't even believe that she works those kinds of hours. A 17-hour work-day leaves seven hours for sleeping, eating, peeing, transportation, and everything else. I call bullshit.

A county government official doesn't deserve a raise that's nine percent higher than her subordinates unless she can point to prodigious accomplishments and documented improvements in county government. Working hard doesn't cut it--she's supposed to work hard. Nor does having the right amount of experience; again, that's a given. And especially not having the right race or gender! Some of those qualities might help her get the job--but they have nothing to do with deserving a massive, disproportionate raise.

Dunnings' defense of her inappropriate, selfish, excessive raise smacks of entitlement, which of course is the sleazy, insubordinate stepchild of patronage. This is just one example of patronage sucking resources out of the county budget, which has already gained national notoriety for having the highest cumulative sales tax rate in the U.S.

In general, the art of government consists of taking
as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to
another.

Ms. Dunning, Mr. Stroger--Voltaire was being sardonic! He didn't intend for you to take it to heart. Can you re-think your philosophy of government, please?

Give Process a Chance

We had a public hearing tonight about the recommendation of the Chicago Public School Superintent Arne Duncan to relocate Edison Regional Gifted Center into a facility that will be shared with another (middle) school. The gym was packed with Edison blue, and also with neighborhood residents, many of whom favor the move so that the building can be used as a neighborhood school.

Edison parents spoke with eloquence and passion about why this proposal is bad news. Some came prepared with reams of documentation and research about gifted education in stand-alone programs. Some spoke with tears, some with sarcasm, some with anger--but everyone behaved (for the most part) with civility and respect.

(There was a tiny shouting match when one Edison speaker suggested that perhaps the neighborhood kids should be bused to Albany Park; and the neighborhood speaker who claimed that Edison parents accused neighborhood residents of being racist was vociferously contradicted.)

Some local residents were unhappy and walked out of the meeting because after an hour and a half, none of them had been called on. Sign-up for speaking started at 4 p.m., and they took the speakers in the order in which they signed up. I signed up at about 4:35, and I didn't get to have my say until 2 1/2 hours into the meeting.

I argued, of course, for a fair and inclusive decision-making process. Here's my speech:

Abraham Lincoln was arguing with a political opponent. "How many legs does a cow have?" he asked his adversary.

"Four, of course," came the disgusted reply.

"That's right," agreed Lincoln. "Now suppose you call the cow's tail a leg; how many legs would the cow have?

"Why, five, of course," was the confident reply.

"Now, that's where you're wrong," said Lincoln. "Calling a cow's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Calling this last minute forum a “process” does not make it a process. Calling something fair when it’s not does not make it so. Saying that a decision is for the good of the children does not make it good for the children.

Giving something the right spin and making it sound good does not make it right and good. What makes it right and good, especially when honest and fair-minded people disagree, is the process that you used to arrive at the decision.

In government, in management, in human relationships—pretty much in all of life, fair process is the bridge that turns war into peace, mutiny into morale, and personal conflict into reconciliation.

Husbands and wives—at least those in healthy relationships--rely on process to make their marriages work. Successful businesses rely on inclusive, transparent processes to motivate their employees and remain profitable. Freedom-loving governments—and their governmental bodies like public school systems—are established based on the principles of fair process.

In this battleground over our little school, it does not matter if you are in favor of the move to Albany Park or opposed to it. Frankly, I myself am a tiny bit ambivalent—I can see both positive and negative points about it.

But what I am NOT ambivalent about is the process that got us to this point where unelected administrators get to make decisions about the future of my child’s education in the absence of a fair and open process.

I am NOT ambivalent—and in fact, I’m livid—about the comments of Peter Cunningham who was quoted as a spokesman for CPS in a recent article in the Reader. He said we are getting off the issue by focusing on what he calls “parental notification.” He said, “Are you pissed off how we rolled it out? Fine. But to make a big issue out of who knew what when is silly. The real issue is whether this is right for the kids.”

This is wrong on so many levels it makes me want to drink gin straight out of the bottle. What Peter Cunningham refers to as “parental notification” and what he means when he says “how we rolled it out” is PROCESS. He is saying that process is silly; that process does not matter.

He sounds very noble when he says that the real issue is whether “this is right for the kids.”

But Peter Cunningham and Arne Duncan and the rest of the bureaucrats at CPS are really and truly missing the boat on this one, because guess what? It’s my child and your child that they are making unilateral decisions about, and it is not silly or unimportant to care about the process and the rationale and the politics that goes into those decisions.

In fact, it’s my job as a parent. And when you suggest that we’re doing this because we’re ‘pissed off’ and that we’re not focusing on whether this is right for the kids, you are walking on very thin ice, my friend. You do not even want to go down that road.

Yes, this is about what is right for the kids. And how do we determine what is right for the kids? You got it. Process.

Process matters when adults disagree and need to reach consensus. Process matters—and tea gets dumped into harbors—when governments try to impose taxation without representation.
And process matters when one tiny school in one large and bureaucratic public school system gets shuffled around like a tune on an I-pod.

So here’s what I recommend: Stop this bulldozer of a plan to move Edison. Instead, set up a process that includes all the stakeholders—Edison parents, north side residents, Albany Park residents, CPS—and gives everyone a chance to have their say, ask--and get answers to--their questions, and solve problems together. Build in enough time so that parents have choices about where their child will attend school. Make sure that everyone feels heard and no one is marginalized in the decision-making process.

At the end, we probably still won’t all agree. That’s OK. But ultimately, you’ll have more understanding, more consensus, more and better ideas. Whatever the final outcome looks like, it will be fair, because the process will have been fair. And then the decision-makers can legitimately say that they’ve done what is best for the children.

Give Process a Chance.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and many of you have the chance to go to the polls and vote in the primaries of the presidential election. I should have done this before now, but it's not too late for me to tell you why I'm voting for Barack Obama. Here it is:

1. I believe he is the most likely candidate to bring a swift end to the costly war in Iraq--or at least, to our participation in it. The civil war (are they even calling it that yet?) will probably go on for years, but our presence there is not making things better. It's only getting Americans killed and turning our foreign policy into target practice for the rest of the free world.

Mr. Peevie said to me yesterday that this single issue is becoming a litmus test for a presidential candidate. It seems likely that McCain will get the Republican nod, and he seems committed to the surge and a long-term commitment of troops to the region.

2. He has creative, aggressive, and bold ideas for dealing with this country's most urgent and far-reaching domestic concern: energy. We use oil, gas, and electricity often without even thinking about it--but we need to be paying attention, and not only when we're complaining about how expensive gas is. (Maybe it's good that gas is $45 per gallon because we will finally begin to be willing to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels!)

Look at John McCain's web site. He doesn't even mention energy, gas, alternative sources of energy, fuel--nothing. Also, nothing about poverty, helping low-income working families, or education, either.

3. Obama is better equipped than anyone else in this race to understand and respond to national and international issues in an open-minded, fair, and politically sensitive way. We as a nation will gradually shed the image of a bossy, narrow-minded, jingoistic bully, and we will regain the admiration and respect of other nations who look to the United States to set the standard for human rights and self-determination.

4. Obama is believable when he talks about changing the way politics works. I'm not saying that I naively believe that the system won't change him, or that he'll be able to do everything he says he wants to do. But Obama makes a strong case for making bi-partisanship, process, and fairness realities in our political environment. Reading his book The Audacity of Hope actually put a glimmer of hope for our political future in my cynical soul!

To my Republican friends (you know who you are!), I am respectfully urging you to become a crossover voter, like lifelong Republican Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower. She described Obama as "a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded."

To my Democratic or undecided friends, I am respectfully urging you to make a choice for change: change in the direction of the war in Iraq, change in our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, change in politics-as-usual (including the influence of special interest groups), and change in the grumpy, mildly depressed political mood of our country. (You feel it, too, right?)

This hope for change, this anti-depressant in the form of a candidate, is Barack Obama. Vote tomorrow!

Rare Parents Who Care

Like that alliteration? Me too.

My oldest son, C. Peevie, goes to a Chicago Public School, Edison Regional Gifted Center. It's been, for the most part, a successful academic setting for him. Edison has attracted some really wonderful teachers that have nurtured C.P. both mentally and emotionally; and he's certainly been challenged to learn and perform at an accelerated pace.

I love the diversity of the families at Edison. The school is racially and geographically integrated, with kids coming from all different parts of the city to be a part of this educational community that consistently rates among the top three in the entire state year after year. (It's not, however, terribly economically diverse, being the school with the smallest percentage of kids that qualify for subsidized lunches in the CPS system.)

But here's what's really outstanding about this school: the parents. Especially the parents of the kids in C. Peevie's class, but many of the other parents as well. They are involved in their kids lives, motivated to participate in the life of the school, generous, kind, helpful. They know their kids are smart, but they see them as so much more than just little brains. C. Peevie has classmates who volunteer in nursing homes, clean up the beaches on Earth Day, and serve meals at homeless shelters. They pull together to help each other out with big things, like when a family has a crisis, or in little things, like when a kid needs a ride home after school.

Every year these public school parents put on a fund-raising event that collects tens of thousands of dollars. I think they've raised $70K or $80K every year in the last few years. They solicit local businesses for goods and services, they donate valuable items, they bid hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for kid-created artwork and unique teacher-sponsored activities. They are committed to getting a good education for their kids, and they put their money, time and energy where their mouths are.

So now the CPS big shots, in all their wisdom, have recommended moving this perennially successful school from its current building to a different location in order to make room locally for neighborhood kids currently attending overcrowded schools. The Edison parents are moving mountains to make sure their voices get heard about this poorly-planned, poorly communicated proposal.

Not every parent is opposed to the move, but most of us can understand the concerns that others have expressed about the process, the issues with the new location, and the resources that we have poured into our current space. What's remarkable to me about this whole situation is how invested and involved these public school parents are. Not just the members of the PTO and local school council, either. They're writing letters, making phone calls, mounting PR campaigns, using vacation days to attend school board meetings, making speeches, and attending Saturday morning meetings to strategize and write position papers.

They're doing everything short of challenging the Superintendent of CPS to a duel to the death--but there's one guy, the parent of a kindergartener, who is headed in that direction.

Technically, the fate of Edison has yet to be decided by the vote of the school board. Technically, there is still a public forum where citizens can voice their concerns. But the technicalities seem like after-the-fact formalities that won't actually influence the decision. If this is really the case, then it's just not right.

I'm not one of the ardent nay-sayers opposed to the move in general. I am, however, vehemently opposed to bad process. Process is what keeps us civil and civilized. A fair process by definition results in a fair outcome, and this is what these committed, energetic parents--and their children--deserve.

So, Arne Duncan, and the rest of the Chicago Public Schools board, if you're listening, and I hope you are, here are my questions: Has this process been fair? Has it been unduly influenced by politics? Have parents really had a fair chance to be heard? If not, then what's the harm in postponing the decision until later this year, after there's been time for real and true citizen and parent input?

I look forward to hearing from you.