Pantagraph: Explain why Tari is scared

By:  Diane Benjamin

The local paper has an article about the Cease and Desist email Bruce Meeks sent to the mayor.  See it HERE

I don’t know what the writer means saying Meeks is “raising questions” about the airline ticket to Japan, but I wonder why Renner chose to go after Bruce Meeks when I was the one who found it.  It was first reported by the Edgar County watchdogs on July 30, 2017:  Bloomingtons Mayor Renner Has City Pay For Girlfriends Japan Trip

Has the Pantagraph ever asked the Council why they approved payment of a plane ticket for a non-employee?

Once Tari determines his “talking points”, he repeats them over and over hoping people will eventually take them as fact.

No Tari, Bruce has never sued the City of Bloomington.  Filing Request for Reviews with the Attorney General’s office is not a lawsuit.  Since Tari can’t produce a police report where he was “assaulted”, maybe he’s dropped that claim.

Requests for Review are the only outlet citizens have to make sure the law is followed by public bodies.  Keep in mind the City of Blooming has been found guilty of Open Meeting Act violations. Other procedures, like committees and public comment, had to be changed to comply with the law because citizens like Bruce Meeks filed with  the AG’s office.  If the law mattered to Renner and company such filings would never be needed.

The story ends with a statement about Renner reimbursing the City for his girlfriend’s plane ticket, it almost sounds like the writer thinks the issue is petty.

The charge is being investigated by the Illinois State Police because of this statement in the Illinois Constitution:

It’s pretty short.

It’s really clear too.

It is illegal in the State of Illinois to use government funds for any purpose that doesn’t serve the public.

Tari borrowed money from the City via a PCard for Margot’s plane ticket.  That would be CREDIT.

Imagine the chaos if every one of the City’s over 200 PCard holders made personal charges and reimbursed them too.  The City would need another employee just to track all the charges and payments.  That’s why it’s illegal under the law and clearly spelled out in the City’s PCard policy that personal purchases are not allowed.

By not reporting what the law says, the Pantagraph is promoting the same acrimony Renner spouts to any media source that allows him to open his mouth.  His supporters on Facebook are calling the State Police investigation a witch hunt.  It isn’t, it’s called investigating a crime.  Since it is taking months, are they investigating other things?

We will find out eventually.  Tari has reason to be scared.





20 thoughts on “Pantagraph: Explain why Tari is scared

  1. I do not know if he is wise enough to be afraid. Is it possible he is to arrogant to believe he is going to be held accountable?


    1. I’m not sure if he has ever been held accountable for anything, so he prolly thinks he’ll skate again this time – this time, I hope he falls flat on his face and is prosecuted and found guilty on all counts, but his sort always act as if they are innocent because they truly believe they are above the law ( You know “SOME animals are more equal than others”)


  2. First ACTUAL good article the Pantagraph has had in a LONG time. Although they DO make Taris CRIME sound petty the law is VERY CLEAR as to the use of Pcards..
    and as for Tari being scared, well, where there’s smoke-there’s fire….But IWU will protect him as he’s their politico bureau…


    1. IWU should start looking into Teri also. Someone needs to shut him down from all this mess he has put Bloomington into from the beginning to the hopeful final end of dishonesty and lies.


      1. I am no fan of this twice-rebuked dishonorable and disreputable mayor, but…

        The mayors’ job at Illinois Wesleyan is none of our concern. That is an arrangement that predates his tenure as mayor and, as far as I can tell, he has done nothing that violates the terms of his contract – evidenced by the fact he is still employed there.

        If they don’t mind our ‘lil Princeling of the Prairie acting like a spoiled self-entitled jackass, then this is their concern – not ours.

        The actions of the council, however, are our concern.

        Putting aside the questions and investigation by the Illinois State Police of his P-Card abuse, is Rosie’s favorite patron still the only sitting member of the Bloomington Liquor Commission? Is this not in violation of city ordinance (requiring three commissioners)? Doesn’t being twice rebuked for irresponsible behavior by the council automatically disqualify him from chairing this commission? Doesn’t being rebuked by a majority of the council not require a more punitive measure than another simple letter shaming the mayor for his actions (again)? I think it should – especially in light of the fact that the mayor recently needed time-off due to the ‘burdens’ of such responsibilities.

        If the law mattered, this would be a simple question for the council to answer and cure.

        I’m not holding my breath awaiting such wisdom from this council, but I invite them nonetheless to prove me wrong.


      2. Without looking up the ordinance, I would wager to guess that it doesn’t call for ‘assistants’, but fully empowered voting commissioners. Am I wrong?

        If this council were interested in governing, this would be an easy fix.

        If the Mayor was applying to head the commission before the council – the same council that has twice rebuked him for his behavior – would he get the job? I’d like to think not, but who knows with this council. So, why does he have the job now?

        Remove the Mayor from the commission, and empanel a new commission.


      3. (sighs)

        This is why I am an Anarch.

        If the ‘commissioners’ can be nothing more than ‘assistants’ with jobs which the mayor has given to them, can he simply take them away at his discretion as well? If the answer to this is ‘yes’, then it isn’t too hard for those ‘commissioners’ to know who butters their bread. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the two ‘commissioners’ would vote in opposition to someone who has bestowed such patronage on them? Who would throw away a no-show job with a nice title and some pocket money (I assume they aren’t working for free) for the sake of an honest opinion?

        If the answer is ‘no’, then why hasn’t the Bloomington City Council not provided the oversight function that it has sworn to provide? What excuse do they offer for abrogating such responsibilities? Is this commission independent and immune from their oversight?

        If so, then why am I not providing such oversight with MY vote at an election box? If not, then they should get on with doing what we elected them to do.

        If a representative body can craft an ordinance to empower a Liquor Commission and allow it to exist in such a configuration, how is this not codifying an avenue for potential corruption to exist?

        Or am I being paranoid, seeing how ‘liquor’ and ‘corruption’ have never been an issue EVER in the history of government…especially in Illinois? (/end sarcasm)

        These are all fine and serious questions for serious people, and I hold no expectation of them being seriously addressed adequately by the many naive and childish minds who currently occupy seats at our beloved ‘horseshoe’.

        Am I shocked this condition can exist and persist? No. Actually, it is nothing more than the normal operating mode and evolution of any government regardless the size. What I do find fascinating is discovering the ways such things are done – ‘legally’, of course.


      4. The Liquor Commission operates under a totally different set of laws dating back to prohibition. The council has to approve what happens liquor licenses that come out of the commission, but they have little power otherwise. Before Tari there were at least 5 people, the mayor didn’t wield all the power.


      5. Thank you for indulging me this afternoon.

        By looking at this seldom gazed upon function of city business, I hope that I have pointed out sufficiently that this is not something which remotely resembles the spirit of representative government with adequate oversight powers.

        In other words, It looks like any other immoral and criminal enterprise.

        Thank you Diane. Hope Andy is well.


  3. I sure am hoping some students, current or past, step forward with claims that Tari has made disparaging remarks to them. That would be more icing on the cake if they did.


    1. There are other citizens who have had disparaging remarks made about them in public. Renner is going after Bruce because Bruce actually had the courage to act against potential wrongdoing by requesting a formal investigation by the ISP. If Renner weren’t scared or concerned, he would not be thrashing around so much.


  4. Taken from an article today at, titled > It’s Over: Top Democrat Faces Prison For 10 Years… And Blames Trump For It “This comes after Emanuel introduced a “Welcome to Chicago Ordinance,” labeling his city as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. Little did he know he was signing himself up to face up to ten years in prison.”
    Hey Tari,,,Tari, are you there? Lol,,,pay attention now. Tell Blago we said, “Hi.”


  5. As for Tari having tenure at I.W.U. that don’t REALLY matter IF they want to get rid of him. Years back-in the early 70’s or so, they had ANOTHER Political Science prof ( I believe that was his dept) name of John Burt, who had a lot of “allegations” against him, so they did away with his position-no position, no job, simple.
    He had the SAME likable personality that Tari has.. GOD complex..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s