The Village Board has approved nearly $12,000 for holiday decorations in downtown Glenview and more than double that amount for lights and garlands at The Glen Town Center – a shopping mall set to open next weekend.  The decision came after some trustees balked at the original village request for about $50,000 in holiday trim at The Glen.

 Village Manager Paul McCarthy argued that the Town Center was unlike Old Orchard, Northbrook Court and others shopping centers, since the streets and lights in front of it belong to the village.   Therefore, he argued, it should be compared to Glenview and Waukegan roads which are routinely decorated for the holidays with public dollars.

 “I think this is an extraordinary amount of money to be spent on lights that are going to be up for six or seven weeks,” said Trustee Mary Beth Denefe.  “What are Galyan’s, Von Maur and some of the other shop owners doing?  I don’t want to sound like Scrooge, but this could be very garish if we’ve got them putting up lights on their stores, while we put up lights in the common areas. I feel like we’re doing their work for them.”

 “Many towns require the chamber of commerce to pay for holiday lights in places like Glenview Road or Waukegan Road,” said McCarthy.  “As a community, we decided about 15 or 20 years ago that we didn’t want to do that. The scope of this decoration duplicates the decoration that you’re already doing on Waukegan and Glenview Road.”

 Trustee Jim Patterson asked the village manager to compare retail sales downtown with what we expect at The Glen Town Center.  McCarthy claimed he had no idea – a surprise in light of the $80-million investment Glenview has made in The Glen Town Center. 

 Trustee Kimball Woodrow tried to rally the troops, recognizing the new retail center will be critical to Glenview’s fiscal health.  “We’ve got to show some support here.  Let’s at least get something at the entry ways so people know there’s a festive experience to be had by going to the MURC. We can’t rely on the developer or the stores to do this.  They’re not going to reach out into the public areas.  It’s just not going to happen. We want to make this thing look good.”

“I get more positive comments about downtown when the Christmas lights go up than I do the whole rest of the year,” President Larry Carlson added.  “People love those lights!”  He urged the trustees to give them a try at Town Center.  Maybe next year, he speculated, the merchants there would help pay for decorations.

 Denefe thought Glenview would be setting a precedent by paying for the lights and garlands this year.  “Don’t misunderstand me,” she said.  “I love lights, and I have my Von Maur charge card, but $50,000 worth of lights is a lot of lights!”

 Trustee Woodrow suggested Glenview pay half the cost, and ask developer Dene Oliver to pay the other half.

 “I think we’re falling short,” said Patterson.

 “I do too,” said Carlson.

 “Look at the expectations of sales for the entire Glen relative to the other parts of town that we’re currently lighting,” Patterson continued.  “This is the first holiday season.  Some of the stores may not even be open, and we have to make up for that.  We’ve spent millions of dollars to get this far, and we’re going to cut ourselves short to save 10 grand or 20 grand.  I think we’re making a mistake.”

 Trustee Kerry Cummings agreed the village had made a “substantial investment,” but drew a different conclusion.  “The developer should be putting this type of money in.”

 “This developer has received $78 million,” Trustee Mike Guinane added. “The least he can do is put the Christmas decorations up or contribute half the cost.  He’s profiting from the sales.  Do you know how many roads we can pave for $50,000?  You go out to the neighborhoods in this community, and you ask them: ‘Do you want Christmas lights at The Glen, or do you want your roads resurfaced in your neighborhoods?”

 And with that sobering thought echoing in their heads, all of the trustees but Patterson voted to spend $25,000 for holiday decorations at The Glen and ask developer Dene Oliver to pay the rest.

 Editor’s note: Can’t wait to see December’s electric bill – yet another expense for the taxpayers of Glenview.

GALYAN’S GREAT GUN AD

 For those who feel guns have no place in urban or suburban life, Saturday’s edition of the Chicago Tribune was a shocker. It carried a large ad on page 26 headlined “Get Ready for Hunting Season,” featured photos of kids in hunting garb and seven drawings of shotguns and rifles that retail for up to $600.  Coupons with the ad offered discounts of $20-$50. The Glenview store was among those listed at the bottom of the page, but small print at the center advised, “Firearms and ammunition not available at Glenview & Orland Park.”

DEAL FOR $18.8 MILLION POLICE STATION SPARKS LITTLE DEBATE

As it often does, Glenview’s village board saved one of its most expensive projects for discussion late last Tuesday night, after members of the public had left.  A company hired for less than $27,000 to conduct a “space needs” study explained why Glenview requires a 79,800-square-foot police station – up from 22,000 square feet at the current building.

 Sente, Rubel, Bosman, Lee is a Northbrook-based architectural firm. Principal Carol Sente grew up in Glenview. She made introductory remarks, then turned to partner John Bosman who said the firm’s study included descriptions of other new police stations. “Probably the most important thing is to know how you compare with similar communities. You’re going to be judged in comparison to other communities to show that you’re not being excessive,” he explained.

 Trustee Woodrow studied Sente’s analysis and noticed that on average, new suburban police stations had 566 square feet per employee.  In Glenview the firm called for 670 square feet.

 Partner Ray Lee said Glenview would have an unusually large parking lot,  a shooting range twice as big as others and a 2050-square-foot community space.  Bosman added that the new police station would have its own 1,900-square-foot communications center, while many other communities opt to combine police and fire dispatch.

 Qualifying Bosman’s earlier claim, Sente said it was misleading to compare one community to another.  She pointed out that Highland Park has its firing range in a different location than its main station and said Glenview was building for the future. Noting that larger firing ranges are expected to become the norm, she added, “Do you want to be proactive?  Do you want to protect your people?”

 Police Chief William Fitzpatrick said today’s cops must be prepared for germ warfare and hazardous materials.  “We need a facility where we can train.  When you take the training facility and the community room, that gives a lot of flexibility for the future.  Some people may say it’s a little extravagant, but let’s look forward.  Let’s be a little visionary here.”

 Glenview’s Director of Economic Development, Don Owen, then asked the board to consider using Sente to do the architectural work.  Trustee Guinane pointed out that Sente would get more than $1 million for design of the $18.8 million building.  He thought it would be more responsible to request competitive bids, but Owen and several trustees disagreed.

 Owen said Sente was already up to speed on the project, and bidding for this second stage would delay construction. Village Manager Paul McCarthy guessed hiring a new architect would set the project back six months and cost an additional $450,000.

Trustee Denefe said she was “very impressed” with Sente’s work and saw no need for bids on design. “A new firm, whoever that might be, would then want to modify or comment upon the space needs study that Sente and Rubel has done, which I think was terrific.  I think that we’ve got a great comfort level here with Sente and Rubel.”

 Guinane stressed that he supported building a new police station but felt the trustees had some obligation to “keep an eye on the bottom line.”

 Denefe asked how often communities used Sente to assess space needs and design the facility.  Carol Sente spoke for more than seven minutes before concluding that seven of her last 12 jobs entailed both jobs. All of the trustees but Guinane then voted to negotiate architectural services with Sente.

 Before beginning design of the building,  John Bosman said a “vision meeting” was needed to determine “what the project stands for in the community – other features that are not necessarily police related like ceremonial space, a clock tower and a fitness course.”

 Editor’s note:  Competitive bidding serves as a check against the possibility that a company might overestimate the need for space in order to boost its architectural fees – usually calculated as a percentage of total building costs.  Still, the village board is comfortable with Sente. That puts a special burden on village management to ask the tough questions:  Do we really need so much training space with the Northern Illinois Public Safety Training Academy less than two miles from the new station?  Is community space needed when public meeting areas are available at Park Center, the library, Village Hall and every school in Glenview?  Shouldn’t we ask local officers to use the park district’s fitness center rather than building a separate facility for them? Couldn’t we combine dispatch services with our nearly new fire department operation?

 In Highland Park, Sente designed a 54,000-square-foot facility for 80 police department employees. That facility is set to be finished at about the same time as Glenview’s new cop shop – in the fall 2005.  The question: Why is our facility so much bigger?  We do have 30 more employees than Highland Park, 10,000 more residents and 30 more department employees, but we’re planning to spend nearly double what they’re shelling out. 

 Mundelein, which built 44,000 square feet, paid just $6.8 million for another Sente-designed station. It opened in 2002.  At double that size and double that price, you’d get a building far larger than what Glenview plans for about $5 million less. Having taken a pass on competitive bidding, our public officials now owe it to the taxpayers to get answers from and drive a hard bargain with Sente. 

 GLENBROOK SOUTH CATCHES FLACK FOR HOMECOMING CONDUCT

 Glenbrook South may have dodged the national spotlight cast on Glenbrook North after a hazing incident in Northbrook, but this community’s high school tempted fate last weekend and is coming in for some criticism from residents for its homecoming festivities. 

 First, in anticipation of the big weekend, the school’s cable channel aired video from homecomings past. There was footage the school had banned in 1993 after John Wayne Gacy – the serial killer and part-time clown – horrified the world. That video showed students in clown costumes stalking and abducting the homecoming queen. The name Gacy may not be familiar to high school kids in 2003, but critics say the theme of violence toward women is still offensive.

 Then there was tape from the 80's featuring the Confederate flag. The school originally chose that emblem to emphasize that it is Glenbrook  South, not Glenbrook North, but the district eventually banned the flag, since it is widely considered a symbol of racism.

 Still there it was on TV last week – uncensored.  Finally, adding insult to video injury, Glenbrook South’s hockey team rode down Glenview Avenue in this year’s homecoming parade with one member sitting on the cab of a truck, wildly waving the stars and bars. “The gasps of the crowd were audible from our site at the end of the parade route in front of the fire station on Glenview Road,” wrote a Watch reader. “Is there no shame?  Later, at the football game, those I spoke with were appalled, not at the kid, being a knucklehead, but at the administration for not taking the flag away.”

 Another reader signed a letter “Angry and embarrassed. You marred the parade for your classmates, their families, your teachers and school administrators who are offended by that flag's symbolic representation of oppression and prejudice,” he/she wrote to members of the hockey team. “As young adults who have access to one of the finest educational opportunities in the world at Glenbrook South, you apparently have not been taught how controversial the Confederate flag has become, how offensive it is to many, and the responsibility each of you has to end oppression and prejudice.  A new future begins with each of us.  I hope that you, your coach, and your school issue an apology. Even if you win every hockey game this season, if you don't learn compassion for your fellow human beings during these formative years, and if you don't become aware that your world extends far beyond Glenview's borders, you will be the biggest losers of all.”

 Editor’s note: Glenview may have dodged a bullet on this one. Had video been leaked to the media as the hazing tape was, School District 225 might have ended up with another black eye. We have no reason to think white students consider the Confederate flag a symbol of racism, but it might certainly make black students uncomfortable.  More critically, we wonder why the principal and superintendent are not monitoring such public displays of school spirit – looking out for the reputation of the community and assuring that students understand the potential for public offense.

 TO HECK WITH HISTORY

 It’s been five years since Glenview adopted an ordinance to protect historic buildings here.  That law established a commission to consider structures that might be declared historic landmarks. A structure winning that designation could not be torn down or modified without a review by the commission and permission from the village board.

 For years, the commission worked at what some considered a snail’s pace, proposing amendments to the ordinance, debating procedures and applying to the state and federal governments for legal status that would enable Glenview to get special grants for preserving significant old places. 

 Finally this fall the panel announced plans to look at a couple of properties – the park district headquarters on Prairie Street (a building owned by the village) and Wagner Farm.  The commission was poised to begin discussions on October 13, but the prospect alarmed many public officials. 

Park board President Chris Warren wrote to the village, asking that his district be exempt from the law, and Glenview’s trustees jumped at the chance to rewrite the ordinance.  Village Attorney Jeff Randall added language that exempted the park district, the village, school districts and library from the law while barring the public from proposing historic status for a property.  Under new rules, only owners could request designation.  Randall also moved the ordinance out of Glenview’s zoning code and put it into the municipal code so the independent thinkers on the plan commission would not be involved in any public hearings on the matter.

 WE DON’T GIVE NO STINKIN’ NOTICE

 The village board didn’t bother to consult the historic preservation commission or its chairman David Silver (who is no relation to Howard).  Instead, Silver learned about plans for a change by accident, while visiting the village website during the garbage strike. 

He called Village Hall for details and was told he could go to the public library where background information is left before board meetings.  “After I explained again who I was,” Silver recalled, “the person speaking to me said she would have to check to see if she could send me a copy of the proposed ordinance.”

 On the day the village board was to vote, someone faxed Silver a copy. He was alarmed to find that many paragraphs drafted by his panel to make the law “fairer and more citizen-friendly” were gone.  “It also omitted all of the items that were put in at the request of the state of Illinois” to help get grant money in Glenview.   “The ordinance undoes all of our hard work.  It essentially emasculates the commission to the point that certain commissioners have asked me, ‘Does anybody care about historic preservation?  Are we just wasting time?’” Silver said.

 He stressed the commission was only empowered to give advice.  Ultimately, the village board would decide which buildings were entitled to landmark status, and he urged the board to wait and see how the process worked before deciding whether to dump the original ordinance.  “Let us hold our hearings.  Let us talk directly with the park district.  Let us have discussions with their historic preservation people.  We may have avenues to provide funding for them in the future.”

 THE CITIZENS SPEAK

 Four other residents and two officials from the park district addressed the board.  Richard Feit made a plea for regulation of the park district, pointing out that it had installed pre-fab metal buildings at The Grove and painted the buildings at Wagner Farm red. “Red has no historical connection to the barn or other wood structures at Wagner Farm.  Clearly this action has transformed Wagner Farm from a local historic Glenview icon to a generic farm like so many others throughout the Midwest. Glenview’s unique visual identity has been lost due to the park district’s disrespect for historical authenticity.”

 Mark Steger, president of Citizens Organized for Wagners, did not discuss the controversial barn but attacked the park district’s way of doing business – calling it casual and charging it lacked integrity.  As a result, he said, the public could not effectively participate in decisions about preserving historic buildings on park district property.

 Steger began to describe the district’s building and grounds commission, but President Carlson cut him off.  “That really isn’t relevant to this discussion,” Carlson said.  Steger tried to explain its relevance, but Carlson – who wants to rebuild the battered relationship between village and park district – stood fast.  “If you could skip to your next point please,” he said.

 Norma Morrison, vice president of COWS and an original member of the historic preservation commission, said she was determined to protect Wagner Farm.  She had no faith in the park board to do so. “There is embarrassing evidence that park committees approve plans without sufficient analysis. We all know that you cannot trust the fox to guard the chicken coop.  Let the historic preservation commission use its carefully crafted powers to protect our special village properties,” she said.

 Silver then stepped in to assure the board that his commission would give the park board a fair hearing on Wagner Farm.  He and Morrison agreed that she would not take part in any discussions or votes on that subject.  “I even have to leave the room,” Morrison called from her seat in the audience.

 Finally, Ruth Schulman appeared.  The former president of the League of Women Voters and a leader of the Farm and Fields campaign to save Wagner Farm has been ill, but she dragged her oxygen tank to the podium to plead for the historic preservation ordinance.  “I want the protection this law provides for the farm.  Without that, we will be in trouble. Whether we agree with the park district’s planning is beside the point.  We want the protection of the law.”

 THE PARK DISTRICT’S REPLY 

 Park Board President Chris Warren spoke at length about the district’s ability to regulate itself on matters of historic preservation. He bragged about the district’s historic buildings and grounds committee and its museum committee.  He questioned the right of villages to regulate park districts and said doing so created unnecessary expense for the parks.

 Batting clean-up, parks’ Vice President John Winand attacked the citizens who had testified.  “I’ve been at meetings where comments such as these are made about the district that I’ve served for 10 years, which I’ve been elected to twice,” he began.  “It’s discouraging but also encouraging, since it’s the same people, the same comments. I’m proud of my board, and I think we do a good job with our properties. We own the farm. We own it as custodians for all the people of Glenview, not the six or seven you’ve seen speak this evening.”

 Editor’s note: What an outrageous remark!  Not a single citizen had appeared to argue the park district should be exempt from regulation.  On the other hand, four residents who care deeply about their community were there.  They had taken time and energy to research the issues and prepare remarks.  Feit is a successful business executive, and Steger is a prominent environmental lawyer. Morrison, who is 87, has been in the hospital several times this year, and it’s hard for Schulman to get around.  Still, they showed up, and to dismiss them because they have spoken in the past shows just how arrogant Winand has become. His reference to “my board” and “our properties,” suggested he’s been on the park board far too long.  Perhaps the public will remind him at election time that the board must answer to the taxpayers, and the taxpayers own park district properties.

 THE TRUSTEES TALK

 “Do you own any property?” Trustee Jim Patterson asked COWS’ Mark Steger.  “Yeah,” said Steger, “my house.” 

 “And if someone nominated that property for historic preservation, it could get landmark status – assuming it was a Victorian or an older home. Someone could actually take some of your rights away!” Patterson warned.

 Steger conceded that point but said people who live in communities like Glenview routinely surrender some rights for the greater good.  Using an extreme example, he pointed out that residents cannot establish toxic waste dumps in their yards. He did not mention that the village  regulates the number of pets we can own, how we install sprinkler systems in our lawns and how large an addition to our home can be. 

Trustee Jeff Lerner contended the current ordinance was flawed because anybody could file a petition to declare a piece of property historic and send it through the process without notice to or approval from the property owner.

 Chairman David Silver disputed those points.  He said the park district and the village were both notified and could participate fully in public hearings on Wagner Farm and the Prairie Street property.  Lerner complained that he, personally, had not been notified.  Silver replied that nobody at Village Hall had told him the historic preservation ordinance was about to be undone.

 President Carlson echoed Lerner and Patterson.  “You have a nice house with historical value.  I can apply to have your house declared historically significant, except you’re the one who paid for that house, not me.”

 “The owner should be the one who petitions for historical significance,” said Trustee Kerry Cummings.

 Trustee Kim Woodrow waxed philosophical.  “In my experience, communities approach this situation in one of two ways.  They either open the door wide and say anybody can petition to have something designated, or you can look to the individual owners themselves to make that determination.”  In the first situation, he said, a historic preservation commission serves as a watch dog.  In the latter situation, a commission would simply try to educate people about the advantages of having their property declared historic. 

 “What we’re hearing here tonight is that people prefer to have a historic preservation commission serving as an educational body to the community,” Woodrow concluded.

 Actually, most of the people who spoke preferred the watchdog role, but that terrifies Glenview’s trustees, and with the historic preservation commission now sniffing around village property on Prairie Street, the board agreed to change the ordinance and diminish the commission’s role. The trustees directed attorney Randall to fine-tune language for a new ordinance to be voted on at the next board meeting.

 Editor’s note: If the historic preservation ordinance was actually flawed, as claimed by Trustee Lerner, then Glenview should get a refund from Village Attorney Jeff Randall who provided legal counsel when it was adopted in the first place.

 Patterson’s fear that a private home could be landmarked without the owner’s permission was correct in theory but unlikely in reality.  To our knowledge, Glenview has no Victorian houses and few that anyone would call “historic.”  Even if private citizens were to pay fees, fill out forms and hire a professional consultant to secure designation for someone else’s home, it seems unlikely the village board would give its approval without the owner’s okay.

 What Glenview does have is a farm that has been around since the turn of the century, an attractive government-owned building on Prairie Street and the former Glenview State Bank building on Glenview Road with its classic architecture – the first bank in the village. Should the park board decide to tear down the old Wagner house or add a second story to the middle of its administration building on Prairie, there will be no protection for those buildings. Should a developer acquire the old bank and petition to build luxury condos in its place, there will be no legal protection from the wrecker’s ball. 

 CHANGES AT THE GROVE STILL SUBJECT TO PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW

 Once the board agreed that historic properties should only be designated at the request of their owners, the question of exempting the park board from historic commission oversight was moot, but another request remained on the table.  Parks’ President Warren had asked that the district not be required to visit the plan commission before doing construction at The Grove – an environmentally significant area under local law.  Trustee Lerner argued the village must do so with plans for its environmentally significant properties – the Air Station Prairie, Techny Basin and river banks, so he saw no reason the parks should be exempt.  The rest of the board agreed.

 READERS WRITE

 Jim H. worries about The Glen Town Center: “ In the village's infinite wisdom, they are going to have the grand opening while Lake Avenue and other access points are all torn_up. Consumers are not going to put up with that. They will be inconvenienced once, then find or go back to other shopping centers. I believe that some of the restaurants will succeed, but the shopping complex will be a total bust. What will happen to the village of Glenview when The Glen Town Center goes belly up? How much do we have at stake as a town? This will result in our taxes going through the roof and people looking elsewhere to buy homes.  I am a lifelong Glenview resident with two small children. I would like to think that Glenview will continue to be a great place to raise a family, but I am wavering. There is so much turmoil in the town. My opinion is that the local government and park district officials are working on their own agenda and are incapable of seeing the big picture. The common man does not have a chance of getting involved.”

 The Watch replies: At least one developer and a number of retailers are betting you’re wrong about The Glen Town Center.  They believe this faux main street will attract plenty of people.  A shopping center much like The Glen Town Center opened several years ago in Columbus, Ohio, and it's hard to find parking there on the weekends.  Of course, Easton Town Center is located near a major highway __ offering a distinct advantage __ but it also competes successfully with one of the nation's largest, most opulent shopping centers (Polaris) just a few miles away.  If we are blessed with a retail success like Easton, Glenview could be sitting pretty.  On the other hand, failure will almost certainly mean higher taxes.  As a home rule municipality, the village is not bound by the tax cap and not obliged to ask your permission before raising tax rates.

 And Fritz is outraged by plans to spend tax dollars on Christmas decoration for The Glen Town Center: “Does Skokie put up the Christmas decorations at Old Orchard?  Wilmette for Edens Plaza? Northbrook for Northbrook Court? Niles at Golf Mill?  I think not. So why is Glenview paying big bucks to decorate at the Glen? This stinks! Once again the original claim that people around town outside of The Glen, would not pay anything for Glen development is violated. Let's run the bums out of town!” 

Diana Vernof offers another idea for holiday decorations: “I was always under the naive impression that the merchants pitched in for these decorations.  If not, why not?  If $12,000 is given to the downtown area for decorations and $12,000 is given to the Glen Town Center, and each business in the Glen contributed any additional funds that they might require, that would be an equitable solution.  A solution that I might add, is also fair to the taxpayers.

 Frank Mack of the Hangar One Foundation writes about the opening of Navy Park at The Glen at 9 a.m. Friday, October 17: “Residents interested in the opening ceremony or the Hangar One Foundation mini_museum located in the north pod of The Glen Town Center are advised to visit our website at www.hangarone.org.  Also, your claim that ‘Village President Larry Carlson  recently rushed to donate $100,000 in tax dollars for military statues at The Glen’ was misleading. The Navy Park Brick Program, as described at our website, was launched to reimburse Glenview for funds advanced by it toward the purchase and installation of the referenced statues. Mr. Carlson and the village board were acting in a fiscally responsible manner.”

 The Watch replies: While your group approached the board requesting an advance and promised to pay the money back, Carlson and Trustee Jeff Lerner made it very clear that they were giving the foundation $100,000 with no strings attached. Perhaps they have changed their tune as a result of public criticism.  In any event, we applaud your efforts to reimburse the taxpayers and wish you well with the sale.  

 Kathy Schulte thinks The Watch was unfair in attacking the park district for laying down asphalt on the banks of the Chicago River: “Why don't you find out who owns the property where that lot was built.  Perhaps St. Peter and Paul’s church was the one deciding how they wanted the parking lot constructed. Their name has not appeared in your comments at all.  Only the park district has been criticized. Do your homework!”

 The Watch replies: You make a good point, Kathy. We did ask St. Peter and Paul’s to consider a permeable lot that would keep warm, dirty water from running into the river and  putting wildlife at risk, but a top church leader dismissed the idea.  He feared women attending church in high heels might be injured while walking across a permeable lot  – a fear which is groundless according to those who promote the use of eco-stones. That said, church leaders were not elected to be stewards of the environment, and they are not answerable to the voters.  The park district should have been more enlightened in that situation but was not.  Director of Leisure Services Bob Quill argued it was too late and too expensive to do the right thing. Commissioner Judy Beck, without doing a lick of research, suggested permeable parking would not work at the site, and everyone else on the board went along __ as they always do __ good team players for a park district that loves its sports programs and its asphalt. 

CM is puzzled by Glenview’s financial situation: “My neighbors and myself don't understand the money problems in the village.  Where does the sales tax from ABT go?  Shouldn't that alone build a pool.”

 The Watch replies: ABT has netted the village $2 million in sales tax dollars.  Costco, Home Depot and other new retailers have also kicked new revenue into the village kitty. That money does not go to schools or the park district, and those are the governmental bodies crying poor  The village appears to be doing just fine, making none of the cuts required by neighboring communities to stay afloat in these hard economic times.

YOUR TURN: Write to glenviewwatch@aol.com or 3537 Maple Leaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60025. If you haven’t already done so, please consider making a contribution to support The Watch. Non-deductible checks should be payable to Glenview Watch. Thanks for your support and for reading. Dean Schott and Sandy Hausman, Co-Editors.

To read past issues of Glenview Watch, Click Here