Where do I start this story?
Of course, at the beginning!
It was Monday, January 23, 2012, 4:04 PM. I was sitting in front of my trusty Acer composing my next blog post: I swear by my tattoo – Part Three, an analysis of the Biagi email and data dump/leak.
Suddenly, I received notification of an incoming email.
It was from Rick Biagi, Commissioner and Vice President of the Park Ridge Park District Board. The last time I received a direct communication from Mr. Biagi, it was his email/data dump/leak, referenced above.
Note: Mr. Biagi’s email arrived an hour or so after I posted: For those who wonder, I do have a life beyond this Blog!, where I announced my intention to continue the “tattoo” series.
Observations & Questions
What I found noteworthy about the email, was not Mr. Biagi’s passionate defense of his wife’s alleged experiences of being denied access to bathroom facilities at the Senior Center, but the people being copied: [Board President] Mary Wynn Ryan, [PRPD Executive Director] Gayle Mountcastle and [Boards Attorney], Tom Hoffman. My […].
40 Minutes later I received an email addressed to Rick Biagi and myself, from Park Ridge Park District Board President, Ms. Mary Wynn-Ryan. Copies of her email were also sent to: [PRPD Executive Director] Gayle Mountcastle and [Boards Attorney], Tom Hoffman.
Wynn-Ryan EMail Cc - 01-23-2012
The emails, in my opinion, were clearly personal in nature. I think you’ll agree. And the senders, in my opinion, were clearly representing themselves as individuals to me and to one another. No where do they purport to be speaking for the Board.
So why include copies to Attorney Hoffman or to the Executive Director, Mountcastle when the discussion was clearly not OFFICIAL Park Ridge Park District business?
Very odd! Go figure!
So, what to do?
Well, there was only one thing to do. Clearly, Mr. Biagi and Ms. Wynn-Ryan wanted me to publish their emails, otherwise they wouldn’t have sent them to me.
So, I requested permission for publication from each author and as you can see, the email dialogue files titled “Credibility” between Mr. Biagi, Ms. Wynn-Ryan and myself, are attached as PDF/Flash File components to this post.
Observation: Quite frankly, I believe Mr. Biagi and Ms. Wynn-Ryan should have shared this (new?) vital background information with all of us over a year ago. Had they done so, I think their fellow Board Members, their friends, family, supporters, the newspapers and the public at large, including currently offended Senior Center Members, would have viewed their claims as old petty irrelevancies.
And by so doing, Mr. Biagi and Ms. Wynn-Ryan wouldn’t have caused the ensuing Board/Senior Center turmoil.
The Emails
The first file displayed is the request for permission to print their individual acceptance and proviso statements. The remaining two are the original emails, my initial response and their accompanying answers.
Note: To properly read these files, go to the end of the email-string to read the first email. Then, work your way up the file email-by-email.
Biagi - Wynn-Ryan Acceptance Emails
Biagi's Credibility Email - 01-24-2012
Note: Mr. Biagi’s “Credibility” email, referenced to statements appearing on my blog post: Restroom-gate continued – Park Ridge Park District says NO lists of formal complaints of complainers exist!
Wynn-Ryan Credibility Email Response - 01-25-2012Well there you have it. Make of these emails what you wish! In the mean time, I have some blog site house keeping chores to perform.
Mea culpa!
Obviously, I am at fault for the email-to-email situation that led to this post by not clearly laying out ground rules for those wishing to participate at this site. So, here are the ground rules for future communication with this site as of 01/25/2012.
Emails
I have placed an email address: cfre-il-emsd63@excite.com at the disposal of my readers. I would appreciate all further emails be addressed there. I look once or twice a day. Emails are not a substitute for comments!
Commenting
Comments are made to the blog via the comment box provided. A help page is available should you need it.
Requesting The Publication Of An Open Letter
Readers can request an Open Letter either via a comment that will not be uploaded or as an email addressed to: cfre-il-emsd63@excite.com.
Note: A return email address will be required as coordination on our parts will be necessary.
Leaking Documents Or Other Information
Leaked information or documents (always welcome) can be sent on or attached to an email sent to: cfre-il-emsd63@excite.com.
As always, it’s just my opinion.
23 comments:
Sorry folks (both sides) but this is nothing more than the typical childish and petty bickering that goes on in politics today. The idea that grown ups (supposedly) could not get together and reach an equitable resolution to this issue is pathetic. Is it any wonder that most of the voters are completely turned of by politics, even in a small town like PR.
Ms. Wynn Ryan.....while as stated above I think both sides are guilty if childish behavior, I have to single you out for comment. I do so because I am just blown away bu one of your e-mails.
Let's say a PR resident recognized you and approached you with a complaint about PRPD service. They go on and on and are clearly up set so you rightly as when this incident occured. They tell you it happened 12 years ago!!!!! Give me a break!!!
The idea that you could actually type that response without seeing how rediculous it is simply baffles me!!
Anon: January 30, 2012 10:54 AM
You stated "this is nothing more than childish and petty bickering... "
I do not see things the same way. Can you elaborate?
The Girl Scouts were refused the washroom a decade ago.
A commissioner's wife and small children were refused the washroom a few months ago.
Soccer families and their children, including those with diabetes and other serious ailments, have been refused on and off over the past decades, years, and months -- up until the shame of this selfishness reached the media, all the families started comparing notes, and an ostentatious attempt to rewrite the past began -- along with, of course, ceaseless yowling that the families of these children were liars.
It wasn't one incident 12 years ago and one more a couple of months ago.
Those were just two of the benchmark occasions a decade apart.
It went on regularly as an unwritten rule every day in between.
You know it. And the public knows it.
Anonymous 5:01
You are a great propagandist! "Ceaseless yowling" and ill children being denied the ability to go to the bathroom by selfish, shameful, ostentatious unnamed people.
So I took a poll, because I know a lot of people who use the fields around the senior center, as did I and my children, for many years. You don't have a monopoly on what the real story is and "unwritten rules" and the "benchmark occasions." And what I hear is that people were not denied the use of those facilities. Not a single person I talked to said they were. Not a single complaint over all these years was ever filed, verbally or in writing.
So... my story and your story differ. A lot.
But what I really can't figure out, is why this is all even being discussed? It seems so trivial, in the big picture. If I am getting this right, a couple of the park commissioners are angry that their building hasn't been open to people who want to go to the bathroom. (assuming this really has been a widespread problem, which I don't think it has at all!) And so what they have done about it is ... not clarify the policy about bathroom usage by posting signs. Not talk to people at the senior center to tell them to make sure they don't deny people the use of the building. No, those two things would have been effective and taken care of the problem easily.
Instead, they took their "story" and spun it into a tale that all the seniors keep everyone away from their building and everyone knows it, and so we are not going to have an agreement with the seniors anymore. Even though that agreement worked for 30 years and brought non-tax money into the park district to help with the costs of that building.
Talk about petty!
Anon: February 1, 2012 5:01 PM,
You said: “The Girl Scouts were refused the washroom a decade ago.”
My response: You have repeated an allegation unsupported by facts. Piling on with additional allegations without factual proof does not validate the original allegation.
Definition of allegation
al·le·ga·tion - Spelled [al-i-gey-shuh n] - noun
1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
2. an assertion made with little or no proof.
3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
Fact - Spelled[fakt] - noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth.
2. something known to exist or to have happened.
Based upon PRPD responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, we now know that no factual records supporting your, Mr. Biagi or Ms. Wynn-Ryan’s allegations exist.
To continue to assert unsupported allegations will not make them true.
Elementary my dear Watson!
I want to take a moment and offer my sincere sympathy to the board members, family members and girl scouts who have been caring around this terrible burden for 10-12 years.
While I am sure you must be perminantly scarred I do hope you find a way to press on....God speed!!
So what's wrong with the rest of the Board?
Are they asleep? Don't they understand the Biagi and Ryan garbage reflects badly on them, and that they've been lied to and made to repeat lies and look like fools? Maybe they don't care. Maybe they're just on the Board for braging rights or resume enhancement.
A real Board would have demanded resignations by now!
Last summer there was a steak fry at the senior center, while there were many activities taking place in the park at the same time. The gentlemen outdoors manning the grill and frying the steaks counted 69 people entering the senior center building and using the bathrooms. If everyone in town knows not to use the bathrooms, as Mary Wynn Ryan told the newspapers, why in the world weren't all 69 of these people aware of that fact? Mary Wynn-Ryan and Dick Biagi were just looking for something to discredit the senior center members and make them look like uncooperative jerks, with an entitlement mentality (this term was thrown around a lot) about the senior center building. So Wynn Ryan dug up something that happened 12 years ago and Biagi chimed in with his tale of woe. This is pathetic beyond words. If this is the best they could come up with, the seniors must have an exemplary record.
What happened to the Biagi Wynn Ryan cheerleading squad? Seems they lost interest once they learned they'd been had. 12 years is long time to hold a grudge. Biagi couldn't even remember which year the problem occurred. The board members caught up in these "stories" ought to feel like fools. They'll probably do nothing of course.
How many more dollars will the board have to loose before the adults take over?
Anon: February 5, 2012 5:01 PM,
You asked: “what’s wrong with the rest of the Board?” That is a good question.
It is possible they don’t care about their reputation. It is possible they’re unsure of their responsibilities as “public servants”. It is possible they just don’t give a rat’s behind.
To paraphrase Chevy Chase: They’re the Board and you’re not!
Anon: February 13, 2012 5:17 PM
I must say, they have been quiet; and who can blame them. Park Ridge Underground’s Administrator (PRU_ADMIN) and Mr. Trizna and some of his readers went out on a limb for their fellows and Wynn-Ryan and Biagi cut that limb. I’d be beyond pissed, but that’s just me.
As to fellow Board members, the fact that they haven’t asked for Wynn-Ryan and Biagi to step down, clearly shows at best, a serious lack of political understanding. On the other hand, what can one expect from the remaining befuddled Board members after being tricked and hauled down the rabbit hole.
As to the lost dollars; I counted more than a million over the next 10 years in (non-tax) potential bequest monies alone. The Board has only itself, Biagi and Wynn-Ryan to blame!
Speaking of money; how can a Park District say on one hand, it's poor and needs to take $300k from the seniors, while on the other hand, so easily spend 100k in consulting fees for a comprehensive District Wide Master Plan, as it did last October. A plan that, in my opinion, could have and should been produced in house for a fraction of the cost!
Dear Ken --
It seems you have grossly misread the focus and force of my two-part comment. I strongly suggest a review.
As for the pissing contest -- more than amusing. However, to make a "pissing contest" the sole argument pro- or con- in this matter is foolish, and I think you well know a broader use of the facilities is at issue, not just the bathrooms.
The matter of the bequest is far more interesting -- if my information and understanding of the issue(s) is correct, the PRRPD Board should be pleased I am not the judge hearing the case.
Finally, I offer that you and those expecting and--or calling on fellow elected officials to demand the resignations of other fellow elected officials, for what may merely be construed as impolitic conduct, at worst, is utterly stupid.
Each of the board members are duly elected representatives -- even the ones you don't like. To suggest the absence of such requests "shows at best, a serious lack of political understanding" would also seem to suggest you et al. believe mere political beliefs or differences of opinion -- as opposed to illegal or unethical conduct -- are reason enough to demand duly elected representatives resign. To borrow some phraseology, [that] shows at best, a serious lack of respect for and understanding of democracy.
When can we expect YOUR analysis of the "Biagi email and data dump"?
I finally had some time to sit down and review this blog I've been hearing so much about. I'm utterly astounded that elected officials in a town like Park Ridge could possibly allow a situation like this to happen. Petty name calling, dragging up incidents from 5/12 years ago, acting like children. Obviously a member of the board not liking the FOIA request regarding the bathrooms calling the blogger a bastard, under anonymous.
How could you possibly have a senior center in town for 30 years, that functioned perfectly. No trouble, no fuss, no big deal. Granted it was costing the Park District money to keep it running but from what I've read a very tiny percentage of their overall budget. This city spends that much on its studies. Also, from what I'm reading, the seniors are paying a membership fee that is the second highest in the Chicago area. How is it possible, that the Board is complaining? These are our senior citizens were talking about.
I also happen to know quite a bit about computers and have to point out something. There was discourse regarding the hacking of the director's computer. So I reviewed the emails in question and some of those emails are between Yahoo, AOL and Comcast users and did not involve the park district email system. They, therefore, were certainly hacked into, which is definitely against the law. Perhaps, as someone suggested, the parties involved ought to hire an attorney. Good Lord, what is going on in Park Ridge?
It looks like the folks who told me to check this out knew what they were talking about. I'm afraid after reading this, I'll be ashamed to admit I live here.
With respect to the comment by Park Ridge Underground - You stated, "I think you well know a broader use of the facilities is at issue, not just the bathrooms." I totally agree but the fault therein lies completely with the Park Board. For years, they have advertised use of the community center/South Park and other facilities for parties and meetings but have never once mentioned the senior center, until now. The facility isn't used after 5:00 PM and they have finally begun a campaign to attract attention to the building. This could have been done years ago, thereby off setting the center's deficit. All they did was complain about the deficit and did absolutely nothing, while the seniors ran benefit, after benefit, after benefit to raise money. It is my understanding, that they may have a permanent theater group interested in using the stage facility. Which, by the way, was bought and paid for by seniors, including not only the construction of the stage, curtains draping the stage, the sound system, lighting and piano. As a matter of fact, almost every piece of furniture, TV's, lovely library with wooden book cases, couches and tables/chairs, ceramic kiln, 1/2 of the price of the addition to the building (which is huge), pool tables, photo projectors, card tables and chairs, and on and on were all bought and paid for my the seniors. And now that they want to rent the facility and use it for some of their classes, the clean up has begun. Seniors even complained about the cleanliness, not to mention repainting, to no avail. You wouldn't believe the interest they have taken in the appearance of the building. I was recently informed that now there are plans to refinish the floor of the stage. Can't imagine why they'd do that (theater group??).
Anon: February 20,2012 3:52PM
I have been advised that, based on state and federal law, the district can reserve the right “in the District’s policies” to access any and all computers at any time and to inspect any and all contents.
You crack me up. This whole mess started when, at long last, the District properly started trying to close the ever-increasing deficit at the Senior Center by renting the space which is empty virtually every night and much of several days during the week. You would have thought the District was breaking into a member's own home based on the level of their resistance. What if somebody touches "our" pool table? "Our" paperbacks? "Our" stage? It was glaringly clear that some key users saw the Park District facility as "their" personal property and the so-called "donations" as being just a way to stash their stuff for free. That's why the continued defensiveness about the bathroom access: it made embarrassingly clear the unwritten but rigorously enforced policy that the building, with few and limited exceptions, was a private clubhouse, not the taxpayers' facility used by senior club members. The "fundraiser after fundraiser" held by the foundation netted nowhere near the amount needed to close the deficit; at best, they netted a couple of thousand dollars, and that didn't include accounting for the paid-by-the-public staff time to make it all happen. The bequests were wonderful but having to lose a member to gain the money seems a bit drastic as a fund development plan. Three bequests in 30 years is not a fund development plan. It's a sad thing to lose members! To say the District didn't do its job in renting the place out, and the Foundation did its job in hosting successful fundraisers, are both untrue. As for the cleaning, one look in the private offices and storage closets (and even some function rooms) proved that "cleanliness" was never a value held by the prior decision-makers, despite the District paying for a custodian and despite the office staff cleaning up after users as well. The place is getting cleaned up now because those who passively or aggressively resisted cleaning, financial accounting, and other values are not in charge any longer. Most members are enjoying the Senior Center as always, and they are wishing the few attention-getting detractors would join the fun.
What happened Butterly? Run out of wind? Or should I say hot air? Anonymous February 15, 2012 8:09 PM
and I are waiting for part three.
Still waiting for YOUR analysis of the "Biagi email and data dump". It took me exactly one hour to go through those e-mails. What's your delay?
Regarding Mr. Butterly's comment that according to state and federal law the Park District has the right to access any and all computers and inspect any and all contents. I would agree with this statement. The district does not have the right to access Yahoo, AOL and Comcast accounts. These accounts are not resident on the district computers. This information is resident on the AOL, Yahoo and Comcast systems.
And you crack me up. You state, this whole mess started when the district "at long last" wanted to start renting the building. What took them so long? It should have been rented during the evening years ago. So the statement that the District didn't do it's job raising money isn't untrue. "SOME" users objected but not the majority. Why did this stop you?
And, "this explains the defensiveness about the bathrooms". You dragged up something that happened 12 years ago and you made these statements to the newspapers to discredit the seniors making it sound like it had just happened. That's just about tantamount to slander. You couldn't even find something recent to complain about? That alone speaks volumes.
You can belittle the seniors efforts to raise money at fund raiser, but they were doing a lot more than the Park District to raise money. They rolled up their sleeves and worked their fannies off. It wasn't just the District employees who ran those fund raisers. There were literally hundreds of Senior Center members who donated their time and talents to raise that money. Also, you said a few thousand dollars. A few means two or three. They raised much, much, more than $2,000 or $3,000. I think the rummage sale alone raised close to $1,000.
Also, your statement that there were three bequests in 30 years, simply isn't true. There were probably closer to ten bequests. And to try to characterize these bequests as a fund development plan is a little sick and simply ludicrous.
As for concern about the pool tables, I would say that is a legitimate concern. I've seen the felt on pool tables ruined by careless use and it's not cheap to repair.
And you state that the so-called donations were just a way for the seniors to stash their stuff for free. PLEASE. Those donations from bequests and fund raisers totaled close to one million dollars and much of it was spent on the expansion of the building, which belongs to the Park District. I'd say the Park District made out pretty darn well. I wish some group would drop close to a million dollars in my lap.
Your comments stating that cleanliness was not a value held by prior decision makers is really slinging mud and ridiculous. "They were supposedly passively or agressively resisting cleaning." Just what was their objective in this resistence? Having the Senior Center look like a pig sty. Now that makes a lot of sense. Don't you dare come over here and clean things up. We like everything dirty. Numerous complaints were made to the District about the work supposedly being done by the custodian. There was even discussion about it at the Senior Center Senate meeting. It was reported that someone's shoes were just about sticking to the floor. As a result, complaints were again made to the District.
You state that most seniors are enjoying the Senior Center as usual, when in truth attendance is way down. The volunteers are pulling in ther horns and not volunteering. Prices for programs are being raised. Changes are being implemented without thought to how they will effect the seniors. Case in point, seniors have now been told that registration will be done by computer. Seniors complained but to no avail. This leaves the seniors who are not computer literate, which is a substantial number of people, right behind the eight ball. Supposedly, these seniors are told to show up at the center on a certain date and they will be given help or they can fill out paper registrations. I think that's a day late and a dollar short, as those registering at home by computer will have first pick of everything. Also, the director of the chorus has resigned after being yelled at during practice by the new director. And the Park District's grab for the latest $300,000 bequest, which was left to "The Park Ridge Senior Center" is now in court. Sounds like things are just wonderful now that the Park District is in charge of everything.
Well, Ms. Ryan never spoke to the newspaper and far from being the slanderer, she is instead the slandered one. Just one of the many repetitive untruths that have characterized your position throughout the post of 9:08 and throughout this whole situation. You should audition for an anchorman's job on Faux News. Just say the same untrue thing more and more indignantly and it will become true.
Anon: March 9, 2012 2:28 PM,
Found your response to Anon: 9:08 PM most interesting.
You wrote: “Well, Ms. Ryan never spoke to the newspaper and far from being the slanderer, she is instead the slandered one.”
How would you know Ms. Wynn-Ryan never spoke to the newspaper?
Only Ms. Wynn-Ryan would know - for sure - if she spoke or did not speak to a newspaper; and whether or not she believes she’s been slandered.
Since you are by choice; “Anonymous”, I cannot take your comments as seriously as I might otherwise. On the other hand, if Ms. Ryan actually believes, that which you have asserted on her behalf, she is always welcome, to publicly and directly state her case here!
Now, as to the “many repetitive untruths” purportedly stated by 9:08, maybe you could enlighten us with examples.
Post a Comment