| “To help save the economy, the Government will announce next month that the Immigration Department will start deporting seniors (instead of illegals) in order to lower Social Security and Medicare costs. Older people are easier to catch and will not remember how to get back home.” |
Only a joke!
For now, those words are just a joke running on the internet, but by next month, the way things are going south for the seniors, and with Board Leaders actively going after and counting on the disputed $300,000+ Kemnitz bequest, who knows?
When is enough, enough?
It is my understanding a General Board Meeting will be held tomorrow night, January 19th. There, a Board Member, maybe Mr. Biagi himself, is expected to propose adding the $300,000+ Kemnitz bequest to their apparently underfunded budget.
The Kemnitz bequest money are dollars presently in the hands of Senior Services, Inc., the legal and financial arm of the Senior Center Membership. The bequest was made to the Park Ridge Senior Center, then run by SSI and not to the Park Ridge Park District prior to the end of the PRPD/SSI contract and well before the Boards takeover of the Senior Center in January 2011. The PRPD Board and their attorney appear to believe the mere name on the front of the building and the fact that (former employee) Ms. Grodsky was made Trustee, automatically entitles them to the cash. It appears at this time, the Park Ridge Park District Board fully intends to wrench these funds from the Seniors – this year!
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!
So, the District currently does not yet have, and in my opinion, has no more than a 50/50 chance of obtaining these monies in 2012 – if ever. Therefore, I believe it unwise for the Board to accept the change at this time. An adjustment to the budget can always be made should the District prevail in their efforts.
The View Counter
The view counter has just passed the 10,200 view mark. In my opinion, that’s 10,165 more views than this pathetic, year-long, Board-created and Board-perpetuated saga should have ever generated! Board’s forced retirement of Ms. Grodsky and Mr. Biagi’s recent adventure in document leaking, added almost 4,000 additional views to this site over the last six or so weeks alone.
Never wake up a sleeping dog!
On December 29th, I wrote: Seniors - Stay Young at Heart! That was to be my swan song. A month earlier, I wrote: The end is nigh!
The truth was, the PRPD/SSI/Senior Center episode was over. Biagi, Wynn-Ryan and Steve Hunst got their “clubhouse” back and removed their last strategic obstacle, Ms. Grodsky.
The Issue Was Dead
In short, the issue was dead, the wake was held, the funeral was over and only the grieving remained. But guess what? Mr. Biagi, not content to bask in the glory of his victory, waited until the day of the memorial service (Grodsky’s Going-Away Party) to deliver his coup de grâce by hanging out the District's "dirty little secrets".
It should have been clear by reading the afore mentioned posts, even to the the most intellectually tone-deaf PRPD Board Leader, that I considered their Park Ridge Senior Center fiasco mute. No additional actions on my part were necessary. It was over! Well, not now. And this rudely reawakened dog is not in the mood to play fetch!
Finally
If I might quote, (out of context), from one of the emails I recently received over the last few weeks discussing the Gradsky/Vile/Biagi matter. The statement originated from a local celeb who wishes to remain Anonymous. Quote:
“Finally, on to Mr. Biagi. His actions can only be described as honorably intended.”
Really!
For the record, my anonymous friend did not feel the same way about the actions of Ms. Grodsky or Mr. Vile; that is, my friend saw their actions as “indefensible” or as I take it, their motives and actions were not honorable or lacked good intentions.
But honorable intentions or indefensible actions by what standards?
Of course, we all know about good intentions and we’ve all walked on pavements; haven’t we? So, maybe, based on my anonymous friend’s quote, I should just title my next series of posts: “Well, welcome to their road to hell!”
As always, it’s just my opinion!
15 comments:
What a joke. Go sail Butterly.
sourgrapes
Nice job, really good article mate
you are beyond immoral. I'd say "how dare you?" but the answer is, "for hits on my silly little site, I'd do just about anything."
Nobody's deporting seniors to save on senor center costs, Medicare or Social Security. But you might consider harnessing the vast energies of your cohorts to a project with a scope worthy of them: Lobbying to save Medicare and Social Security. Unlike senior programming in Park Rige, those two essentials really are at risk.
Just a suggestion.
Anon: January 19, 2012 3:31 PM,
I let your comment go through because it clearly illustrates for my readers, especially those in the neighboring towns, the type of mentality exemplified by some of Butterly on Senior Issues detractors. At the same time, these same detractors wonder why this problem just keeps going on and on.
Quite sad actually!
Anon: January 20, 2012 1:58 PM,
See my answer to Anon: January 19, 2012 3:31 PM.
p.s. You really do need to get your sense of humor valve adjusted!
p.p.s. Are you really asking my cohorts to save Medicare and Social Security for YOU?
Dear Ken --
Part 1 of 2
Setting aside the misapplication and misspelling of the term "sourgrapes," and also noting the amusement provided by the hyperbole-challenged, I think some of your readers are justifiably irritated with your treatment of the subject matter. Though they lack the ability to properly articulate their irritation.
As I explained to you, in our correspondence, and repeat here again with a sharper focus on the IOMA context --
The equivalency you have attempted to draw between the actions of Ms. Grodsky and Mr. Vile and Mr. Biagi, simply does not exist, as a practical matter in comparing the actions of those parties.
Mr. Vile and Ms. Grodsky chose to selectively share the information they received. They did not share that information for the purpose of informing the general public. Nor for the purpose of correcting any misinformation in the public domain.
One could easily concluded Mr. Vile's and Ms. Grodsky's intent, based upon the rather selective distribution they chose for the information they shared, was for purposes of political strategizing, not general dissemination of information to an un(der)-informed public.
And neither of those parties was sharing information because they thought the larger Park Board was engaged in conduct that could either be considered legally unethical or a constructed fraud.
I will also restate -- Further, Ms. Grodsky has proven to be willing to lie -- a strong term, but applicable. Ms. Grodsky's employment with the PRRPD was indeed a retirement, but not wholly of her own making, as she professed it to be, in public and to the press.
There is absolutely nothing which could compel her to make any such statement, or any statement at all, to the press. She chose to do so, and she chose to make a false statement. Only Ms. Grodsky knows why, and the rest is a matter for her personal conscience.
Ken, you are very well-versed in the IOMA process. However, I have to wonder if you grasp the point at which the provisions, and necessary "sanctuary" provided by the IOMA, become a political perversion. Neither Mr. Vile nor Ms. Grodsky can be punished for "leaking" closed session information; sane individuals would battle mightily against such a provision. However, their actions cannot not be defended in any way, because they did not, as a point of fact, attempt to actually inform the general public of the information they had.
And, as I explained, Mr. Biagi's actions were decidedly different. His intentions were very much for purposes of informing the general public, and an attempt to "set the record(s) straight." And for that, Mr. Biagi earns kudos -- or PRUdos, if you'll allow. Though, as I also stated to you, his wisdom in choosing to do so is debatable.
Part 2 of 2
So, you asked by what standards can the honorable and-or dishonorable intentions of the involved parties be measured. My answer is, by observing the depth and breadth of their respective actions. The highly selective sharing of information is far less an honorable act than attempting to correct and disseminate information as broadly as possible.
You may not like that answer, but I do note you chose not to address and defend against the specifics of the matter either in our correspondence or here in your blog post.
Simply because you and those who share your views had determined the matter had ended, does not dictate any actual end to any given matter. Clearly, Mr. Biagi did not feel as if the matter had ended. It also appears there were those for whom the matter had lasting effects -- so much so that Mr. Biagi and his wife! were subject to conduct he found personally offensive. Seriously? The man's wife? Did Ms. Biagi step into the public debate or take part in the political goings on? If not, then there's no excuse for accosting her, and whoever did is a classless cad. Mr. Biagi also appears to have been extremely upset at the lingering misinformation in the public domain; enough so, he attempted to correct it. That is a responsibility integral to an elected official's personal and public integrity. The public will never be able to give it's informed consent without the benefit of true and real information.
I've accepted that you disagree. I would ask you again to step back and take a more measured consideration of these matters. Sometimes we can be too close to a subject and fail to see both real and potential failings, and be too eager to excuse blatant hypocrisy.
Keep fighting the good fight, Ken. But do yourself a favor and make sure it really is the good fight. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into the petty dramas being perpetrated by people with too much time, little personal integrity, and excruciatingly narrow views.
Finally, whenever you get the chance to spend time on the water, I hope you find it both relaxing and refreshing. As we've discussed before, breaks are necessary and healthy.
And of course, all the above is just my opinion. ;)
All best and fond regards,
PRU.ADMIN
PRU! THANK HEAVENS YOU'RE BACK!
PRU:
Well said!
MR. BUTTERLY:
I look forward to YOUR OPINION after "reviewing these documents and putting them in context".
I do find the comment about "making sure it really is a good fight" to be very interesting.
I first found about your blog(s) via a link privided by PRU. That was to Butterly on Education.
I realize that we all have to balance our time, but I find it very interesting that your last post on the education blog was approximately 8 months ago!! I guess that must mean that all is right with D63 and education in general?!?! 5 months into the school year and not a peep from Butterly!! The superindendent must be very happy!!
Nope!! What it really means is that the personalities and the battles with those involved in te PD/senior center issue are much more "interesting" to you.
Anon: January 20, 2012 1:58 PM,
Part 1 of 2
I need to apologize for having been so flippant with you. You see; I considered your angry, disjointed and poorly crafted comments unworthy of my time. But, as always, I accepted it onto this site for review or comment by all.
Over the weekend, a friend of mine reminded me of my oft stated belief that all humans do their best, every day, whether they achieve their desired result or not. I decided to look at your comment again. So, here I am, feeling somewhat obliged on principal, composing a modification to my initial response. Here we go!
You said: “you are beyond immoral”
My response: First of all, one is either moral or immoral. Also, one cannot be beyond moral or beyond immoral any more than one can be moral and immoral at the same time. One could however, with a little stretch of the imagination, interoperate your opinion of me, that is, my being “beyond immoral”, as being more or better than immoral, or moral.
I would like to believe that is what you really meant.
However, if that is not what you meant, you wasted your opportunity by failing to display any evidence of my so-called immorality or immoral position regarding the Board created Senior Center situation.
Anon: January 20, 2012 1:58 PM,
Part 2 of 2
You said: “I'd say ‘how dare you? but the answer is, for hits on my silly little site, I'd do just about anything’”.
My response: I dare do what I do because the Board dares to do what it does.
The Board is engaged in a HOSTILE TAKEOVER of the former Park Ridge Senior Center.
I consider their actions devoid of good political sense. I consider their actions devoid of common sense. I consider the Boards attitude and actions wrong-headed and unjustifiably hurtful.
These words describing the Board’s attitude should be placed on a banner behind their seats at each Board Meeting.
We’re the Park Ridge Park District Board and you’re not!
As to the 100 per day view rates on “my silly little site”, I can only say this.
That view per day rate is the result of my having created an interesting place where readers can get the other side of the story, from seniors. They come here because they like what they see. And they come back because they want to read more!
The reason you and the Board in particular, dislike this blogsite and what I am doing, is that this blogger and his blog site is something not under your control and it is effective.
Your use of “silly little site” was meant to be belittling and disparaging. If any one is "silly", it’s you as evidenced by your comments.
You said: “Nobody's deporting seniors to save on senor center costs, Medicare or Social Security. But you might consider harnessing the vast energies of your cohorts to a project with a scope worthy of them: Lobbying to save Medicare and Social Security. Unlike senior programming in Park Ridge, those two essentials really are at risk.”
My response: Has anyone ever explained “satire”, its use and history to you?
Let me help you.
Satire is a NOUN. Satire refers to the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc….”, “…a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule”.
May I refer you to: http://www.helium.com/items/137530-history-of-satire for further study.
And upon completion of your study, might I suggest you then take this new-found knowledge and reread all of my posts and comments. You may still disagree with them but in the end, you will have a better understanding of satire and possibly, the Senior Center story.
So, January 23, 2012 12:00 PM, you found me out. I’ve given up on East Maine School District 63. I’m sorry that I’ve let you down. Eight years, 1,000+ FOIA requests and thousands of dollars out of pocket for those FOIA’d results and two years and thousands of blogged words is all I am willing to give to EMSD#63 problems. Where were you? What support of these efforts did you provide? Where you there just for the entertainment?
No, you’re just a guy that comes to the table late and complains that the kitchen’s closed!
And there’s nothing I find “interesting” about that!
I've been wondering for some time how the Park Ridge Park District was able to hack into the Park Ridge Senior Center Director, Ms. Grodsky's, "private" email account. I happened to be in the service department of one of our very large electronic stores recently and asked the computer geek how this was possible. He referred me to the resident guru. I explained that a "private" email account was opened in the work place and the employer hacked into the employee's personal account and how was that possible. He explained that it was possible if you really knew what you were doing but commented, "Why would anyone do such an unscrupulous thing". I guess we'll have to ask the Superintendent of the Park Ridge Park District, Gayle Mountcastle, that question.
A few things. Was her e-mail private or on PRPD e-mail? You put the quotes around private and I am not sure why. If the messages appeared on PRPD e-mail, even if sent from her private e-mail to another PRPD e-mail user, they have every legal right to review those messages. As an aside, they would not have to "hack" to review these messages. An administrator sign on allows them to review all this information.
People are terminated on a regular basis for sending and receiving inappropriated messages on company e-mail as well as surfing inappropriate web sites.
If you are suggesting that she sent messages from her personal home e-mail account (like AT&T or Comcast or AOL) to another such account and it was hacking and I would urge her to get a lawyer.
Just my opinion!
Post a Comment