Annual Chefs' Night fundraiser for Deerfield-based Center for Enriched Living set for May 5
Twenty-nine vendors are donating food and beverages to this benefit which is attended by 500-700 people.
Tickets are $125 at centerforenrichedliving.org.
Sue Bersh of Deerfield has been a volunteer with the Center for Enriched Living (CEL) for six years and became president of the organization's board two years ago. She has served on the Chefs' Night committee for six years, and was a cochair for three years.
Bersh praised Chefs' Night, saying, 'It's a sense of community at the event. Everyone feels like a friend when you're gathering around to support an organization you all care about. But you're having a great time in a casual setting.'
In addition to sampling food, attendees see a video that shows the impact of the organization, Bersh noted.
'We always have a parent speak about what CEL means to them, and that's my favorite part,' Bersh said.
There is also a car raffle, with tickets costing $100 or three for $275. The winner will have a choice of winning a 2025 Ford Mustang or $30,000 in cash.
There will also be a silent auction with around a dozen items.
Herb Washington, who has been CEO of the CEL for two years, has worked with people who have intellectual and developmental disabilities for his entire 28-year career. He joined CEL because, 'I really felt the mission, the culture, the supports that were provided really resonated with me on a personal level and aligned with my values,' he said.
CEL serves over 400 people each year in its 20,000-square-foot building. 'Most of our clients have some degree of intellectual disability, anywhere from mild to profound,' Washington said. 'Also, autism, cerebral palsy, down syndrome.'
Board President Bersh said that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are now often integrated into the schools, 'But at age 22, they age out and they have nowhere to go. That's where we really fill a need. You hear the parents speak about what that means to them, and it warms your heart, and you realize what an important role this organization plays for families.'
CEL offers a wide range of services and activities.
'We have a day program that focuses on building social connections, orientation to the arts, and to community resources,' Washington said. That's the REACH Adult Day Program.
'We have another program called Catalyst, which focuses on teaching skills of independence and life skills,' Washington said.
CEL also has an employment program which works to connect people with their dream jobs and supports them during their employment. It also assists them to learn new skills.
'We set them up for success and then we help find the job,' Bersh said.
'We also have a mental health program that meets the mental health needs of people with disabilities but also provides mental health resources and support to families,' Washington said.
In addition, a summer camp is offered for teens and adolescents.
Washington reported that the CEL, which began in 1968 and became an independent agency in 1984, is completely independently funded. It receives no funds from the State of Illinois. Individuals and families pay for the services, with fundraising making up 50-60 percent of the revenue. 'About 60 percent of our clients receive some degree of financial assistance to help cover costs,' Washington said.
Chefs' Night, which is celebrating its 25th year, is the main fundraising event, Washington reported, raising about $500,000 annually.
In addition to raising funds, Washington noted that Chefs' Night 'is also important in that it brings future supporters into the circle and is a good introduction into what CEL is all about.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Trump pressures 17 pharma CEOs to cut US drug prices
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump sent letters to the chief executives of 17 major pharmaceutical companies, urging immediate action to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans, the White House said on Thursday. Letters were sent to top executives at Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca, among others. Copies of the letters were posted on Trump's Truth Social account. The president is calling on the companies to extend most favored nation pricing to Medicaid, guarantee such pricing for new drugs, and return excess overseas revenue to American patients and taxpayers, without providing details. Trump has given the companies until September 29 to respond with binding commitments to those terms. "According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. She added the administration will "deploy every tool in our arsenal" to end "abusive drug pricing practices."
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
154,000 federal workers who took DOGE buyouts are being paid to go fishing, watch Dungeons and Dragons streams and hunt for new jobs
The government is paying more than 154,000 federal employees not to work after they accepted the deferred resignation offer — and they're spending their paid leave job hunting, doing yoga, and watching YouTube, according to a report. The figure, reported by the Washington Post, accounts for the tens of thousands of federal workers who accepted the government's offer as of June that allowed employees to 'retain all pay and benefits' through September 30 and voluntarily leave their jobs. The offer, originally sent out by the Office of Personnel Management in January, came after President Donald Trump mandated in-person work requirements for the federal workforce, the size of which the Department of Government Efficiency aimed to significantly shrink. The move has led to a rapid reduction in federal workers, two officials at the Office of Personnel Management told the Post, with the resignations accounting for nearly seven percent of the government's civilian workforce. The Independent has reached out to the OPM and White House for comment. 'Ultimately, the deferred resignation program was not only legal, it provided over 150,000 civil servants a dignified and generous departure from the federal government,' the agency spokesperson told the Post. 'It also delivered incredible relief to the American taxpayer. No previous administration has gotten even close to saving American taxpayers this amount of money in such a short amount of time.' Although DOGE set out to eliminate 'waste' in the federal government, some critics have argued that the buyouts were a waste of taxpayer dollars. Those who took the offer, meanwhile, have been spending the break as they please. An Agriculture Department employee, who's been on paid leave since April, told the Post that he's spent his free time watching comedians play a Dungeons and Dragons game, improv, and crafters on YouTube. He applied to more than 130 jobs before landing one at an animal health company that offered him a salary much greater than the $61,000 salary from the government, he said. For six weeks, his federal job and new job would overlap, meaning he'd be temporarily raking in cash from two salaries. His new role would earn him enough that his wife would be able to quit her job, he told the outlet. In the meantime, he goes fishing and dines out, all on the government's dime. He recalled telling his wife: 'As much as I don't want to admit it, this ended up being a blessing in disguise.' Brian Griffin, a former marketing specialist at the Agriculture Department making $132,000, had been planning to retire in December when he was given the deferred resignation offer. He's been on leave since May. 'When they are offering me full pay and benefits from May through September, you have to be kind of silly to say no to that,' Griffin told the Post. One worker has found the new reality a bit more difficult. An Education Department employee, who makes $130,000, said she was put on administrative leave — a move that has left her reeling. 'My work is my whole identity,' said the employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. 'I'm also sensitive to the fact that the American public would say, 'What are you crying about? You're getting paid.'' The government has so far paid her $65,000 not to work, while she has also accrued three weeks of vacation time since being put on leave. Some of her free time is dedicated to swimming and doing yoga but for most of it, she's frustrated. 'I will sometimes wake up and say, 'Why do I get out of bed today?'' she told the outlet. Aside from the emotional effects the cuts had on many government employees, the American taxpayer could also be affected by DOGE's workforce reductions. An analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington last week, which looked at a few of the agencies impacted, found that DOGE's workforce slashes could result in a loss of over $10 billion in U.S.-based economic activity and the closure of programs that have put over $26 billion in funds back into the pockets of taxpayers. A minority staff report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Thursday also revealed that DOGE generated an estimated $21 billion in waste on mass layoffs and terminations. That figure included $14.8 billion for the deferred resignation program. 'This report is a searing indictment of DOGE's false claims. At the very same time that the Trump Administration is cutting health care, nutrition assistance, and emergency services in the name of 'efficiency' and 'savings,' they have enabled DOGE's reckless waste of at least $21.7 billion dollars,' Blumenthal, the subcommittee's ranking member, said in a statement to the Post. 'As my PSI investigation has shown, DOGE was clearly never about efficiency or saving the American taxpayer money.'
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
From Power Of The Purse To Power Of The President
During the first six months of the Trump presidency, an assertive executive branch has wrested some budgetary power from Congress. Whether this trend continues is an open question, but it is unfolding against a backdrop of now-standard disagreement and dysfunction over how to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. The White House has capitalized on procedural ambiguities and executive tools to assert greater control over spending decisions—raising legal and constitutional questions and the stakes of future budget showdowns. To be sure, the administration has achieved notable success in advancing its fiscal agenda, including: While the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, this authority does not constitute a legislative monopoly over fiscal matters. The executive branch plays a vital role in administering appropriated funds. As I have written previously, the Trump administration appears determined to expand that role—at times in ways that raise legal concerns. They have used tactics to delay, cancel, and otherwise not spend funds provided by law. The full impact of those actions may not be clear until the current fiscal year ends and agency chief financial officers issue financial statements. Still, the persistent risk of unilateral funding decisions—and the use of arguably unlawful 'pocket rescissions'—may prompt Congress to reassert its budgetary powers as the scope of such practices becomes more apparent. Sharing Budgetary Power Through Impoundment Controls Like other legislation, appropriations bills—whether standalone measures, omnibus packages, or continuing resolutions—are considered and passed by Congress and then sent to the president for approval or veto. Once enacted, the president assumes the constitutional duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The process of obligating and disbursing funds is referred to as budget execution. Much of the framework governing budget execution is rooted in the power of the purse statutes: the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Antideficiency Act. I've written previously about the 1974 Act's impoundment controls, which outline a lawful process for the president to delay or withhold spending of appropriated funds. Despite President Trump's views that impoundment controls represent an unconstitutional constraint on executive authority, those statutory procedures were followed earlier this year when the White House proposed and the Republican-led Congress enacted a rescission package aimed at reducing funding for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Whether the executive branch will formally submit additional rescissions or resort to pocket rescissions in the final weeks of FY 2025 remains to be seen. The Other Power Of The Purse Statute Budget execution is guided by the Antideficiency Act, prohibiting federal agencies and employees from incurring financial obligations without explicit legal authorization. Dating back to 1870, the law is designed to enforce constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that Congress—not the executive branch—controls how taxpayer dollars are spent. It has been amended and reinterpreted over time. For example, at the end of the Carter administration, then–Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a pair of legal memos from the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering a narrow definition of the types of government activities that could continue during a lapse in appropriations. Along with subsequent DOJ guidance issued in 1995 clarifying the scope of emergency exceptions, the memos have served as the foundational legal framework for shutdowns. Since 1981, agencies have generally been barred from obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated or from entering into contracts before appropriations are enacted. Agencies are also prohibited from accepting voluntary services or employing staff, except for activities involving emergencies related to the safety of human life or the protection of property. Unlike the impoundment control features of the 1974 act, the Antideficiency Act includes significant administrative and criminal penalties for willful violations, ensuring a high degree of compliance. Nevertheless, as discussed in a 2024 paper by Eloise Pasachoff, different administrations have taken inconsistent and sometimes legally questionable approaches to keep parts of the government open during funding lapses. And there is no reliable way for courts, Congress, or the public to assess the legality of these decisions due to the short duration of shutdowns and a lack of transparency. Could Government Shutdown Rules Be Revisited? Before the DOJ memos, agencies generally operated under the assumption that they could remain open during temporary funding gaps, based on the belief that Congress did not intend for a government shutdown to result from routine delays in appropriations. While nonessential activities—such as hiring or discretionary travel—were curtailed, core operations typically continued. Then–Comptroller General Elmer Staats supported that approach, arguing that the Antideficiency Act was meant to prevent overspending and unauthorized commitments, not to bring government functions to a halt. In his view, congressional intent did not support a complete cessation of agency activity during short-term funding lapses. The DOJ memos effectively created the modern concept of a government shutdown by requiring agencies to halt all non-excepted operations and furlough employees during a funding hiatus, under threat of legal penalties. Notwithstanding the plain language of the Antideficiency Act, another administration could conceivably revisit the memos to reinterpret the scope of executive branch authority to guide shutdown operations and keep favored programs and policy priorities operational while shuttering activities deemed less important. Congress has made some progress on FY 2026 appropriations, but the risk of a full or partial shutdown remains. Lawmakers engaged in high-stakes budget negotiations should recognize the potential consequences of ceding discretion over government operations to President Trump—particularly given his demonstrated willingness push the boundaries of emergency powers and other executive tools. A failure to complete on-time appropriations could once again see the balance of budgetary powers swing toward the executive branch. A future shutdown might not only be a fiscal standoff but a test case for reimagining the structure—and constitutional boundaries—of shutdown governance itself.
