Comment to: Open Letter to My Fellow Senior Center Members – 03/31/2011
| Mr. Butterly: Were we at the same meeting? I guess I didn't say it often or loudly enough: Park Ridge residents who are seniors can continue to depend on a variety of programs, events and activities from the Park District because that's an important part of why there even is a RECREATION and Park District. Virtually every point you make here is, at best, a misunderstanding of my intention, and at worst, is actively inaccurate. I could take an hour and attempt to clear each of them, but after nearly three hours the other night standing up there explaining everything with my heart on the line, I truly don't know what more I could say that would convince you. Your mind is made up.
Thank you for this forum. Ms. Mary Wynn Ryan, April 1, 2011 1:24 PM |
My response…
Ms. Wynn Ryan,
We did indeed attend the same meeting and no additional repetition in message or increase in volume will change what I and others Senior’s who attended that meeting think. I or should I say we, as I’ve discussed the meeting and your subsequent blog “comment” with various Senior’s who attended the meeting, believe the message delivered does not match the Board’s recent actions. I’m referring of course to the current Senior Center problem.
Your Board continues to act as if this dilemma were purely a misunderstanding on the part of the Senior’s and if only Board members continue to repeat the mantra, the Senior’s will be mollified and the problem will go away.
You say that Senior’s shouldn’t worry; that they can depend on PRPD’s mandate, they can depend on PRPD’s good intentions and the Board’s word.
Senior’s know that PRPD has a mandate to serve all Park Ridge residents. So what else is new? It’s not like they were born yesterday. They’ve heard the Boards good intentions. They’re nice intentions. The resolution was well crafted. The problem revolves around their believing in the Board’s word, its bond.
Ms. Wynn Ryan, actions speak louder than words. So, look at a little history.
A little history.
| Board Minutes without mention of Senior Center or SSI Contract. |
| Jan. 07, 2010 | Jan. 21, 2010 | Feb. 18, 2010 |
| Mar. 04, 2010 | Mar. 18, 2010 | Apr. 01, 2010 |
| Apr. 15, 2010 | May 06, 2010 | May 20, 2010 |
| Jun. 03, 2010 | Jun. 17, 2010 | Jul. 05, 2010 |
| Aug. 05, 2010 | Aug. 19, 2010 | Sep.16, 2010 |
| Nov. 18,2010 | Dec. 29, 2010 | Jan. 13, 2011 |
| Jan. 26, 2011 | Feb. 03, 2011 |
Board Minute Extracts where the Senior Center or SSI Contract is discussed.
First there was Mr. “O”’s concern!
  |
 |
| Sep. 09, 2010 |
That led to Senior’s concern!
| -Approved 11/18/2010-
|
| “Numerous senior citizens addressed concerns about rumored changes to the Senior Center. They spoke of the importance of the Senior Center and objected to any changes in the building’s name. Commissioner Biagi stated that the Board has never entertained the notion of closing the Senior Center and they are pleased with the Senior Center programs. He stressed the importance of coming up with ideas to lower subsidy. Executive Director Ochromowicz stated that the Senior Center’s subsidy is increasing by more than $20,000 a year; approaching $190,000 in 2010; and that increasing subsidy can’t continue. He asked for the names of those who spread misinformation so he can speak with them. Commissioners thanked the audience members for their comments and for attending the meeting.” |
| Oct. 21, 2010 |
That led to an agreement!
| Approved 11/18/2010- New Business |
| “Executive Director Ochromowicz summarized the terms and conditions for an agreement between the Senior Services and the Park District: the agreement will no longer be a lease agreement and the building will be recognized as the Districts and will be useable for other programs and services; the contract will be for two years instead of three; Senior Services would pay the Park District not less than $60,000 per year divided into |
| Nov. 04, 2010 |
Agreement reaches final stages!
  |
 |
| Dec. 16, 2010 |
First deferral – two board members missing!
 |
 |
| Jan. 12, 2011 |
Second deferral – need new Executive Director’s involvement!
 |
   |
| Jan. 20 2011 |
The Resolution!
 |
  |
| Feb. 17, 2011 |
Note: On January 20th, the Board’s attorney agreed that missing two Commissioner’s was enough to keep the Board from taking a five member vote on an agreement that had been in the hands of the Board for several weeks. Did the Board’s attorney not see the irony in the Board’s passage on February 17th, of an unsolicited resolution; a document delivered a day or two earlier, a document not discussed or previously reviewed at a prior public meeting,; a document then proposed, challenged by one Commissioner and passed by only four Board Members in spite of two Commissioner’s being absent?
So where’s the proposed contract now?
What contract?
The only thing missing from this Hogan’s Heroesque charade is Sgt.Schultz’s statement: “I knowwwww nothhhhhingggg”.
Sorry kiddo, I just didn’t believe you. And neither did they!
6 comments:
Folks:
I am her today to tell you the problem with Mr. B. I want to start by making sure that I am clear.....I am ALL FOR the senior center and I think it is a GREAT use of what ever small amount of my tax dollars are used to support it. Also, while not a union member, I am all for unions having the right to collective bargaining. I think what has been going on lately in Wisconsin is a joke. With that out of the way, back to Mr. B's problem!!
It is the same problem that most of the electorate has. He is only concerned with his issue(s) and sees no need to be consistent in arguing for those issues.
While he has not come out and said it, Mr. B is urging all those who read this blog to vote for the union slate of candidates. This is certainly your choice and yet it seems Mr. B is only "pro-union" when it serves his purpose on this (the senior center) issue.
I would urge all of you who read this blog to go to his other blog on education. You will find a very different view of unions at that blog. Look at the 6/14/10 thread in particular. Here he links to an article by Mark Hemingway of the Examiner. He puts it under the heading of "coming to a school district near you".
Now while I might not agree with this negative opinion of unions expressed by Mr. B, it is his right and, in this case, it serves his purpose of railing against teachers salaries but it does force me to ask a question. I hope it also forces some of you to look hard at both his blogs. The question is as follows.
Why would a person who posts an article that associates unions with shake downs and the Mafia (by the way I am a huge Godfather fan as well), want me (and you) to vote for candidates who clearly come to the table as pro union. I mean I am sure they are all very talanted people and nice people, but it was the union that, in some cases recruited them, got all the signatures, paid for the signs and is out knocking on doors. I am not saying that any of the above is wrong. I am saying it should be factored in to ones decision. If Mr. B is so concerned about union "Mafia tactics", if this is the way his mind works, why would he not be concerned with a board dominated by union candidates? I said above I am all for collective bargaining but there tends to be not as much bargaining if the are bargaining with themselves.
Mainly, I am saying that I think it is important for politicians, voters, and yes even bloggers, to be consistent as they apply their positions on the issues we face.
Anon: April 03, 2011, 7:11,
Thank you for urging readers to read my blog.
You said: “I am here today to tell you the problem with Mr. B. I want to start by making sure that I am clear.....I am ALL FOR the senior center and I think it is a GREAT use of what ever small amount of my tax dollars are used to support it. Also, while not a union member, I am all for unions having the right to collective bargaining. I think what has been going on lately in Wisconsin is a joke.”
Answer: That’s nice!
You said: “With that out of the way, back to Mr. B's problem!! It is the same problem that most of the electorate has. He is only concerned with his issue(s) and sees no need to be consistent in arguing for those issues.”
Answer: Yes, I am only concerned with my issues. I would like to help you with yours but I just don’t have time. And you are right; I am not consistent on every issue at all times. My opinion of light is quite different outside in direct sun than it is in the shade.
I do not see anything wrong or inconsistent in that, as you obviously do. Why should the subject of unions be any different? Or baseball teams? Or school administrators or snow or rain for that matter?
You said: “While he has not come out and said it, Mr. B is urging all those who read this blog to vote for the union slate of candidates.”
Answer: If you had read all of the posts on this blog, and I don’t think you have, you would already know that I do not hold back on those things I believe in. Unless, I say “vote for union candidates”, I didn’t say it. I know whom I’m voting for and that’s all that counts. By charging me with being “pro-union” you are expressing your preference for a non-union slate.
You said: “I would urge all of you who read this blog to go to his other blog on education. You will find a very different view of unions at that blog. Look at the 6/14/10 thread in particular. Here he links to an article by Mark Hemingway of the Examiner. He puts it under the heading of "coming to a school district near you....".
Answer: Yes, yes, yes! I agree; please read my entire blog! There are almost 90 postings. Surely you’ll find one that you agree with or not, and one or more to comment on. That said; I urge you go to the 6/14/10 post. Read Mark Hemingway’s article and ask yourself; is that the kind of activity I want my child’s teacher or school administrator to participate in? I used absurdity to illustrate my point. The commenter apparently has a problem in distinguishing that.
Finally, the commenters last paragraph (not including the Mafia hyperbole), is quite valid. The SEIU has supported, to my understanding, three Park Ridge Park District candidates. Only two of them have a chance to become new Commissioners. The third candidate for a two-year term is running unopposed. That would ultimately make for a minority of three SEUI Commissioners, if you include Dick Brandt. By 2014, the remaining Board could turn SEIU. You will have to decide if that is good!
The commenter would suggest that I not write argumentatively regarding the Senior Center problem or Board incumbents, because he/she fears a union takeover. Had the current Board not botched the Senior Center Contract issue so badly, and had they not dissed 800+ senior’s in the process, the two incumbents would not now, be fearing for their seats.
You said the following.......
"Yes, I am only concerned with my issues. I would like to help you with yours but I just don’t have time. And you are right; I am not consistent on every issue at all times. My opinion of light is quite different outside in direct sun than it is in the shade.
I do not see anything wrong or inconsistent in that, as you obviously do. Why should the subject of unions be any different? Or baseball teams? Or school administrators or snow or rain for that matter?"
I do not question your right to do this. I simply think it completely destroys your credebility. You basically admitted you simply out for what you want. There is not need to be consistent. Unions are simply fodder in the game. In one case unions are "Mafia" and in another let's vote for them!!! You completely missed your calling. You should quite blogging and become a politician. You have no more committment to these supposed principles you expouse than they do.
Very informative post, Mr. Butterly. Thank you for laying out the facts.
Anon: April 4, 2011 7:08 AM,
Thank you!
Anon: April 4, 2011 5:29 AM,
First: Why would my being flexible in my belief and opinions about unions or baseball teams, or school administrators, or snow, or rain destroy my credibility? You appear to be inflexible regarding unions. Why is your credibility not destroyed?
Second: What “principles” are you talking about? The principles underlying: Unionism?
Third: Why did you insult me by suggesting I become a “politician”?
Enlighten me please!
Post a Comment