Friday, December 21, 2012

Last Senior Center contract to end in 11 days!

Well, that would have been the headline had Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners exhibited a bit of common sense and accepted the contract agreement negotiated by then Executive Director Ray Ochromowicz and Board Attorney Tom Hoffman almost two years ago.

Joint PRPD SSI Agreement







Although I could illustrate several unfortunate results brought about by the short-sighted senior-centered actions of the O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Biagi lead Boards; let me just give you one.

Postings by Butterly on Senior Issues

Date

Postings

Views

January 20, 2011

6

<   1,000

December 21, 2012

82

> 37,000

Making a Difference

A cliché  commonly used by people in “public service”, is their wish “to make a difference”!

Well, the O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Biagi lead Boards have surely  made a difference

Unfortunately for many Park Ridge seniors and other concerned taxpayers, not all differences are for the better!

Happy Holidays to you!

Monday, December 10, 2012

More conversation about the new swimming hole!

As I mentioned in the last post, the Board’s December 5th meeting went as well as Rick Biagi could have hoped; and many of his “mini-waterpark” friends attended to express their support of the $10+ million dollar, two-phase project. 

There were a few intrepid “naysayers” there of course.

Look folks - their mind is made up! 

There will be a new 7.1-to-10.5 million dollar “mini-waterpark” of some design.  I don’t think it matters a hoot what the general public has to say on December 13th.

The fix is in, so to speak!

That said; one has to wonder about the a thought process of a Park Board that includes the inability to cope with a $160,000 yearly loss for a Senior Center, while at the same time, sees no problem plunging an entire community into an additional long-term debt of 25+ million dollars (including the Youth Center property)!

Like a bad case of gas!

Well, like a bad case of gas, this story will ultimately come to an end.  Some of you will feel better – some of you won’t.  

The towns new GenXer, “your taxes are not going up” believing elite; the self-proclaimed future of Park Ridge, will feel better.  In 2014, they are going to have their expanded aquatic facility; and by choice, the financial responsibility that goes with it!

Unfortunately, the rest of you “naysayers” are going to be sucking pond water! 

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

Friday, December 7, 2012

Stack the deck – win the hand!

I went to the Park Ridge Park Board meeting last night.  As I said on the 4th, Rick Biagi intended to stack the deck with his supporters and that’s exactly what he did.

The dog & pony show went off without a hitch; and it appears he and the Board are well on their way toward indebting Park Ridge citizens with an additional $7.1 million this year plus another 3.5 +/- million in the years to come.

I stayed for most of the meeting, and during that time, 25 citizens expressed their opinions, with 21 in favor of the planned pool project.  Of course, the Board was unanimous in their support of the plan.

So, it appears the  Board and Mr. Biagi in particular, deserve kudos for their effort.

Now, that leaves December 13th for those wishing to express their disapproval, and even then, I think the new “mini-waterpark” is a done deal.

“It Ain't No Mystery,If It's Politics Or History,The Thing You Gotta Know Is,Everything Is Showbiz!” from: The Producers.

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

 

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Some people call this process waterpark by stealth – I prefer to call it business as usual – Updated: 12/06/2012!

or “waterpark lite” - a pool replacement that’s more than a pool but not a waterpark like the big boys have in Des Plaines.

“Mini-Waterpark” Meeting Tonight!

The-Trial-of-the-Knave-of-Hearts,-illustration-from-Alice-in-Wonderland-by-Lewis-Carroll-1832-9-large[1]

I recently received a copy of an email sent from Park Ridge Park Board President Rick Biagi to various friends and supporters.

Note: Yes, some of Rick’s friends are also my friends.

Rick, knows how important the next two meetings are for his “mini-waterpark” or “waterpark lite” plan to succeed; and success (public support) is what he and his Board are lacking at this moment.

You see, Rick’s 2012 Presidency has so far been a bust; and he knows it. The senior problem hasn’t been resolved and has cost the Park District thousands of dollars in litigation fees, court costs and lost employee productivity; and the youth campus property bond referendum still has more than a 50% chance of bombing out!

Further, Rick Biagi is running for reelection to the PRPD Board and needs something “positive” to run on; and hopes the creation of the “mini-waterpark” will bring out enough of his supporters for the win.

Here is what Rick wrote:

 

“Subject: Centennial Pools

Friends:

As you may have heard, the Park District is in the midst of a discussion to replace the 58 year old pools at Centennial Park.

It has been my honor to serve the citizens of Park Ridge on the Park District Board of Commissioners since 2009. In my role this year as Board President, I am extremely excited to help direct the future of the Park District with a proposed plan to modernize the aquatics facility at Centennial…but I need your help at this critical juncture.

Over the past year, the Park District staff, in conjunction with the Board and independent aquatics engineers, has been developing a plan to replace the two aging pools at Centennial with two new, modern pools that have such common amenities as zero depth entry, slides, modest recreational water features and competitive lap areas. Detailed information on the plan can be found on the Park District’s web site at the following link: http://www.prparks.org/sites/default/files/images/centennial_pool_renovation-12-faq.pdf I want to stress that, while we are planning to modernize the facility at Centennial with amenities that are comparable to many other nearby communities, this project is not on the scale of a “water park” such as the Mystic Waters facility in Des Plaines.

The overall cost of the proposed modernization project is $7.1 Million. This includes not only the cost to replace the pools, but also to properly address potential flooding issues in the area and to increase the size of the current parking lot. This project will be funded by the Board’s non-referendum bonding authority. In other words, the Board has the statutory authority to issue bonds for this amount, without increasing the tax burden on the taxpayers of Park Ridge (i.e., no new taxes for this project).

Over the past few weeks, a relatively small but vocal group of citizens have voiced their strong objection to this project, on a number of grounds. Some who live in the area don’t want a new facility which, in their opinion, could bring more noise and more people to the park. Others want the Board to simply replace the current pools with exact replicas of the existing pools (at an approximate cost of $4 Million). Still others question whether we should even have outdoor pools in Park Ridge given the limited window of time (typically 90-100 days) to operate them during the summer months and thereby accusing the Board of fiscal mismanagement by ever considering an expenditure on outdoor aquatics.

In my mind, the sole question for the taxpayers of Park Ridge is quite simple…do we or don’t we want outdoor pools in our City. If we don’t want them then the Board should be planning for the demolition of the Centennial pools within the next year, given the significant mechanical and physical problems the current 58 year old pools face. However, if the citizens feel that outdoor pools are an important fixture in our City, then we need to move forward on plans to bring a modern aquatics facility to Centennial Park. Simply put, the Board is at a crossroads and I need you to let your voice be heard on this very important issue…one that will impact the citizens of Park Ridge for generations to come.

At my direction, the Board will be holding two public hearings on the future of the Centennial Pools...on Thursday December 6th and again on Thursday the 13th at 7:30pm in the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center at 100 S. Western.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have as many people as possible at these hearings…the future of pools in Park Ridge is in your hands. So, please plan on attending one or both of the public hearings and please, pass this message on to as many people as you can.

Sincerely,

Rick Biagi”

Todays post is primarily intended to inform my readers who are not on Mr. Biagi’s email list, of his attempt to stack the meeting audience with his supporters.

“It Ain't No Mystery,If It's Politics Or History,The Thing You Gotta Know Is,Everything Is Showbiz!”  from: The Producers.

Look friends, we’re dealing with smart people here – not necessarily wise people, however. 

I believe these seven Commissioners, this “relatively small but vocal group”, are conspiring to ramrod the issue past an unsuspecting electorate.  It is obvious they will do so because they can; and because they think you are too dumb and lazy to launch any effort to stop them!

Board members have told us more than once that they’re elected and represent 37,500+/- residents. 

You are one of them!

More importantly, you are taxpayers and voters!  Biagi and other Board Members are looking to have their ego’s stroked and are running for the Board again.

If you want to stop this foolishness, you need to stop them!

Run for the Board!

In the mean time, the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Board purports to represent you; and if you think they need to hear your voice NOW so they can REPRESENT YOU, you’d better make it a priority to attend the next two meetings and tell them what you think!

Background Information

First, read the PRPD Brochure: Centennial Pool Reconstruction 2013-14 which explains their version of the story.

Centennial Park Site – Now

Playground-to-Toilets---2_thumb2_thu

Picture of proposed “mini-waterpark” facility.

image_thumb7_thumb

Note: the rendering does not take the viewer to the western edge (bottom) of the park.

Lets take another look!

This time, lets take a look at a site rendition plus the addition of Google earths photo that includes the neighbors.

Look how close their property lines are to the proposed “mini-waterpark”.

Now, look at the rendering one more time.

This time, put yourself in the place of those property owners.

You can see that the bottom of the picture (west side of park) ends at the pathway intersection, just a few feet from the property line.

image_thumb7_thumb1

Neighbors-Yard_thumb1

As you can see, neighbors on Seminary will have a front row seat to the entire waterpark; the overflow parking and noise and their friends to the south (to the right), will also be exposed to the same unwanted disturbances all summer long!

Update: 12/06/2012

Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.

“I would appreciate, since you are concerned with getting your readers the facts, that you make sure you have them. The Park District property borders Seminary, and the current western most location of the pool fence (wading pool) is 141.5 ft. from the west side of the street and the approx. distance from the proposed slide fence(which will be the furthest western point) to the west side of the street is approx. 100 feet. Which is more than a few feet.”

All that entertainment for the initial $7+ million debt.  Such a deal!  And we haven’t even discussed phase two’s “lazy river” addition.  Maybe there’s even a phase three for all we know. 

Update: 12/06/2012

Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.

 

The Lazy River is in the Conceptual Plan for Phase 2, there is no timeline or dollars budgeted for this. A timeline has not even been discussed. The bath house renovation would also be in phase 2. The cost for phase 2 is estimated at $ 3,453,300. This includes lazy river, bath house, site work, and support.

Only Park District Officials know their hidden agenda and the full financial implication along with increased neighborhood degradation due to usage growth!

This is a stealth enterprise, I believe, and an attempt to circumvent the will of the people as displayed in two prior referendum attempts to install a waterpark one step at a time. 

In short, it’s an attempt to put the camels head under the tent flap!

Finally, lets take one last look at the complete Google earth site picture, including the boundaries.

Close you eyes and visualize the possibilities.

image_thumb9_thumb

Warm weather, screaming children, pina coladas, reggae music and palm trees? 

The neighbors are going to love it!

What do you think?

More on this issue next time!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

 

Thursday, November 22, 2012

On this Thanksgiving… Update: 11/22/2012

Original Post

On this Thanksgiving, I would like to give thanks for having had the opportunity to write this blog and for the readers and commenters who’ve participated over the last 12 months.

35,000 Views

A couple days ago, Butterly on Senior Issues passed the 35,000 view mark. Can you imagine two years ago, this single-story blog reaching this mark?

I know I didn’t! 

Of course, this blogs success does not rest on my shoulders alone.

For my part, I’ve tried to make these posts interesting, attractive, informative and entertaining; something different from other local bloggers, by using videos, graphics and official documents to support my findings and/or opinions. However, in the end, any success this site has achieved ultimately belongs to you; and on this Thanksgiving let me say thank you to those who’ve invested their time reading and commenting.

Special thanks!

Finally, a special thanks to Jim O’Brien, Mary Wynn-Ryan and Rick Biagi who gave this blog its start and who’s wacky Board-related activities have kept it going.

35,000 views would not have been possible without them!

To all of you, Happy Thanksgiving!

Of course, its just my opinion.

Update Begins Here

It’s been suggested I start an additional blog “The Park District Tattler” since PRPD Boards judgment is in question on other expensive and important issues beside the Senior Center debacle.

Be honest now!

What do you think?

Good idea?

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Intercepted Comment… Updated 11/08/2012

or this commenter thinks Trizna deserves our thanks!

See Update Below!

Original Text Begins Here

I intercepted this comment on 10/22/2012. It was was destined for: Da! So what’s the deal here? The reason for not allowing the comment to pass through was the comment was not about the subject at hand. 

However, I decided to present the comment now, as a post, because I thought it enlightening, and that you might have fun reading this PRPD insider point of view.

The Intercepted Comment

 

“Anonymous said...

Thanks to Mr. Trizna for articulating the overarching fact that the Park District has always been in charge of this private club's staff and facilities. The City of Park Ridge gave 30 or 40 grand for awhile; everybody else gave lip service except for the dearly departed now and then, who gave goodly bequests. During the many years in which the Park District was laxly managed and therefore the Senior Center was staffed but essentially not managed, club members may have gotten the idea they were in charge. But a private group can say they run the Napoleonic Empire; that don't make it so. Any group depending on the largesse of all the taxpayers, any group whose membership dropped, per Mr. Butterly, from 1600 to 800 when the senior population is not only larger than in most towns but growing nationwide, is a poorly managed, unmanaged resource. That has changed since Ray Ochromowicz showed up, took one look and started making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier. So be it. Time to move on.

October 22, 2012 7:46 AM”

I’ll hold off my opinion until you’ve had your say.

Update: 11-08-2012

Anon: October 22, 7:46 AM,

You wrote: “Thanks to Mr. Trizna for articulating the overarching fact that the Park District has always been in charge of this private club's staff and facilities.”

My response: And? I fail to see how the simple facts of building ownership and park district staff responsibility prior to January 2011 seems to fascinate some on the Park Board’s side, including Mr. Trizna. All of the “Senior Center” contracts made between PRPD and SSI clearly stipulate that working relationship.

You wrote: “The City of Park Ridge gave 30 or 40 grand for awhile; everybody else gave lip service except for the dearly departed now and then, who gave goodly bequests.”

My response: And? Over those same years Park Ridge gave on behalf of its citizens, tens-of-thousands-of-dollars to support many non-profit service organizations, for the good work they did.

I don’t understand your “everybody else gave lip service” comment, since, over the years many civic-minded individuals and organizations contributed to the Senior Center.

Others, mostly individuals, gave to PRSC by supporting various fund-raising activities; and yes, still others gave bequests, something current and future Park Ridge Park District budgeters will surely miss.

Note: Most people do not contribute to entities that are not tax exempt. For example: the bequest made by Betty Kemnitz would not have been considered a tax free gift, which is the reason some people give their estates to charity.

The PRRPD is not a charitable organization, though they now like to say they are fronted by their Parks Foundation.

You wrote: “During the many years in which the Park District was laxly managed and therefore the Senior Center was staffed but essentially not managed, club members may have gotten the idea they were in charge.”

My response: First of all, I’m not sure I agree with you fully. I think PRPD has been lead poorly in the past. I think it’s being lead poorly now! However, I’m just not sure who you’re blaming! 

  So Anon, are you blaming: Angelini, Barton, Berman, Brandt, Clark, Crowe, Franklin, Gentile, Grant, Greve, or Grodsky?

Or: Hahn, Herman, Hunst, Jarog, Knouse, Lang, Lauderdale, Lucarz, Majewski, Malak, Maloney, Milissis, Mountcastle or Neumann?

What about: O’Brien, Ochromowicz, Raspanti, Santee, Schaeffer, Schreiber, Somerman, Streff, Sues, Trizna, Van Thorre, Vile, Wilkening or Wolf, or Wynn-Ryan?

Are any of these suspects, in your opinion, the incompetent Park District leaders since 2000 or were you thinking of someone else to blame for PRPD’s lax management?

You also went on to describe the pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center as a “club”.

Again I say; so what?  The derogatory use of “club” in this case, or “club-house” or “club-member” is, in my opinion, a sign of childish envy; and a personal issue you need to resolve!

You wrote: “Any group depending on the largesse of all the taxpayers, any group whose membership dropped, per Mr. Butterly, from 1600 to 800 when the senior population is not only larger than in most towns but growing nationwide, is a poorly managed, unmanaged resource.”

My response: First of all, the pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center did not just depend “on the largesse of all the taxpayers”. That is incorrect – period. I strongly suggest you meander through this site. There, you will find imbedded official documents supporting my statement.

As to drop in membership, I must agree with you.

Senior’s did a poor job of marketing their center!

There was a time, in the later 1980’s when the Center grew to 1,600+ members. That membership peak was created through the efforts of younger “60ish” Senior Center members.

Many of those members have since moved on, so to speak.

When the OLD SENIOR CENTER was taken over by the 2011 Park Board, there were still 800+ dues paying members. Based on current information, the NEW PARK RIDGE PARK DISTRICT SENIOR CENTER has slightly over 650 dues paying members. Maybe you can find out why this is so and report back here!

The major issue supporting those then opposing the old “Senior Center” back in 2011, was the $160,000 projected deficit. Of course, PRPD’s decision to take over responsibility for the new Senior Center in 2011, has grown that deficit well beyond that projection.

It didn’t have to be that way of course. The new contract agreement would have diminished the deficit significantly.

Further, as has always been the case, Park Ridge leaders and management, could have rented out the space at 100 S. Western during post-senior activity times cutting the projected deficit considerably.

This they failed to do!

You wrote: “That has changed since Ray Ochromowicz showed up, took one look and started making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier.”

My response: What changes are you talking about?

In 2008 the Board panicked.

In 2009 PRPD hired Ray “Mr. Profit Center” Ochromowicz to solve all their previously neglected financial problems. Rays idea was to run a taxpayer-funded public Park District in the manner of a private amusement park, with each amusement or activity paying its own way or making a profit.

What a cool idea the O’Brien Board and friends must have thought; and he (Ray) suggested PRPD could have a waterpark too! 

By 2010 Ray targeted the Senior Center for cost reductions and offloaded the NEW CONTRACT NEGOTIATION RESPONSIBILITY to two subordinates, Ms. Lorie Knouse, Superintendent of Recreation and Ms. Teresa Grodsky, Manager of the Senior Center; both of whom had no previous negotiating experience.

In baseball terms, Ray sent in bat-boys as pinch-hitters, expecting a home-run and a World Series win!

Big Mistake In Judgment!

On August 26, 2010 9:03 AM, he wrote the following to Ms. Grodsky describing his thoughts on the matter: 

My strategy was to throw a grenade into the status quo way of doing things. That's why 3 to 4 months ago, I gave a deadline to have the Senior Services agreement renegotiated by August, so we could budget appropriately for 2011. I suggested the radical Senior Services consume 99% of the full time staff time so they should pay 100% of their salaries and wages. I was hoping that would set people aflame. I was hoping it would cause them to not only think outside the box but drop the box and think of radically new approaches. I was hoping they'd spend the next few months research best practices from around the country, foundations, other senior centers and not-for-profits, etc, to come back with a unique counter proposal that would dramatically lower the District's subsidy.

He then went on to say:

“None of that happened. I periodically inquired about the status of the agreement while growing increasingly concern about the outcome. But, I did not interfere. I let appropriate channels do their thing.

What came back to me did not accomplish the objective. Nothing new, different or radical. Nothing that substantially changed the bottom line or would lead us to a better bottom in the future.

I guess my long winded points are:

   

1. You are on a team that overall has outperformed expectations in terms of quality, efficiency, finances and pulling together as a team. The Board and I recognize, applaud and are rewarding that. Feel good about it. Celebrate!

2. Lesson learned about my expectation for the renewal of the Senior Services agreement. Obviously, since we have never talked directly about this matter there was a breakdown somewhere.

3. It's not an individual or a ‘we' that is the problem. The problem is the outcome. We, the District, need a better outcome. It's required to avoid financial disaster in three years.

4. Change isn't always easy. The test is being able to look back three years from now and see that the action we took was consistent with the District's mission and in it' long term best interest.”

Original Email

image

image

Mr. “O”, in my opinion, abandoned his direct responsibility as the chief negotiator for the Park District. The Park District Commissioners, with the responsibility of oversight, allowed, if not encouraged, Mr. “O” to do so, to the detriment of the Park District taxpayer; in my opinion.

I’m sure the ever watchful O’Brien/Biagi lead Board saw no problem with Mr. Ochromowicz’s lead from behind management style, since they gave him a much publicized July 15, 2010 bonus of $3,000 in recognition of his performance. 

So much for “making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier.

You wrote: “So be it. Time to move on.”

My response: They’d love to, if only the Park Ridge Park District would keep its contractual agreement, cut the court crap and just pay up!  Moses said it best:  Let my people go!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Da! So what’s the deal here?

A few weeks ago, I offered Park Ridge Park District President Rick Biagi an opportunity to engage in an open “Coffee Shop” discussion of various relevant Senior Center and Park District topics. The exchange can be found among the comments associated with: Biagi-Ryan Board Vote 5-1 for Preemptive Strike –Update: 08/31/2012. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an acceptable format.

I don’t blame Rick. It would have been odd and difficult indeed for this sitting Park Board President to so publicly engage serious constituent questions without a safety-net. However, the questions remain.

So I thought, why not air the questions anyway?  Even if he can’t round these square pegs, maybe someone else can make some sense of them.

Background

I’m sure many of you recall the bruhaha created by Mr. Biagi’s Grodsky/Vile data dump. For those new to this blog, click on yellow title to see Butterly on Senior Issues, green title to see  Bob Trizna’s Watchdog blogs for background. 

I swear by my tattoo – Part One I swear by my tattoo – Part Two
A funny thing happened on the way to writing: I swear by my tattoo – Part Three Has Senior Center Made Park District A “House Divided”
Comm. Biagi Teaches IOMA Lesson To Park Board.  

Before that eruption, bloggers, former bloggers and readers were weighing in on the impending Grodsky “forced” retirement. 

See:

Watchdog’s Trizna calls this kettle black! The end is nigh!
Grodsky’s Statements Debunk Conspiracy Theories Cult Of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues.

A month or two ago, I received several PDF files covering multiple years of Attorney/Client Billing activity.  The information was originally received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  My interest in the files mainly concerned ongoing  allegations of “Board micromanagement”; a subject for a future blog post. 

While perusing the first quarter 2012 documents I came upon this 2011 invoice and its informative entries.

Note: Enjoy the full report or you can pass it by, should this much detail bore you.

To see the complete, full-screen December 2011 Attorney Invoice, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.

December 2011 Attorney/Client Invoice

Close-up - first 3 billing entries on page 3 of 5.

image

Line one states:

  “…Receive word that SSI plans to open different Sr. Center using $ from BK; suggest to DS to file suit immediately…”

Note: Here’s a short conversion table to assist your reading.

Code

Description

   
SSI Senior Services, Inc.
BK Betty Kemnitz Trust
DS Donald A. Smith, Trustee Attorney

Well, that answers the question of who caused the suit to be filed & when!

By the way, I accurately reported on the Boards first moves back in January 18, 2012’s post: Is this PRPD’s next “Senior Centered” idea?  I said:

To date, as I understand it, the Boards attorney has been in contact with the Kemnitz Trust attorney, and has verbally advised the Trust of the District’s claim of ownership, effectively freezing the dollars until a judgment is rendered. Now I know, what I’m about to say will anger some of my Senior readers, but fair is fair. I might not like the outcome, but in all fairness, if in fact what I understood to have happened actually happened, I must give Mr. Hoffman kudos for a very slick strategic move.

One call – no paper trail – full deniability!

Now, look at lines five through nine. Specifically, the last six words of detail billing line nine:

image

Note: Here’s a short conversion table to assist your reading.

Code

Description

   
DS Donald A. Smith, Trustee Attorney
trustees Trustee - Betty Kemnitz Trust
BK Trustee - Betty Kemnitz Trust
p.d. Park District
client Park District
AG Attorney General
public watchdog Bob Trizna’s Blog

The last six words again!

  “…check out public watchdog for communicating…”

Well, excuuuuuuuuse me! 

What’s the date on that?  December 12, 2011?  Gee, what did Bob communicate that day? 

Click on: PublicWatchdog - Cult Of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues.

Question

So, do you think PRPD President, Rick Biagi or Vice President, Mary Wynn-Ryan can help us understand why that entry would appear on PRPD Attorney’s billing record; on their watch; and my friends, what kind of communicating do you think he’s reminding Park Ridge Park District Officials of? 

Of course, this new fact certainly puts a bright-light on Trizna’s  negative Grodsky related postings and comments.  Of course, Butterly on Senior Issues is mentioned more than once within those same rants!

Bob, commenting on my December 20, 2011 blog post: Watchdog’s Trizna calls this kettle black; denied shilling (“A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.”) for his Park Ridge Park District friends.

Finally, based upon the above, it’s starting to become clearer to this writer (and others I might add), why PRPD Board Leaders might therefore view themselves or the District at risk and thus find themselves reluctant to sign any deal without a general release.

Something else for all of us to ponder and discuss over the next few days - between NFL and NCAA football games. 

What do you think?

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Yo Peon! We don’t have to legally do it, you know!

I received the following email on September 25th.  The note was in response to my September 24, 2012 blog post: Can’t seem to get the job done right!  The email read:

To see the complete, full document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.

PRPD Response 09-25-2012

“To let you know, placement of meeting videos is not a legal requirement.”

Really?

Do you really think insulting, off-putting (“provoking uneasiness, dislike, annoyance, or repugnance; disturbing or disagreeable”) put downs, (a remark designed to patronize and deflect criticism), are the way to win friends and influence people who write blogs about you?

It’s almost as if to say:

Yo Peon! We don’t have to legally do it, you know!

We’re doing you a favor!

A simple “We got the message.  We’ll do better.  Thanks!” would have done.

Who do you blame?  Ms. Lucarz?  No, this isn’t her writing style.  Ms. Mountcastle; and/or the Board’s Attorney who regularly collaborate on letter writing?

That’s my bet!

Bloody Amateurs!

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

30,000 Views!

 

Who wooda thunk?

 

Thank you for sticking around!

Monday, September 24, 2012

Can’t seem to get the job done right!

On September 11, 2012 I wrote: Where are the videos and minutes? 

The blog post described my year-long attempts to encourage Park Ridge Park District Management to post Board Meeting videos in a timely manner. 

I stated then: “Problem is, I think I have been writing to the wrong person!

On September 14, 2012 I updated the post as follows:

  “Only took three days to fix. There is no reason for the situation to happen again. I guess I finally got to the right person!”

At the time when I wrote the update I was aware some of the missing videos had yet to be uploaded.  I believed it only reasonable to give Ms. Mountcastle sufficient time to finish the job before commenting further.

I took a moment today to see how things were going.  The report presented below tells the story.

To see the complete, full document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.

Archived Meeting Minutes, Agendas & Board Packets - 09-24-2012

Ten additional days have gone by and still the job is incomplete.

 

Video Date

Days Ago

     
 

March 8, 2012

200

 

July 10, 2012

76

 

September 6, 2012

18

     
  Is two hundred days a long time to wait for Ms. Mountcastle to finally get the job done, considering her recent $8,500 pay increase?

And what about the July 10th video?  How long must Seniors wait until they can view that important Board meeting?

Apparently, even when getting to the top banana, this simple task still remains incomplete!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Another Big – Important Meeting Tonight!

I understand there’s a Park Ridge Park Board meeting tonight.  The subjects include the Youth Campus and Senior Center problems.

The common thread connecting these two subjects is money, or to be more specific, the acquisition of taxpayers money.

Now, I understand a shindig by the “Parks Legacy Group” is to be held on October 7th to raise some cash for the Youth Campus.  

In support of Boards current fundraising efforts, might I suggest they add for consideration, an additional item onto tonight's agenda. 

A Park Ridge Park District Park Board New Clubhouse Variety Show!

A moneymaker there if there ever was one.  Don’t you think?

Well, I searched around the Internet and found these nifty clubhouse variety show examples to get their creative juices flowing:

 

 

 

And maybe if they’re good enough, Commissioners can spin part of it off and take it on the road.

On second thought, maybe not such a good idea after all!

Of course, its just my opinion.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Users need to pay “fully-loaded costs” - so says Bob!

I was looking over Bob Trizna’s PublicWatchdog today, looking for a specific comment not associated with this post, when I came upon comments (former two-term PRPD Commissioner & 1-year President Bob) made, regarding the covering of fully-loaded costs of Park District, School District and Public Library activities.

Now, to be fair to Bob, he is nothing if not consistent.

From: D-64’s Subsidized Babysitting to Continue -05/29/12 

 

“Many/most taxpayers might expect parents who already are getting $10,000+ per year, per kid, of what amounts to “free” education not to beef about paying the fully-loaded costs of the after-school program (a/k/a babysitting) that enables them to work and afford the property taxes to obtain that almost-free education for their kids in the first place. Unfortunately, such an expectation would be wrong, at least as to those shameless-but-vocal parents who seem able to make a relatively spineless administration and school board quake in their boots.”

“Yet currently, in addition to the after-school babysitting program, D-64 offers a variety of “elective” extracurricular activities, such as athletics and music, for which it does not even attempt to recover the fully-loaded costs. Instead, those activities are designed only to cover supply expenses, not the expenses for the personnel who teach/coach/administer them.”

From: No Need For Spineless Pk. Dist. To Litigate With Shameless Seniors – 04/16/2012  

 

“But while you’re at it, Park District, you also might want to re-visit the rules and regulations for your “affiliated” organizations – at least some of which are private 501(c)(3) corporations like Seniors Inc. – to make sure those organizations are paying their fully-loaded costs; and to prevent what happened with the Kemnitz bequest from happening with any future bequest to one of those affiliates.

Because when it comes to taking advantage of government, the “shameless” come in a variety of packages besides “seniors.”

From: Time To End The Library’s “Free Lunches”? – 06/02/2010 

 

“Don’t get us wrong. We’re big fans of the Library and believe it to be a significant community asset, well-deserving of continued taxpayer support to cover the basic cost of maintenance and operation. We also like the idea of interlibrary borrowing, which creates synergies that should breed money-saving efficiencies – but only if that savings isn’t frittered away on the costs of the program.

Which is why there should be a “convenience” charge that covers the actual, fully-loaded cost of the deliveries. And while the librarians are at it, they should start looking at ways to cover the fully-loaded costs of all those “free” programs, too: if those programs truly have any value, residents should be willing to pay for it.”

Let’s see if I have this right. 

If every user from this point forward (since properties have been purchased by prior taxed monies) pays the fully-loaded costs associated with the activities they utilize, the Park District, and other taxing bodies like School District(s) or the Public Library would not need additional tax money. 

Old Bob might actually be on to something! 

The Seniors could take their $400.00+ in PRPD’s tax money and apply it toward their new Senior Center.  The other non-Center-use seniors could just keep their cash.  Local parents would pay fully-loaded costs of their child’s education and those without kids could spend their money any way they like; and the Library, well, let them rent out those books! 

Bob, it’s brilliant!

I wish I’d thought of it!

Of course, its just my opinion.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Boards Prefer Court Costs… Update: 09-17-2012

rather than political persuasion to solve their self-created problems.

 

A reader asked I provide source documents as I have done in the past. This addition will increase the length of the post, but will provide you with confidence in the numbers.

Further, it appears some of my readers still do not believe PRPD leadership wished to change the name of the 100 S. Western Building or the focus of its activities. I have now included a new document, an email from Ray Ochromowicz to Teresa Grodsky: September 13, 2010.

See: Additional Email Information 09/17/2012.

Readers and commenters from both sides of the aisle complain of the extraordinary costs to the Park Ridge taxpaying community brought about by PRPD’s two-year-long Senior Center debacle.

I’m not going to go over old ground with you, nor will I comment on any of the facts displayed at this time. Instead, I’ll just display the information obtained from Park Ridge Attorney Billing and Payment records received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), provide some general remarks at the end and await your comments. 

Of course, I intend to give you my take on this matter a little later.

The Point Of The Exercise

My friends, you must decide for yourself if the (2011 & 2012) Wynn-Ryan/Biagi Boards choice, to create a legal fracas from a simple political problem, was the right one financially.

A major financial drain to any extended litigation are Attorney fees.  That is where we will focus today.

The Reports

First report document, “Attorney Billing Payment Summary Report PRPD” displays the monthly attorney billing payments from January 2008 through April 2012.

  The detail will show the “Check Date” and “Amount” paid. There are two totals: sub-total by month and total for year.

To see the complete, full-screen Document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.

Attorney Payment Summary Report

The second report will display yearly totals from 2004 through April 2011.

 

The detail will show Year, Amount, Year-To-Year Difference, Percentage of Total and Dollars Per Day. There is also a total for years 2004 through 2011.

Pay particular attention to the “Dollar Per Day” amounts.  These facts are also presented in graphic form.

Yearly Totals – 2004-(Jan-Apr) 2012

 Yearly   Dollar  Percent  Dollar 
Year  Amount   Difference  Total Per Day
2004         41,546.64 9.91%

              113.83

2005         30,498.80     (11,047.84) 7.27%

                83.56

2006         65,227.25         34,728.45 15.56%

              178.70

2007         52,945.50      (12,281.75) 12.63%

              145.06

2008         44,315.50         (8,630.00) 10.57%

              121.41

2009         55,707.25         11,391.75 13.29%

              152.62

2010         40,680.00      (15,027.25) 9.70%

              111.45

2011         88,400.00         47,720.00 21.08%

              242.19

 ============ 
     419,320.94
2012         31,280.00

              258.51

2011 (MWR) and 2012 (RB) are the PRPD/SSI/Senior Center Debacle Years.

Dollars Per Day Chart – 2004-2012

image

Ask yourselves:

 

Is this unhappy situation what you had in mind when you elected these Commissioners?

At this moment I understand there are three court cases open, all started by PRPD Board action.

When your publicly-elected-officials spend scarce cash on frivolous law suits and petty scheming against some of your older neighbors, instead of keeping their contractual commitments, all for the sake of saving a few bucks, ask yourself; how does that increase my happiness and what does it teach my children?

I for one will never understand it!

One last thing.  The next time some a Commissioner or former Commissioner/Blogger tells you the money is going to maintain the “Senior Center” building at 100 S. Western, show them this:

Today…

Senior Center 024

Tomorrow…

image

Today, The Senior Center – tomorrow - Centennial Recreational Center, Park Center, Centennial Park Center or, based on current usage; The Wynn-Ryan/Biagi Cultural Center!

Additional Email Information 09/17/2012

Change Name of 100 S. Western Building

Can we now just agree a name change to the 100 S. Western building was seriously contemplated by PRPD leaders; and that the “Park Ridge Senior Center” signage on the building was not sacrosanct and could have been changed to the “Activity Center” at any time by a Board vote?

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

P.S.  Some of my detractors will blame my efforts for causing these needless expenses.  I would remind them that Park Ridge Park District Commissioners failed to take into account senior concerns from the outset.  Their arrogance and incompetence brought this on.  My obligation to my many friends at the Center, and as a former Senior Center Member and concerned citizen, was to inform the public; something local papers and other bloggers miserably failed to do.

Source Documents

To see the complete, full-screen Documents, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.

2004 Payment

2005 Payment

2006 Payment

2007 Payment

2008 2012 Payment