Park Ridge Park District (PRPD) has continued to drag this sad episode out for over 300 days, that’s 300+ missed opportunities since September, 2010 to make things right, to change:
 |
to |
The Senior Center issue has gone from a minor political problem to a full-blown disaster.
When I started writing about the subject last Fall, I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be writing about it still. Yet here we are, no closer to a reasonable solution.
Last January was the watershed month. The Seniors had been led to believe there was a deal, a renewal of their 30-year contract. The Board twice placed the issue on the agenda only to table it until a later date. Of course, that date never came. Instead, the Board issued a “Resolution”, an unsolicited document written by Boards Attorney, a product designed to appease Senior Center Members and remove forever, the need for discussion and an UP or DOWN vote of the “dreaded” contract proposal. Of course, it didn’t hurt to have the issue off the table as some Board Members were running for reelection.
The “Resolution”, Seniors were told by Board Members Wynn-Ryan and Biagi prior to the election, guaranteed continued Senior centered programs. Ms. Wynn-Ryan even went so far as to state the following in an email to then Senior Senate President Barb Ingolia:
"You know my position on senior programming and services -- we need more, and that's the Park District's mandate and promise, which does NOT depend on any deal with the fundraising foundation. (In fact, I'd like to have Senior Senate play a bigger role. But that's just me.)”
Later, she went on to say here on this blog site:
“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…” and “…No matter who wins or loses in the upcoming election, the Park District WILL be providing programming for seniors.”
The Resolution
 ![clip_image002[4]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxJ-BrBYA7crywUN6ngXihQmNOoYR8uzk1qBFsLaaOy5Fob07opIbAa_yv9u39bhDhYvhhmqzRNX3DneDLqvq9MKfMPoPWL3PSXFFbu1cx2fdKkagP7czBySX5CKdYus8K2DVpAD0ngsb5/s1600-h/clip_image00245.gif "clip_image002[4]") |
A “Resolution” is not a contract.
After reading the document for the umpteenth time, I still fail to see a total and binding commitment to future senior centered activities by PRPD.
So how did some Seniors see the “Resolution”? I think that can be summed up this way:
And then!
“Cooperative Guidelines for Park Ridge Recreation and Park District & Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.” supersedes “Resolution”.
What a stunner!
After weeks of silence following a breakdown in negotiations, the Board issued, without first discussing its content and receiving voted approval for issuance at an open meeting, a document clearly designed to supersede the February 17, 2011 Board “Resolution” and to set the stage for future changes in Senior Center member relations.
Cooperative Guidelines – Version 1.0 (Undated)
![image_thumb[23]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmY5OKZ4SfsieYYGxFiFtan2P4ItLow7KCKHcCZlJrb_N9_UTl121EUbLyJ84evVhk0hTq1lFoV3zaf-tCSoXQVQc9A7OL4zNME17nCo8NaHIRfWefx9bdICD8bKMJF6zzo1kyXDrhR1eT/?imgmax=800 "image_thumb[23]") ![image_thumb[20]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6brBTNpc9WGwJoc4YpSF7PwD2TP0Hbs1TeL3HbsDmjMc0ym7KZiUzDYvg1VO0KaIRsnJPi0wS6EEpQghqrOGnKpUXR0Rsik6xJP6SJRXrru-ZP2cEhadvpV_YhAF0fNz35mhvZ9GGMcOw/?imgmax=800 "image_thumb[20]") ![image_thumb[18]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqe0MBQKBfFJRA-5Mcb-auy_OIPYT5fIT_mDuwleDyYCSi44NqIx5PC3olObIfUlcQYKFjCBdvZ_F4UJdoXkfvPv7GeXyH0s7F0V4DfMiO9I15U6ULb2cZuOdJqGYAGO4xhmwKE8Zfmxwi/?imgmax=800 "image_thumb[18]") |
The feeling I had when first reading that document can best be seen in the clip below:
The tone of that document clearly suggested who would dictate what and who would hold power over whom.
Yes, part of that clip is clearly over the top but you get the point at the emotional level.
Seniors were stunned, confused, rejected and angry!
So what kind of politically blind and inept Board did Park Ridge citizens elect that they could have so easily turned a simple political solution into a long drawn-out fiasco?
A Simple solution not taken.
To solve this problem, all the Commissioners had to do in January 2011 was:
- renew the contract for one-year with the proviso that no additional contracts would be forthcoming
- add two adjustments or amendments:
- open the building up for additional non-senior activities after 5PM
- increase the Seniors share of the Center’s operating cost by 10% or more
- create a committee of seven, made up of three Senior Center or SSI members or combination and three Commissioners or Park District employees or combination plus an outside mediator, their task, reorganizing the Center and operating relationships for future years.
Job done! Case closed! No muss, no fuss, no upset, no bad publicity!
The Board has just issued “Cooperative Guidelines, Version 2.0” and now, Senior Center Members have gotten an attorney of their own!
|
Press here for: this Senior writers free advice! PRPD, should consider that advice an “Ace” they can keep!
New leadership at the top.
Finally, maybe it’s time for President Wynn-Ryan to remove herself from the board and for the Board to find new leaders who can implement and live up to the spirit of their independently created “Resolution”.
In the mean time, might I suggest Jerry Lewis?
Why Jerry?
- Jerry’s available after Labor Day.
- He works damn hard.
- He’s focused year after year.
- He brings people together.
- He succeeds.
- Jerry’s a professional clown.
- He has a sense of humor.
- He knows how to bring BIG money to the organization.
- France’s Senior’s still love him!
As always, just my opinion!
35 comments:
Oh my goodness, the comparisons to the Park Board are spot on!! Maybe now they'll realize exactly how they look.
Mr. Butterly,
I am appalled!
Yesterday, I was participating in the annual Harry O'Brian Run. While in the building lobby I noticed Ms. Wynn Ryan enter and imperiously ignore the senior center manager and other active senior members. This focused act of disregarding the very existence of senior center participants is the height of insult for a stake-holder group her board professes to care for and represent in a taxing entity.
Never have I witnesses such blatant imperiousness in an elected official. This open hostility is standard procedure for her and the board who profess to care and sincerely claims to want to make a reasonable accommodation with the seniors in these tough financial times.
Sorry! Their arrogant ruling mentality is so blatant that sincere accommodations with the senior stakeholders is impossible. In better times public servants really "served" there constituents. This board wants to "rule" what they perceive as pesky upstart stupid seniors. Sorry Ms. Wynn-Ryan, seniors are not stupid old cattle waiting for your cowboy tactics to corral them into the slaughter pens.
I have been watching the board chicanery to arbitrarily reach an unstated and ill defined solution to a budget and asset utilization problem.
This boards lack of sincere caring and good faith is apparent to anyone familiar with the history of this conflict. It's not only tragic but totally unnecessary. All that is need is a precise definition of the problem and a gracious upfront effort to reach a resolution for mutual benefit.
President Eisenhower made a fitting analogy for effective leadership. He said to lay a string on a table and push the string to the spot you choose. The string buckles. Instead, take the string from the front and gently pull it toward your goal. Get it?
Mr. Butterly
I may not agree with you on everything Mr. Butterly but you sure are more fun to read than Mr. Trizna!
To Serve Man; love it!
Sorry, maybe there is a need for a new Board President, but Jerry Lewis? How about Howard Frimark, he couldn’t be any worse than Wynn Ryan!
I wasn't there to see Ms. Wynn-Ryan for the Harry O'Brien run but I have seen her imperious attitude on several occasions. She walks into the Senior Center like she's God and wanders around checking everything out. Never even stops to say hello to Teresa Grodsky, the Director of the Senior Center. But then, why would she say hello to a serf. The women obviously wasn't taught how to behave or social graces, because she is completely devoid of good manners. You just don't walk into a building and not even address the person in charge, even if they're your employee. Of course, before the election, she was every seniors best friend.
And kudos to Ken Butterly on an exceptional portrayal of the Park Board saying we are the masters. They sound like the Gestapo taking over. We want control of everything and "you will enjoy it".
You folks are clowns.
You will get everything that you deserve.
You state that your solution was for the Park District last January to "renew the contract for one-year with the proviso that no additional contracts would be forthcoming" and then "create a committee" for the purpose of "reorganizing the Center and operating relationships for future years."
But you want a majority of those committee members to be 3 SSI members and an outside mediator, who could then outvote the 3 Park Board members who were lawfully elected to represent all the citizens in the operation of the entire Park District, including the Senior Center.
That doesn't just sound dumb and wrong, it also sounds illegal
Anonymous @ 12:01
Right you are. Someone ought to bone up on the Open Meetings Act and how many Commissioners make up a majority of of quorum.
Steve DeBerg, August 29, 2011 11:50AM,
Steven, surely you can do better than “You will get everything that you deserve”.
Anon: August 29, 2011 12:01 PM
Yes, I suggested a seven-member committee be formed. I said: “…create a committee of seven, made up of three Senior Center or SSI members or combination and three Commissioners or Park District employees or combination plus an outside mediator, their task, reorganizing the Center and operating relationships for future years.”
Your entire premise as stated in the second paragraph is based on your misreading of my statement and a misunderstanding on your part of the role of a “committee”. A committee is not a legislative body but a working group tasked to investigate, inform and recommend. The use of an outside mediator is common practice.
Anon: August 29, 2011 12:01 PM, are you really afraid a committee would propose a plan not of your liking? Don’t worry, we’ve moved well beyond that point.
You can call it what you want, a committee, a meeting or an ice cream social...IOMA prohibits three or more elected officials from getting together to discuss business relating to their elected office unless that meeting is noticed to the public and set in an open and public forum. Read the law next time before going off half-cocked Mr. B.
Anon: August 30, 2011 8:08 AM,
Are you daft, incapable of interpretating the English language or too angry to think?
Based on my solution, the Board could have 1. 2 or 3 members on the "committee". They could have met in private or forced the meeting into the open under IOMA. I didn't care!
You must take your time and read what is written!
Yes a committee consisting of one elected official. That's much better than the Board of Park Commissioners who ALL have been elected to serve by ALL the residents of Park Ridge.
I have an idea Butterly, why not have the one Park Board Commissioner, be Steven Vile, the one Park District Employee be Grodsky, and have the Senior Senate make up the rest. No need to have those elected to make decisions, actually make those decisions.
Awesome idea. Good call.
Steve DeBerg, August 30, 2011 12:43 PM
I am going to give you an opportunity to save your reputation as a deep thinker.
MY SIMPLE SOLUTION NOT TAKEN
“To solve this problem, all the Commissioners had to do in January 2011 was:
- Renew the contract for one-year with the proviso that no additional contracts would be forthcoming.
- Add two adjustments or amendments:
1.) open the building up for additional non-senior activities after 5PM
2.) increase the Seniors share of the Center’s operating cost by 10% or more.
- Create a committee of seven, made up of three Senior Center or SSI members or combination and three Commissioners or Park District employees or combination plus an outside mediator, their task, reorganizing the Center and operating relationships for future years.”
Three questions.
Question #1: why was a renewal of the contract for one-year with the proviso that no additional contracts would be forthcoming a bad idea?
Question #2: why was the addition of the two adjustments or amendments; opening open the building up for additional non-senior activities after 5PM and increasing the Seniors share of the Center’s operating cost by 10% or more a bad idea?
Question #3: why was a creation of a committee of seven, made up of three Senior Center or SSI members or combination and three Commissioners or Park District employees or combination plus an outside mediator, their task, reorganizing the Center and operating relationships for future years a bad idea?
If you want an “A” in my class (this blog) you’ll come up with a reasonably well thought out response rather than the tripe spewed by you thus far.
I’ll be looking forward to a good read!
Your questions all center around a contract and this is where you and I cannot see eye-to-eye.
No contract is needed.
The existence of a contract that ties the hands of the Park District is bad for the Park District, the taxpayers, and simply not needed.
What's in it for the Park District to sign a contract? What do they receive in return?
The Senior Center dues? The District could easily make up that paltry sum by simply creating a Senior Center Membership, and it wouldn't even have to be anywhere near the $365 I've previously suggested (and been roundly informed that is too high and would not be supported, even though the Center itself is the life-blood of many of it's members. Apparently just not worth $1 a day).
Why does SSI get something (a contract) that no other user of the Park District receives?
I know I've heard people say one has been in place for 30 years, but it's bad management and poor oversight that has allowed that to happen.
This Board is finally saying no.
Not saying no to having a Senior Center, but simply saying no to locking themselves into terms that are bad for the taxpayers.
With that said, back to your questions:
Question 2 --
Why should the Park District need an amendment to a contract that allows them to use THEIR building, however they see fit, whenever they choose?
How would increasing the Senior "share" of the Center's operating cost by 10% work? It is my understanding the Senior Center is not even coming close to covering their costs now? If your position is that they'll cover 10% more than they cover now, that's fine, but who is covering the rest?
I know...the taxpayer!
Question 3 --
Why are you creating more committees? You have an elected board that was just voted in a few months ago (at least four of them were). They should figure this out. No reason to offload that responsibility.
If you don't like that committee, well too bad, they were elected by the people of Park Ridge. No one from outside the Senior Center ever voted for a "Senior Senator."
Don't really care about getting an "A" on your blog. There are other blogs in town.
teve DeBerg August 30, 2011 7:02 PM,
I'm sorry. I should have asked this question on my last comment.
Steven, I need to know this additional information in order to fully answer your comment.
What do you think the board has been attempting to accomplish.
Put yourself in their place. This is not a trick question. The more detail you give the better my understanding of your position will be.
By the way, you are here to get an "A" otherwise you would be back piddling away your time at the other site and you wouldn't have answered my challenge.
Steve DeBerg - If you aren't a member of the Park Board, I'll eat my hat. "You clowns will get everything you deserve". Why so angry?
Steven,
It's been two days. Don't worry. I've been trying for over 300 days to answer the same question. You won't find it on PRPD's website either. Frustrating, isn't it?
Part 1 of 2
In reflecting on the present situation that has developed between the Park District and the Senior Center, I was at a loss. I simply couldn’t understand how things could have deteriorated to this point. When looking at the situation from the standpoint of the seniors, they are baffled by the harsh, threatening documents prepared by the Park District Board, stating things like “if this relationship is to continue at all”, verbal attacks at Park Board meetings and in the newspapers. Where is all this venom coming from and why? The seniors were asked nothing about how the center is run, its programs, its fund raising efforts, its volunteers, participation in various activities, what works, or what doesn’t work? Instead they received disingenuous, misleading statements, promises not kept and harshly worded, threatening documents. I began to wonder about this type of leadership and decided to explore the attributes of good leadership and found the following:
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD LEADERSHIP
1) The leader offers guidance to the group, but also participates in the group and promotes feedback from its members.
2) Learns the problems of those involved.
3) Any person in a leadership position acquires the power to command and enforce obedience by virtue of authority. Nevertheless, true leaders don’t enforce obedience….they gain it. Modesty keeps the leader from exerting the fake leadership coming from authority.
4) Positive leaders instill hope in those who they want to follow them.
5) The successful leader must be in sympathy with his followers. Moreover, he must understand them, their lives and problems.
6) The successful leader must understand, and apply the principle of cooperation.
7) One of the single most important attributes of a true leader is communication.
8) The leader must learn all the details of anything under their purview.
9) The successful leader above all can be trusted and loyal in all they say and do.
10) Leadership calls for respect, which must be earned.
Looking back over the past months, the Park District Board has failed miserably on all counts. Any communication, trustworthiness, loyalty, knowledge of the subject, promoting feedback, cooperation, instilling hope, sympathy and respect are non-existent. As for #3, they are enforcing by authority.
The Park Board has a complete lack of knowledge in the rudimentary aspect of even how the Senior Center actually functions, which is amazing. The Cooperative Guidelines (and there is nothing cooperative about them) which they have drafted, consistently state that it is the responsibility of Park Ridge Senior Services Inc. (“SSI”) to perform many enumerated tasks. When, in fact, SSI is a private 501(c)(3) corporation, consisting of members of the community, who volunteer their time and expertise in an advisory role to the Senior Center. The Park Board has no power to, nor can they exert, any control over this corporation.
Part 2 of 2
The Senior Center was organized by a group of seniors, not the Park District. The true governing entity of the Senior Center rests with the Park Ridge Senior Center Senate (“Senate”). The Senate, as defined in the By-Laws of the Senior Center, Article IV, § A, is comprised of eighteen Senators and six Officers, elected by the membership. Article IV, § C, details the duties and responsibilities of the Senate, which include, but are not limited to: negotiation and finalization of all contracts, financial and legal obligations, plan facilities, equipment, furnishings, handle leaseholds, procure donations, bequests, etc. Article III, §2, further states that membership dues shall be determined by the Senate. As you can see, the Senior Center is completely governed by the Senate; a point of which the Park Board is completely oblivious. They think it’s SSI, as evidenced by their Guidelines.
Another issue of which I believe the Park Board is unaware is the fact that the Senior Center has over 100 volunteers, who are integral to the operation of the center. Without the volunteers cooperation and assistance in leading/facilitating programs, i.e. Genealogy, Opera, Current Event Discussions, Writers Workshop, Ceramics, Carving, Exercise Classes, Camera Club, Bocce Ball, Bowling, Bridge, Pinochle, just to name a very few. These volunteers in effect are providing senior programming for the Park District, at no charge to them. If the Park District had to pay for instructors for these classes, it would be an enormous expense.
Other volunteers provide assistance with cooking, serving meals, procuring entertainment and speakers, developing programming, organizing and staffing fund raisers and tons of other things. Without them the Senior Center couldn’t exist. Instead of saying thank you for all your time and effort, the Park Board has chosen to demean their efforts and act like they are worthless minions. Just how long do you think these volunteers will continue in these endeavors, when the Park District continues to treat them in this fashion.
Has the Park District investigated other Senior Centers to learn what programs and activities are offered, what they charge for trips and extracurricular activities and membership fees. With Park Ridge having one of the highest membership fees in the Chicagoland area, how are these other municipalities fostering and supporting their Senior Centers, with less income from the center itself? With approximately a $7,600,000 budget, the Park District can’t support its seniors? How sad is it, that Park Ridge is demonizing their seniors, making them feel unwanted, unworthy and like dirt under their feet.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??? WHERE ARE ALL THESE ATTRIBUTES OF TRUE LEADERSHIP???
Brava, Helen Roppel!
You have nailed the issue on the head.
Way to go !!!
They are so intent on contoling the Senior Center and the $$ but have never said one word about what their idea of senior programing is. They just want to show they are powerful ie all the other dictators in the world. And what has been happening to them ??
Maybe the voluteers should start charging for the time and effort that is put in, which is done now for the love of the Senior Center NOT any love of the park district.
Just imagine, if all the volunteers quit. The Park District would have little or no senior programming. How do you possibly replace over 100 people to keep things running. I think the Park District Board just might find out.
Also, it's the volunteers who run all the fund raisers and the Park District wants the proceeds of these events turned over to them. Just why would people volunteer to raise money, if they have nothing to say about how that money is spent? And on top of that, the Park District wants to approve all fund raising events to make sure they are worth while. How funny is that? You work your butt off and they want to approve it before you start and on top of that, they want you to hand over all the money you raise. DAH! This is absolutely the height of arrogance. Do they think we are that stupid? We may be old but we're not senile.
Part 1 of 2
Steve DeBerg August 30, 2011 7:02 PM,
Well, I’ve waited four days. You still have no clear idea of the Boards intentions. Well, don’t worry, they’ll be revealed in the future, I’m sure.
Now, let me answer you comments one statement at a time.
You said: “Your questions all center around a contract and this is where you and I cannot see eye-to-eye.”
My answer: The first part of your statement is true. My statements revolve around a contract because prior to February 17, 2011, the Board led Senior’s to believe a renewal of their 30-year contractual agreement was still possible. It was only after February 17, 2011 that the contract proposal was removed from the table and replaced with the Boards current Resolution. The reason I discussed the plan at all was my belief that a simple solution offering a smooth transition with no loss of revenue was available and communicated verbally to the Board’s agent as early as November, 2010.
You said: No contract is needed.
My answer: Yes and no. Yes, a contract would not be necessary if substantial monies were not involved as they had been in the past. In the future, if you’re only talking dues and value-added fees for services, then no contact should be required. Of course, we are discussing a point that is mute as the controlling document defining the relationship is now the “Resolution” passed on February 17, 2011.
You said: The existence of a contract that ties the hands of the Park District is bad for the Park District, the taxpayers, and simply not needed.
My answer: That would be true if the Boards hands WERE tied. They were not. The changes specified; opening up the center for non-senior activities after 5pm or other times when senior activity was not taking place in the building and the additional funds increase of 10% or more, would have offset Boards stated complaints for the one year transition period. As it is, there is no contract. Seniors are still being served. Seniors are no longer obligated to pay the $125,000+ dollars above their dues as they had been. Maybe I should ask for a show of untied hands from Board members who think this is a good thing!
You said: “What's in it for the Park District to sign a contract? What do they receive in return?”
My answer: Reread my last comment.
You said: “The Senior Center dues? The District could easily make up that paltry sum by simply creating a Senior Center Membership, and it wouldn't even have to be anywhere near the $365 I've previously suggested (and been roundly informed that is too high and would not be supported, even though the Center itself is the life-blood of many of it's members. Apparently just not worth $1 a day).”
My answer: Ah! You’ve been spending too much time in Mr. Trizna’s company. Let me take you back to econ 101. Price elasticity! “Price elasticity of demand (PED or Ed) is a measure used in economics to show the responsiveness, or elasticity, of the quantity demanded of a good or service to a change in its price”. (Wikipedia)
Park Ridge Park District Senior Center Dues are currently higher than neighbor public sponsered centers. I can afford to pay $365. I wouldn’t; membership at PRPD’s Senior Center is not worth $365 to me. In truth, it’s not worth $100 to me at this point. I don’t use the center and currently, I see my dues as a donation to a good cause. So at $100 I might choose not to donate.
Now you might say; Hay hay! $100 bucks and we’re rid of this scumbag! Not so fast Bunky!
There are quite a few seniors now utilizing the facility who can not afford that $100 fee. They’re on Social Security, are trying to survive on inflated dollars, and for some of them, have long ago seen their “nest egg” crack. What do you do with them? What do you say to them? Hay! Can’t afford to live in Park Ridge? Move? Die?
This is one of the areas this Park Board has yet to publicly address.
Part 2 of 2
Steve DeBerg August 30, 2011 7:02 PM,
You said: “Why does SSI get something (a contract) that no other user of the Park District receives?”
My answer: I don’t understand why those other user groups don’t demand a contract to protect their financial investments.
You said: “I know I've heard people say (a contract) has been in place for 30 years, but it's bad management and poor oversight that has allowed that to happen.”
My answer: Yes, the Board seems to think so. Mr. Trizna seems to think so. Those are your stated sources, therefore I’m not surprised you think so. If you think the continuation of that 30-year agreement is “bad management and poor oversight” what must you think of the Boards handling of the Senior Center debacle to date; good stewardship, good management, good oversight?
You said: “This Board is finally saying no. Not saying no to having a Senior Center, but simply saying no to locking themselves into terms that are bad for the taxpayers.”
My answer: You imply prior PRPD Boards saw the folly of continuing a contractual agreement with Seniors, wanted to say NO but couldn’t bring themselves to do it; that they wanted to break the agreement but lacked political will, lacked backbone so to speak, unlike the current Board.
With all due respect, that’s just plain BS.
This Board has been anything but up front on what it has wanted to do or what it wants to do in the future. As I write this answer, I believe no one, and that includes you and the Board, has any clear idea of what senior centered services will be offered or where they will offering them or for how much will be charged. If they do, they aren’t talking which does not make this Board easier to trust.
The Board made a commitment to Park Ridge Seniors through the issuance of THEIR “Resolution”. And that’s all the Board needs to operate on; that is, if they really meant what they signed!
You said: “Why should the Park District need an amendment to a contract that allows them to use THEIR building, however they see fit, whenever they choose?”
My answer: Because the old contract gave seniors preferential use of the building. Had there been a new contract an amendment changing that arrangement would have been required.
You said: “How would increasing the Senior "share" of the Center's operating cost by 10% work? It is my understanding the Senior Center is not even coming close to covering their costs now? If your position is that they'll cover 10% more than they cover now, that's fine, but who is covering the rest?”
My answer: The seniors willingly contributed on average $112,800 per year for the last five years. Those dollars were above and beyond their dues and fund-raised monies, which also go to the Park District. The contribution is where the 10% or more is added. The cost of operating the Senior Center is in the hands of the Board. They have taken the position that all operations must break-even or make a profit. Many of us hold to the more traditional formula for operating publicly funded entities.
Of course, discussing these monies at this point is purely an academic exercise. There is no contract. There are no contributions. The Board got what it wanted but unwittingly screwed the public!
You said: “Why are you creating more committees? You have an elected board that was just voted in a few months ago (at least four of them were). They should figure this out. No reason to offload that responsibility. If you don't like that committee, well too bad, they were elected by the people of Park Ridge. No one from outside the Senior Center ever voted for a "Senior Senator."
My answer: Creating a committee is common practice when dealing with these types of problems. Committees do the grunt work; Commissioners vote on the result. That is the normal order of things. That is of course, unless you have a Park Board like ours, with well-known tendencies to micro-manage.
Then of course, anything’s possible!
This was quite an interesting read. I can't believe Mary Wynn Ryan's comments regarding senior programming and that she wants to see the Senior Senate play a bigger role. This, of course, is demonstrated so clearly by the Coopreative Guidelines printed above, which take all authority away from the Senior Center and give it all to the Park Board. How is this giving the Senior Senate a bigger role??? As you can see, campaign rhetoric isn't worth the powder to blow it up and Mary Wynn Ryan certainly wasn't telling the truth and can't be believed. I'd love to have the names of the families (plural)that said they couldn't use the Senior Center bathrooms. I don't believe that one either.
Commissioner Rick Biagi's wife is one of them who was turned away at the Senior Center with little kids in tow. Feel free to reach out to him directly and ask him yourself.
Who turned her away? Was it a Park District employee or one misguided senior? Many people come into the senior center and use the bathrooms. Just how many others were there? That's just one person and Mary Wynn Ryan tells the newspapers, "EVERYONE knows you can't go near that building". She has the name of one person and she tells the newspapers this garbage. Unbelievable! She tried to make it sound like half the people in town were turned away. How misleading and tainted a statement! Anything to advance her agenda.
And by the way, anything to say about her about face right after she was elected and her campaign against the senior center? I'd sure like to hear your explanation of that point.
So, you have a Park Board Commissioner whose wife and children were turned away from using the restroom. Let's assume that really happened. It should not have, of course. But how should that Commissioner respond to that? Should he look into it by talking to the Director of the Senior Center? That seems reasonable. And the Director would have told him that it is NOT the policy of the Senior Center to turn anyone away from using the bathroom, and she would most certainly have apologized to the commissioner. And that's the end of that. But that does not seem to be what Mr. Biagi has done. Instead, he seems to have taken that one incident, involving his wife, and used it to justify taking an extreme position about the Senior Center, almost as if he has a vendetta against the Center because of that one incident. Is that a reasonable thing for our elected official to do? Make decisions about park district facilities and programs because of a grudge? I don't think so.
Just this season, the Park District needed to put a porta potty out at the ballfields behind the Senior Center at the request of many parents who were also turned away at the Senior Center when they tried to take their child in to use the bathroom during a game.
Everyone knows that the building is off limits unless you are a member...quit kidding yourself.
Anon: September 9, 2011 9:35AM,
You said: “Just this season, the Park District needed to put a porta potty out at the ballfields behind the Senior Center at the request of many parents who were also turned away at the Senior Center when they tried to take their child in to use the bathroom during a game. Everyone knows that the building is off limits unless you are a member...quit kidding yourself.”
My Answer: The long overdue placement of a porta potty adjacent to the ball field makes perfect sense to me. It has nothing to do with the Senior Center; rather, it has everything to do with practical park management. It should have been done years ago but, to my understanding, for whatever reason, was not. Everyone, rally? If you or your “everyone” had a problem with the use of the Senior Center bathroom this year, don’t blame the Seniors, blame the Park District and its Board. Seniors have not had preferential use of the building since January 1, 2011.
You said: It has nothing to do with the Senior Center; rather, it has everything to do with practical park management. It should have been done years ago but, to my understanding, for whatever reason, was not.
My response: Yeah, that sounds like a terrific idea. Let's see, we have a building that the Park District owns and pays to operate 100 ft from the ballfields with perfectly nice bathrooms that are there for public use...but instead, they rent, at an additional cost to the taxpayers, a filthy porta-potty because we don't want to chance that those little malcontents (accompanied by their parents or a coach) might disrupt anything in the Senior Center if they need to go to the bathroom mid-game. God forbid.
More importantly, it's not the bathrooms that are the issue, it's the mentality that the Senior Center has been (up until now) for the sole and exclusive use of one particular organization, yet it is funded by the 37,000 residents of Park Ridge, who bear all of the financial risk of operating the facility, while the organization who uses it bears none of the risk whatsoever. Sounds like a perfectly good deal to me...right.
Let me get this straight. There are three (3) bathrooms right there:
(1) Centennial Pool
(2) Community Center
(3) Senior Center
These three bathrooms are approximately within 100 feet of each other. And because there was no access to one bathroom, that necessitated putting a porta potty in the park. That just doesn't make sense, unless there was no access to all three bathrooms.
I simply don't understand where you get this misguided idea of the mentality of the senior center members. Of the 37,000 citizens of Park Ridge, about 1/3 are senior citizens. What else does the Park District do for it's senior citizens outside of the senior center? That's right nothing. Seniors get 2.26% of your budget. Sounds to me like senior citizens are really getting short changed. And you're complaining about the Park District getting a bad deal? I think it's the other way around.
Still waiting for an answer to why Mary Wynn Ryan said she wanted to see the Senior Center play a bigger role while she was running for the Park Board, and as soon as she got elected started a campaign against them and her take over of everything associated with the center. I guess she'll say just about anything to get elected.
Maybe the Board should quit playing possum and get on with the vote to change the name and function of the building from Park Ridge Senior Center to the Park Ridge Field House and Children’s Center now.
9:09:
BINGO!!!! Isn't it possible that they put the port a potty there because that field by the Washington parking lot is all the way across the field (not 100 ft) from the senior center/community center and during a several hour game the kids/parents may have to take a "quick break".
What I find so funny is this person is talking about bathroom usage during baseball games. Who exactly is playing those games?? I do not see any seniors running around out there. Those games are for kids, as are the majority of the programs and facilities in the park district (which is as it should be).
Has it dawned on you that the seniors tax dollars support those games being played that were not even designed for them(just as my tax dollars go to support these games and my kid does not paly baseball)?? He acts as if the senior center is the only program that tax dollars subsidize. Good lord the entire PD is subsidized!!! The continue to take 3-4% of our taxes every year. Unless you are demanding a complete pay as you use to raise enough money so that those who do not use the PD pay zero in taxes, all you are doing is picking on a program that does not apply to you.
Post a Comment