I received an email this evening. It was from a reader unable to post a oversize comment in response to someone else’s a prior comment. It read: “I responded to the last post on your blog, but it won't accept it because it is too long, I guess. I have copied it below. If you want to find a way to post it, that would be fine with me.”
The original comment, was attached to to Reality Check Indeed….. A second comment, a complete copy of the first, was attached to Backroom shenanigans? Obviously, the writer wished to make sure he got his point across.
If you have not read these posts, I urge you to do so now by clicking on the links above.
The Original Comment….
| Anonymous March 4, 2011 8:26 AM and 11:28 AM wrote…. |
| Mr. Butterly urges that the Park Board "vote the Agreement up or down". To what purpose? Might one reasonably conclude that the Park Board has not taken that route because the most recent draft Agreement proposed for its consideration is not acceptable to it? And what message would THAT send to the seniors? Why should the Park Board do a useless act? What is all the fuss about? The "Agreement" that expired back in December, 1995, was not replaced until June, 1996, but somehow the Senior Center survived. What is all the hysteria about now? The Park District's share of the 2010 operating budget for the Senior Center was $185,000, and going forward that is only predicted to increase if the current model applies. Senior Services Inc. has proposed to pay, as its share of the 2011 operating costs of the Senior Center the sum of $60,000, and yet it seems to expect the Park Board, which may find such a "sharing" formula, to be unacceptable, to enter into such an Agreement. Should a "minority shareholder" dictate operational policy, especially when the "majority shareholder" is the taxpayer? Circumstances have changed. The economy has changed. The old model may no longer be workable. The Park Board, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty to manage the assets of the park district in the best interests of all of the taxpayers and residents of the Park District would be remiss if it were to simply give a rubber-stamp approval of the suggested Agreement.
The Park Board, through no fault of its own, has been without an Executive Director and a Superintendent of Recreation in recent months and should not be pressured to act without such staff both in place and prepared to make a recommendation regarding the terms under which the Senior Center would best continue to operate. After all, isn't that why they get paid the big bucks? We should all calm down and give peace a chance. Let's not create needless anxiety for our beloved seniors. The Senior Center is not closing. The sky is not falling. |
The Response….
| Anonymous March 6, 2011 |
| The writer of the last comment is so "inside" the Park District thinking that he has completely missed how seniors and Senior Services have viewed the actions and inactions of the Park District from their perspective. His is certainly not the only reasonable view, though he arrogantly makes that assumption in his post. Let me explain. First, seniors feel insecure because the Park District has refused to act on the contract, one way or another. At the same time that it said it wouldn't even talk about the contract since the new Director should be in place first, it pressed forward to adopt (over numerous requests not to) a resolution that by its terms infers that the contract is no longer on the table. From this one can see how seniors might very reasonably conclude that the Park District no longer wishes to have a contract with seniors. And in fact, members of the Park Board have sent clear signals that they do not wish to continue a contractual relationship with Senior Services. This is not a matter of taking a while to finalize details (as it may have been in 1996), this is a situation where the Park District Board, for undisclosed reasons, is refusing to sign the contract that was negotiated by Park District staff after lengthy discussions. I think one might "reasonably conclude" that the Park Board is afraid to vote down the contract because of the upcoming election. It has had ample opportunity to negotiate changes in the contract, and to discuss it's concerns about the contract at its meetings, and has refused to do so. They don't want to negotiate, they refuse to vote it down--let me guess... after the election they won't have any problems voting it down? That sounds pretty political to me. Second, you say that "the Park Districts' share of the 2010 operating budget for the senior center was $185,000...." That's a really interesting and misleading way to phrase it. Let's be clear about this-- the Park District owns the senior center building and runs it's senior programs out of it. Those are programs that it claims to have no intention to change or discontinue, and those are programs that seniors should be able to expect from its park district. These programs are very similar to what is offered in other senior programs in the area. All costs associated with that building and its senior programming are 100% Park District costs. They don't "share" them with anyone. Do they "share" the cost of the community center with anyone? Do they "share" the cost of the pools with anyone? If they are concerned about the cost of the programs and building, they should do something about it-- that is in fact their responsibility, and in fact Ray O made a number of changes in programming and expenses before he left to do just that. Some of those changes have already been implemented, by the way. Any money that comes to the Park District from Senior Services is great because it reduces the cost of the Senior Center to the Park District. And what does Senior Services ask for in return? A contractual right to preferential (NOT exclusive) use of the building during the day. That's it. Are you really alleging that this preferential use is the "model" that will cause the Park District to incur more cost in the future? That makes no sense. Senior Services is not preventing, via the contract or in any other way, the Park District from reducing expenses or increasing revenue at that building. If you disagree, you should present the facts in support of that position. The Park District Board has so bumbled this situation that it has created every bit of the anxiety that you so callously attribute to seniors misinterpreting the facts. They haven't, and for you to say they have is utterly insulting. They know that the sky is not falling, but they also know that the foundation of the relationship between the Park District and Senior Services is crumbling. Is it wrong of them to ask for confirmation of that fact so that they can figure out how to move forward? Senior Services and seniors in general are waiting for the new Director to start. The Park District Board should have done the same before it chose to adopt a resolution prematurely and have that resolution posted on boards at the senior center. More than anything else, those actions fanned the flames of unrest and "needless anxiety for our beloved seniors." I am a citizen. I am not proud of the Park Board on this one. |
Seems likes silence by seniors is not an option.
No comments:
Post a Comment