Insurer files amended complaint against ex-WTVP execs

The Cincinnati Insurance Co. on  Dec. 29 filed an amended complaint against two former WTVP-TV executives, changing the specific allegations against Linda McLaughlin and the late Lesley Matuszak.

In a suit filed last March, the insurer is seeking to recover the $250,000 the company paid the TV station as part of WTVP’s claim of financial losses between 2019 and 2023. WTVP’s insurance policy provided coverage for employee theft, fraud and embezzlement, the insurance company said.

Matuszak, WTVP’s former Chief Executive Officer, died shortly after WTVP’s board questioned spending. She’s accused of having improperly taken station funds for personal use (“conversion”) and theft of WTVP funds (“unjust enrichment”). Matuszak’s estate is the named defendant; no response has been filed on the estate’s behalf. McLaughlin, WTVP’s ex-Director of Finance and Human Resources, resigned the week the board announced “questionable, unauthorized, or improper” spending.

In November, Judge Timothy Cusack granted a defense motion to dismiss the suit because it lack specificity but gave the insurer time to amend its initial complaint.

The amended complaint seems to link McLaughlin’s responsibilities with the financial loss, which the station said totaled more than $870,000. A Peoria police investigation said embezzlement occurred and found probable cause to charge Matuszak, but declined to file charges since she was dead. Although implicated, McLaughlin never faced charges and “probable cause has not been reached for her arrest, unless she is able to be communicated with,” police reported. Police declined to comment further.

Concerning McLaughlin, the complaint now accuses the former Director of Finance of negligence and breach of her fiduciary duty “by virtue of her position. McLaughlin owed WTVP a duty to exercise reasonable care in the management, oversight and protection of WTVP's financial assets, accounts, credit cards, and internal financial controls.

The new complaint asserts, “McLaughlin further owed WTVP a duty to act reasonably in monitoring company credit card usage, bank accounts, lines of credit, investment accounts, and financial reporting, and to prevent unauthorized or improper use of company funds.

“McLaughlin was negligent and breached her duties in the following ways,” it continues. She failed “to properly monitor and review company credit card statements and transactions [and]  to ensure that credit card charges were supported by proper receipts and approvals; allowed unauthorized and improper personal expenditures to be charged to WTVP accounts; failed to properly monitor and audit and prevent the dishonest and fraudulent activity; to timely report irregular, excessive and/or suspicious financial transactions; to properly perform her duties and responsibilities as the Director of Finance, thereby allowing the misuse and loss of funds; to implement and/or follow reasonable internal controls designed to safeguard WTVP's funds; to properly perform her duties and responsibilities as the Director of Human Resources, and to properly supervise and oversee the officers and employees; and was otherwise negligent in the performance of her duties and responsibilities as the Director of Finance and Human Resources.

“As a direct and proximate result of McLaughlin's negligence, WTVP suffered a substantial financial loss in the amount of $375,017.29 [and] as a direct and proximate result of McLaughlin's negligence, Cincinnati Insurance paid $250,000.00 to WTVP pursuant to its insurance policy as reimbursement for a portion of the loss.”

McLaughlin’s attorney, Philip O’Donnell of Peoria, had not filed a response to the amended complaint as of press time. Judge Cusack gave the defense until Jan. 30 to file an answer.

The next appearance is a case management conference on March 13.

March primary has few competitive races, but sets up future contests

On Peoria ballots, the March 17 primary election doesn’t have many head-to-head races, especially locally, but Illinois voters will have some choices for state and federal positions and can see challenges ahead in November balloting.

The Peoria County has 13 positions on the ballot, but just one, County Clerk, foreshadows a fall contest, when incumbent Democrat Rachael Parker will be challenged by Republican Kari Gabbert. Filings for Peoria Public Schools District 150 has two races for five-year terms, with Sarah Howard and Douglas Shannon facing off in the Northern District and David Days and Andres Diaz both running for the Central District.

In Tazewell County, County Board District 1 has five GOP candidates vying for four seats.

Statewide, incumbent Reps. Jehan Gordon-Booth (D-92^nd), Ryan Spain (R-73^rd) and Travis Weaver (R-93^rd) are unopposed, as are Democratic challengers Nicole Dopler for the 73^rd and Zoey Renee Carter for the 93^rd.

The open Comptroller seat has Republican Bryan Drew now unopposed, the Illinois State Board of Election (ISBE) says, and on the Democratic side, Holly Kim seems to be leading a field including opponents Margaret Croke, Stephanie A. Kifowit and Karina Villa – all of whom have pending redaction requests, the ISBE says,

Meanwhile, Gov. JB Pritzker is unopposed on the Democratic ballot, and Republicans will have a choice between former gubernatorial candidate Darren Bailey, Lake Forest businessman Ted Dabrowsky and DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick. An Emerson College/WGN-TV survey taken last month shows Bailey leading the Republican field with 34% support.

For the U.S. Senate seat, from which Dick Durbin is retiring next January, 10 Democrats and 6 Republicans remain on the ballot, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections, with three Democrats leading the polls. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Peoria native, leads with 31% support, Emerson says, with Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton at 10% and Congresswoman Robin Kelly, a Bradley University graduate, at 8%. Republican Patry Chair Don Tracy leads the GOP with 6%, but 84% of likely Republican voters are undecided.

The two area Congressional seats also show incumbents running unopposed. In November, Democrat Eric Sorensen of the 17^th District looks to be facing Republicans Vancil Dillan Jr. or Julie Bickelhaupt. And Republican Darin LaHood of the 16^th District will face a challenger for a first time since 2022 since Democrat Paul Nolley is unopposed on the Democratic ballot.

Nolley told the Community Word it will be tough campaign, conceding it’s a “David vs. Goliath” match, but “I’m very positive.”

LaHood reportedly has some $6 million to spend, but Nolley says LaHood’s “100% record of voting with Trump” could be a liability. LaHood voted for the controversial “Big Beautiful Bill” in May and voted against two measures that passed in January with Republican support: a vote to overturn President Trump's Executive Order ending collective bargaining rights for two-thirds of the federal workforce (which had 13 GOP co-sponsors), and a resolution protecting health-care subsidies (with 17 other Republicans voting for it).

Nolley’s issues include protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and helping to “revitalize manufacturing [by] coordinating federal investment in modern manufacturing and improve energy beyond prices to push for clean, renewable energy [in which] China is kicking our butt.”

LaHood has declined multiple attempts to get a comment.

'5 Questions' for neighborhood activist Andy Diaz

In Peoria’s North Valley between the river and the bluff from downtown to War Memorial Drive, longtime resident and advocate Andy Diaz holds court over coffee. Born and raised in the neighborhood, he graduated from Woodruff, attended ICC, worked at Tri County Regional Planning Commission, volunteered at Peoria Citizens Committee for Economic Opportunity (PCCEO), earned a degree at Bradley University, and for decades has worked at Caterpillar.

Diaz, 47, knows Spanish and French, and walked through Europe for seven months when he was 20, and has worked with clients including foreign governments, the State Department and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Living near his parents, who moved here in 1974, Diaz’ family attends St. Paul’s and St. Mark’s churches and includes four kids, and after returning to the neighborhood in 2016 he’s worked to help revitalize the area.

 

As someone with Mexican heritage, do you get asked about immigration – and get tired of the questions?

I was born here – first generation – and I’m living the American Dream. We can all live the American Dream. There’s no cause to get disruptive.

 

You say you originally studied to be a veterinarian. How do feel about animals?
We have two sheepdogs, Luna and Bruno. We love them and are training them to be service dogs, too.

 

You remember wrestling as a youngster. Sports fan?

Go Bears!

 

Any lesson you took from running for mayor in 2021 – especially campaigning for school board?

Yeah: Not every job is the one you want. But I talked to a lot of people, had good conversations and made great connections.

I’m a proud Northsider [and] I thought the City wasn’t taking care of our neighborhood – and felt ignored as “the Northside crackpot.” But everyone deserves to be listened to, in the North Valley or Detweiller Drive. I guess I was fighting the City then, but you can only fight so much.

As far as schools, I just want to see children succeed; I look at District 150 and I’m sad and scared. There’s too little transparency and accountability, whether picking the search firm for a new superintendent or getting an audit done when state law requires. When I went to Woodruff, there were students of all races from all over Peoria; that was great. Now, too many [student] boundary waivers create financial segregation.

 

What’s your favorite dessert?

All of them! It’s a weakness. I love the old saying, “Life’s short; eat dessert first.”

Bombing Venezuela prompted quick anti-war rally

Early in the morning of January 3, President Trump ordered U.S. military forces to bomb Venezuela’s capital Caracas and seize the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Most Americans were surprised, many were angered, and some mobilized to take their outrage to the streets.

The same day, demonstrations occurred in Chicago and St. Louis, and also in Galesburg and Macomb. Between cities large and small were protests in Champaign, Decatur, Edwardsville, Rockford and Springfield.

“We didn’t want to leave Peoria out,” said Jim Haptonstahl, one of the organizers at Peoria 50501, which in a matter of 22 hours planned and carried out a January 4 rally at the intersection of Main and University.

“We thought the seriousness of the situation was such that we had to act to have some show of force,” he said.

Other Illinois towns had the same thought that Sunday, and additional protests took place in Bloomington, Quincy and Rock Island.

Weeks before ICE shootings in Minneapolis and Portland, everyday people were already increasingly frustrated and agitated.

More than 100 people turned out in and around Peoria’s Campustown block despite cold temperatures. The afternoon seemed warmed by crowd chants of “No blood for oil,” “No kings, no crown, Peoria will not back down,” and supporters in passing vehicles honked and rolled down windows to wave and thrust their fists in the air.

“Trump’s [poll] numbers are falling and there are cracks in his MAGA and Republican base,” Haptonstahl said. “Studies show that protests have an impact, and the impact is starting to touch legislators.”

Next month, activists nationwide are planning “No Kings 3.0” rallies to follow October’s “No Kings” events at more than 2,700 communities, where almost 7 million people in all 50 states participated, including an estimated 6,000 in Peoria.

Haptonstahl continued, “As [author and former Labor Secretary] Robert Reich states, ‘The nightmare has awakened much of the U.S. to the truth about what has happened to this country – and what we must do to get it back on the track toward social justice, democracy and widespread prosperity.’

“Be ready to act!” Haptonstahl added.

Hold on – there’s too much caving going on already

As the tax-relief radio spot says, “They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you.”

That’s Trump’s approach, whether it’s ICE or withholding funds for child care, health care, research, etc., or attacking other countries. Fear isn’t foolish. Surrender is.

Appeasement to political bullies isn’t new. Eighty-eight years ago this month, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden quit, protesting Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain accommodating dictators, especially Germany and Italy. Chamberlain’s policy was formalized in 1938 with the “Munich Agreement” giving Nazi’s part of Czechoslovakia in exchange for peace. (A year later, Hitler invaded Poland anyway, starting World War II.)

Capitulation – surrendering in advance (“anticipatory obedience”) or just giving up – can be passive complicity, but complicity. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance blends caution and encouragement in her new book title: “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable: A Manual for Keeping A Democracy.”

Whether cowardice or conflicts of interests, billionaires or corporate leaders, too many institutions, elected officials and government figures haven’t stood up to Trump. Exceptions include Costco and Dick’s Sporting Goods resisting his demands to drop Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and principled federal prosecutors  The week after an ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, several U.S. Attorneys there and in Washington resigned, protesting the Department of Justice sidelining DOJ’s Criminal Section, excluding Minnesota law enforcement for the FBI to have exclusive access to evidence, and investigating the victim and her family.

But as documented by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, some of the “powerful” cowered before the Bully in Chief:

* Universities such as Brown, Columbia and Penn reached Trump-friendly agreements on course content, DEI issues and White House objections to free speech.

* Tech companies. “Wrecking the Washington Post, forking over money for his inauguration, or slobbering over him at the White House, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and other tech billionaires reminded us that character does not go hand in hand with financial success,” Rubin said.

* Several major law firms, such as A&O Shearman; Paul, Weiss; and Kirkland & Ellis made deals or changed positions to satisfy Trump.

* Professional groups like the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association have been oddly quiet.

* Media: Disney/ABC paid Trump $15 million to settle a baseless lawsuit and temporarily ousted late-night comic Jimmy Kimmel. CBS recently followed up its decision to kill “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” by hiring partisan non-journalist Bari Weiss as CBS News’ editor-in-chief; dumping its Saturday-morning co-hosts; losing respected anchor John Dickerson; editing, if not censoring, “60 Minutes”; and – most damning – eliminating not just its climate-crisis news staff but its Standards & Practices Division. All of that means the former “Tiffany network” has become "America's newest place to ‘See BS’ news,” as Nikki Glaser quipped at the Golden Globes.

 

Making deals with Trump is useless anyway.

“Once you begin surrendering to Trump, he always wants more,” said former Labor Secretary and author Robert Reich. “You can’t appease a tyrant.”

Filmmaker and murder victim Rob Reiner, whose life and career were remembered Christmas week in “Rob Reiner - Scenes from a Life" (on CBS, ironically) famously said, “Silence in the face of authoritarianism is complicity. Speaking out is a patriotic act. Democracy doesn't defend itself. It requires participation, vigilance and courage from ordinary people.”

Everyday people must stand together and stand tall; hold steady, hold on and hold firm to what’s just and true and worth saving.

“The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him, to stand up in solidarity and say, ‘No, you will not dictate all of us, you will not control our lives, you will not control our thoughts’,” said retired Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe.

After a year-long fight, labor's challenges remain in 2026

Following the 43-day government shutdown last year, the January 30 end of that temporary deal may be an early dispute affecting working people. A couple of unions reportedly were so anxious to end the shutdown, they pressured Democrats to end their holdout. The American Federation of Government Employees and, indirectly, UNITE-HERE via its Culinary Union in Nevada lobbied Dems or didn’t use their clout to stand firm to address expiring health-care subsidies. In contrast, unions also representing some federal workers, including the Service Employees and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees, held firm.

Besides the shutdown, the Trump administration’s more dramatic budget rescissions, mass layoffs, termination of labor rights for a million other federal workers, and the ongoing roundup of immigrant workers (potentially eliminating 6 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute) set the nasty tone for 2025, when even the NLRB was effectively neutered with no quorum (only recently returned to full strength with the appointments of anti-union members).

It was a time of “unrelenting attacks on working people,” said AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler. “This has been the most hostile administration to workers in our lifetimes.”

Nevertheless, Starbucks workers continued to battle for bargaining, newspapers such as the New York Daily News unionized, Philadelphia teachers settled difficult negotiations, dockworkers on both coasts reached a contract after a short strike, the United Food & Commercial Workers ratified contracts at chains in California, and 21,000 University of California workers ratified a deal following 16 months of bargaining and four brief work stoppages.

 

The year ahead will be busy.

The highest profile union challenges will be the Major League Baseball Players Association, whose Collective Bargaining Agreement will expire Dec. 1; the Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (scheduled to bargain Feb. 9-March 6 with contract expiration June 30); the Directors Guild (with contract talks launching May 11 before their contract also ends June 30); and the Writers Guild of America (set to start negotiating March 16 prior to contract expiration May 1).

In alphabetical order, here’s a rundown of other unions’ activities in 2026:

* American Federation of Teachers: On Aug. 15, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Graduate Employees’ Organization (AFT Local 6300) contract will expire, and at Brown University, 1,000 graduate student workers (Graduate Labor Organization, AFT) have a contract up June 30.

* Communications Workers of America: AT&T Mobility’s contract with 9,000 CWA members expires next month; The contract for 20,000 Verizon workers on the east coast expires Aug. 1 – also involving the …

* International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which also represents 12,000 members in Los Angeles, where their contract expires June 30.

* International Brotherhood of Teamsters: 3,500 members at DHL have a March 31 expiration.

* National Association of Letter Carriers: With their contract ending in May, 200,000 members have to follow a previous contract imposed by a mediator.

* National Nurses United: Veterans Affairs members total about 96,000, and their current agreement ends in May; another 24,000 members at Kaiser in California have a contract expiring in August.

* New York city workers (some affiliated with AFSCME): 300,000 municipal workers’ contracts are up this year.

* Service Employees International Union: 96,000 workers at the State of California will talk before their June 30 expiration; in Oregon 2,000 educators and staff across eight community colleges and 3,000 other staff represented by Local 503 will bargain at seven state universities. In health care, the contract for 80,000 nurses and other health-care workers at New York’s League of Voluntary Hospitals will expire Sept. 30; and the New York Metro Residential contract covering 34,000 doorpeople, porters and handypersons who maintain and clean thousands of  New York Metro Residential contract, covering 34,000 doorpeople, porters, supers, and handypersons who maintain and clean thousands of New York City homes is up in April.

* United Auto Workers: 2,500 members at Nexteer will be bargaining, as will 29,000 academic student employees (Local 4811) at the University of California, where the contract is up Dec/ 31; 4,300 workers are still organizing at Volkswagen’s Tennessee plant.

* United Food & Commercial Workers: In February, a contract covering 30,000 Food & Commercial Workers at New England grocery giant Stop & Shop is set to expire; the unions also faces bargaining for 19,500 UFCW members across 123 Fry’s stores (owned by Kroger), for 20,000 Ohio Kroger workers, and for 14,000 members at Kroger in Michigan

* United Steelworkers: Oil refinery contracts expire Jan. 31 for 30,000 members, as do pacts at Alcoa for 4,400 workers May 15; 25,000 others at US Steel and Cleveland Cliffs face a Sept. 1 expiration; and 6,400 others at Bridgestone-Firestone and Goodyear will be negotiating.

Supreme Court threatens campaign finance - again

Oil companies contribute to presidential candidates; backtracking happens on climate change action.

Insurance corporations donate to Congress; Medicare for All isn’t even considered.

The National Rifle Association enriches candidates; the ones who win make sure nothing’s done about guns.

Such influence could get much worse this year.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in “National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC,” a case launched by JD Vance in 2022, when he was running for the Senate. It’s seeking to overturn limits on contributors funneling donations to candidates through political parties, enabling rich contributors to coordinate with campaigns.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) is far more conservative -- the most conservative bloc in the modern era. And in recent years, it’s shown a willingness to reverse precedents. Ruling in now-Vice President Vance’s case could upend what’s left of federal campaign finance regulations.

The GOP argue that changes in campaign finance limits over recent decades have made remaining restrictions unworkable, if not irrelevant altogether – despite previous courts stating the purpose as preventing corruption or even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

A selective legal time line:

* 1974: The bipartisan Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passes.

* 1976: The USSC in “Buckley v. Valeo” strikes down a few provisions of FECA, but upholds limits on direct contributions to candidates.

* 2001: In “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” the USSC rules that that independent expenditures by political parties made without coordination with candidates are protected by the First Amendment,

* 2002 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passes, sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold.

* 2003: The USSC in “McConnell v. FEC” rules 5-4 that most of the (BCRA) is constitutional.

* 2010: In “Citizens United v. FEC,” overruled more of “McConnell v. FEC,” removing limits on independent spending, enabling secret “dark money” contributions and essentially saying corporations are people, and money is speech.

* 2014: The USSC in “McCutcheon v. FEC” struck down restrictions on the total amounts individuals can give to all parties and candidates in one election cycle, but didn’t change limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which stayed at $2,700 per election.

 

Defenders of the concept of limiting the power of money in politics say the current case is another, perhaps final, step toward complete deregulation, reducing the idea of elected officials acting in the interest of their constituents instead of accepting legalized bribes for wealthy and powerful special interests a quaint notion with no place in 21^st century politics.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), in a brief supporting the FEC, wrote, that eliminating coordinated spending limits would be “the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.”

The current Court’s Justices – a 6-3 supermajority – hasn’t hesitates to impose its will.

“This case needs to be looked at in the context of the court’s now-two-decade run of substituting its own judgment for that of voters and Congress on campaign finance,” said Daniel Weiner, a campaign finance law expert for the Brennan Center for Justice.

Attorney Roman Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending campaign-finance contribution limits (since the Trump administration is not supporting the FEC), explained to the USSC how each time they change campaign finance law, they set up future cases to kill another limit – even when the Court previously viewed that limit as essential at the time.

“They’re setting up bait-and-switch 2.0,” Martinez said. “Bait-and-switch 1.0 was ‘McCutcheon.’ They came in and said in ‘McCutcheon,’ ‘Hey, we need to get rid of these aggregate limits.’ Why? ‘Because we’ve got all these other protections. Look, coordinated expenditures are limited too.’ And then you said, ‘OK, well fine, we’ll do that,’ and you put it in your opinion that coordinated expenditures were going to protect us. Now they’re coming back and saying, ‘Ha, just kidding, actually the coordinated expenditure provision is unlawful as well’.”

If the USSC ends coordinated spending limits, it will allow donors to circumvent candidate limits like “McCutcheon” did for political party limits.

The Court’s three liberals agreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court’s rulings on campaign finance typically “make matters worse. Now you want us to tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party.

“Once we take off coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left?” she added. “What’s left is nothing,”

A USSC decision is expected later in this term, which this year is October 4.