Court ruling may give new meaning to "open mic"

The ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that strikes down the state statute prohibiting the recording of conversations without permission may not be the panacea a lot of people are hoping for.

            The Chicago Tribune reports that the statute was considered among the strictest in the Country.  The Court said loud conversations in public could not “be deemed private”, noting “…a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others.”

            The case was, to no surprise, complicated and came as a result of recordings made by Annabel Melongo who recorded three telephone conversations she had with a court reporter supervisor at the Leighton Criminal Court Building about the policy for correcting a hearing transcript.  Melongo was convicted and spent 20 months in Cook County Jail.  Melongo also posted those recordings on the Internet.

            While the Court’s ruling does not specifically cite the recording of telephone conversations, you can bet that there are those people who will record anything without asking.

            And therein lies the problem.

            For responsible citizens and journalists, the use of recording devises is a useful backup to ensure accuracy as no one likes to be misquoted.  Freedom to record does not diminish the need for courtesy and ethics. It seems logical that a reporter, or other individual seeking to record a conversation, would inform the interviewee – whether it’s an in-person or phone interview.  I imagine there will be a new round of protocol for both interviewers and interviewees.

            For interviewers, inform; for interviewees ask.  If the Court ruling does in fact cover telephone interviews, do people now have to answer their phone “hello, please don’t record this”?

            So while people will point the finger are over-zealous interviewers, there seems to be a possibility that some people, especially public officials, may clam up out of fear of being recorded.  Good by transparency.  At some point, in some way, the two sides need to work together.   Responsible recorders, and for the sake of argument, journalists need to have full disclosure from public officials no matter how the information is being taken down – writer or recorded.  Conversely, journalists will need to follow ethical standards and not be deceitful in how they record (written or audio) information.

            The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists state that journalists should“…Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story…”  Quite simply, in most cases, do not be deceitful.

            At a time when there are more and more “citizen journalists” professional journalists need to maintain or raise the bar of ethical news gathering.  A gentle reminder that a conversation is being recorded is a great step to incorporate.

            Conversely, interviewees, especially public officials, need to recognize the need for transparency and not hide behind a microphone.

            It’s a two-way street and in the end, it’s the news consumer who benefits the most.

            For a look at the opinion by the Illinois Supreme Court, go to Eavesdropping Opinion

It's all Dominick's fault..

I'm sleeping better recently, thank you very much.

In the past two weeks I have been at ease -- as if I have found the answers to everyday problems.  Problems that plague us near and far.  Local and global.

The answer to what ails us can best be summed up in two words.

Blame Dominick's.

That's right -- Dominick's.

Car not running well --  Blame Dominick's.

Kids  misbehaving -- Blame Dominick's.

Taxes too high -- Blame Dominick's.

Cubs facing another miserable year -- Blame Dominick's.

Well, OK -- maybe not quite everything.

But if you are on the development team for the nearly vacant eyesore at Dundee and Buffalo Grove roads, best known as Cambridge Commons that seems like the logical choice.  Just blame Dominick’s.

You remember Dominick’s – the Chicago-grown grocery chain that sold to a national conglomerate that promptly ran it into the ground and then ultimately out of town.

The result of the shuttering of Dominick’s left the village with three, count ‘em, three vacant stores.  Two have been taken over, one, at Half Day and Buffalo Grove roads; will become a Mariano’s while another one at Dundee and Buffalo Grove roads is becoming a Garden Fresh.  Plans for the remaining site, at Arlington Heights and Lake-Cook roads have not been determined.

There was, is, may be yet another grocery store coming to Buffalo Grove.  If you believe 14 Dundee Road LLC, developers of Cambridge Commons, Fresh Farms wants to come into Buffalo Grove.  At least that’s what they said in August of 2012 when 14 Dundee approached the Village Board.

They were looking for support, not to mention incentives, from the village – and they got it – to the tune of a pledge for $1.1 million.  Among the things the village required was a new look at the center – start with the façade.

No problem.  Or so it seems.  As time marched on the 14 Dundee asked for, and received, extensions from the village. How great is that?  You get a pledge of $1.1 million to redevelop a prime location and you get more and more time to do it.

            Last September it seemed as though things were going well – extensions and all.  The Village Board approved permits so work could begin.  All the Board asked was that it be completed in 180 days – by March 22.

            No doubt, there are folks saying the Village is being mean and nasty and demanding that after nearly two years and a pledge of $1.1 million in incentives, that something be done,

            There was.  The developers came to the Board Feb. 26 and asked for, you guessed it, another extension.

            Bad idea.  Very bad idea. The Board did not take too kindly to the request.  Not at all.  In fact, the Board’s reaction was the harshest toward a developer that I can remember.

            There’s no doubt that the village would like to have a stronger retail environment.  The reality is however, there is so much the village staff and the board can do.  Promote the village, yes; offer incentives, yes; rent spaces, no.

            So after offering incentives and extensions left and right, patience ran out.

            The process, you would think, would be a two-way street.   A developer wants something, the village says OK, but we would like you to do this or that. You would think this would kind of logic would make sense.

            But after offering the aforementioned incentive, which, by the way, was taxpayer money, the Board ran out of patience of navigating what 14 Dundee LLC had made a one-way street, especially after the Board gave approval and issued a permit for work to be done.  This permit, for work on the façade, was issued in September.

            And where was it as of last week?  Still at Village Hall.

            Seems as though the folks over at 14 Dundee LLC just didn’t have a chance to pick it up.

            The reason?  None was given, but they kept bouncing back to Oct. 10, 2013 when Dominick’s announced it was calling it quits in Chicago.  That, the developer said, through a loop into the plans of Fresh Farms.  They had to rethink their plans.  After more than 18 months, Dominick’s was the issue.  Nearly six months after being granted a permit to begin work on project that had $1.1 million in village incentives, Dominick’s was the problem.

            If Dundee14 LLC wants to know where the problem lies, they should stop looking across the street from Cambridge Commons and look someplace else.

          Like in a mirror.