I want to take just a minute to say something about my prior post and tonight’s Park Ridge Park District meeting.
My prior post…
Now, some of my readers are upset with my last post and believe I lashed out at Park Ridge Park District Commissioners and especially, its leaders, Mary Wynn-Ryan and Rick Biagi without due cause; that I’d crossed the line, that I was too direct and too harsh and in one case, a commenter suggested my post was the beginning of the end of this blog site.
I don’t think so. In any case, so be it!
A little over a year ago…
A little over a year ago, Ms. Wynn-Ryan and Mr. Biagi set into motion a series of events that ultimately led to last week’s meeting; and the beginning of the end of Park Ridge’s Senior Center.
I’m told Board leadership saw their vote a victory of sorts. A hollow victory from what I can see, especially, when “leaders” forfeited the good names of Park Ridge and Park Ridge Park District, making them, a laughing stock. Especially, when “leaders” forfeited their own good names and reputations; not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted attorney fees, management time and in lost revenue, only to win back a building they already own, instead of the whole enchilada; the Senior Center; the people!
How could seven seemingly intelligent people cockup a textbook exercise in civic leadership so badly? How did these sheepdogs fail so miserably at herding their flock?
That’s a subject for another time!
There an old 1950’s standard (song) with words by Betty Comden and Adolph Green and Music by Jule Styne.
I remember hearing it as a kid. The words go like this:
| The Party's Over, it's time to call it a day. It's time to wind up the masquerade. The Party's Over.The candles ficker and dim. Now you must wake up, all dreams must end. |
My senior friends, the parties over – time to call it a day - time to get serious about looking for a new home!
As always, it’s only my opinion!
20 comments:
It is unconscionable that you revel in making people who feel they are losing something even more upset than they already are. You are the one who is exploiting and harming the seniors for the sake of your own ego. As a younger senior, you could be a positive leader into the future. Yet you choose not to be. Almost everyone has been forced to budget more creatively in this economy, and you could have chosen to harness the best in the older generation, people who know how to squeeze a nickel, share and still have fun. You chose instead to help fan the flames of discontent into a conflagration of despair. You have missed an important opportunity to make the best of things and truly lead.
Anon: April 20, 2012 7:20 AM,
You said: “It is unconscionable that you revel in making people who feel they are losing something even more upset than they already are.”
My response: What’s unconscionable; is that senior’s, have lost “their center” and everything they built and developed. The Wynn-Ryan/Biagi lead Park Board, last night, ruthlessly cut the last string connecting, Senior’s to the Park District and “the old center”. I didn’t do that. Member upset, rests on the heads of PRPD’s Commissioners alone.
You said: “You are the one who is exploiting and harming the seniors for the sake of your own ego.”
My response: If you believe, giving seniors and other concerned community members a forum to share their displeasure and opinions regarding the Park Ridge Senior Center issue, and if you are suggesting my giving my opinion regarding same, as “exploiting and harming seniors”, then in your eyes, I am. And unlike being on Park Ridge Park District property, you are welcome to freely express your opinion without being considered a hindrance.
You said: “As a younger senior, you could be a positive leader into the future. Yet you choose not to be.”
My response: For the record, I’m 66 years old. And, by who’s standard are you measuring my positive or negative leadership skills? Who says I’m not already leading? And if by positive leadership, you’re referring to recent examples of “leadership” displayed by two high ranking Park Ridge Park Board leaders who told and retold stories of Senior Center Toilet Abuse; stories based on 12 year old manufactured “incidents”, then, I am glad I am not the leader for you!
You said: “You chose instead to help fan the flames of discontent into a conflagration of despair.”
My response: Fanning “the flames of discontent into a conflagration of despair “; is indicative of a mind that is unable or unwilling to identify the facts of the issue.
You said: “You have missed an important opportunity to make the best of things and truly lead.”
My response: Good leadership in this case, is not to align one’s self with the Board, and lead seniors into abject surrender. In short, good leadership exposes Board incompetence
I can't help but think that the first post here was written by a park Board member. The post displays the same callous indifference and ignorance that the Board displayed last night in voting to completely ignore the senior senate-- destroying a 30 year relationship between that senate and the Park District-- by choosing to replace them with a group of the Board's own choosing. What qualifies the Board to know better than the voting members of the senior center? Only that same Board's own ego and desire for complete and total control.
You say the seniors "feel they are losing something.." but fail to acknowledge that the seniors are IN FACT losing something. That perhaps the only way for them to gain what they lost back is to leave and find their own place.
The Park Board does not understand the history of the senior center. Shame on them for refusing to meet with seniors to try to understand that history better. Shame on them for forcing the seniors to have to voice their concerns and questions in a formal setting governed by strict time and procedural rules (park board meetings), or in a large meeting that isn't conducive to real conflict resolution. Shame on the Board for causing great distress among the seniors and then punishing them for exhibiting that distress. And shame on the Board for steadfastly refusing to respond to the distress and concerns with even a bit of discussion about them in an open setting.
If the first poster is a Park Board member, shame on you most of all for saying that Mr. Butterly had a chance to lead and didn't-- for YOU were elected to lead and are in a position to do so, and not only failed to lead but undid the marvelous creation that so many people worked to achieve over many years, with great thought and heart. It was an extraordinary senior center, with an exemplary leader in Teresa Grodsky. It is not that anymore. It may be "spiffed up" but what does that matter when the seniors feel dressed down?
That's what we get under this Board's "leadership."
The rest of the public, including some 7,000 seniors who are not members of the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center, don't see much "marvelous" in running six-figure deficits and being blocked at every turn when efforts were made to close the gap. There is no point in mentioning that there were NUMEROUS smaller, informal, meetings between Park board members, lawyers, staff, etc. and the senior organizations because "they never met with us" is just one of the many intentional untruths that certain seniors and those who purport to help them keep repeating. Those of us who are friends with board members know how hard they tried, and for how long and under what kind of unprecedented, vile and hostile name-calling, much of it in this blog. We remind them to take heart at the comments from seniors who just want to enjoy their bridge games. They are the majority.
YES, unconscionable that 6 of 7 Park commissioners would accept and approve policy as recommended by Gayle Mountcastle and her protege Jennifer which was designed to be deliberately divisive among older adults.
See Park Board meeting, 4/19/12.
To appoint an alternate committee of peers and associates of a member group which has already designated their advisory group is blatantly divisive. Why promote negative outcomes among residents and endanger personal relationships? Appears to be a grand beginning of the Board and administration in their promotion of a Park Ridge PARK DISTRICT Senior Center. You take yours, we'll take ours. What might this all suggest? Aside from latent bullying, what else might be suggested?
Did you know...according to the District 2009 Actual Budget, revenue from rental of Senior Center building a grand total for the YEAR for rental was a whopping $4,570. The South Park building generated more at $$29,753. Hope the total covered the expense of staff who rents facilities. The Commissioners by failing to renegotiate a license for use of the building with seniors at the end of 2010 determined to waive $100,000 in revenue as had been paid annually (over the previous 10 years) by Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.
The Park District for 30 years has invoiced PRSS, Inc quarterly for expense reimbursement. No default is recorded.
When seniors say that no one would meet with them, they are NOT lying. For the writer to say so is just the kind of statement that is creating more of a problem. Here is the truth, and it can all be backed up. There were some meetings-- that is true. Those meetings, however, were before the contract between the Park District and Senior Services was "tabled" by the Park Board, without a discussion and without a vote for or against the contract. Those meetings had to do with the contract itself, or with whether there might still be a chance for a contract.
After the Park Board tabled the contract, the seniors made NUMEROUS requests to meet with Park Board or Park District officials and they were never allowed to meet with them. They asked for a liaison to be appointed from the Park Board also. They made these requests on their own as members and through their attorneys, and they did so in writing. So if fact there were no meetings once the contract was off the table-- which is when the real problems began to arise in the situation. That's when the meetings were really needed to help smooth things over and reach a new understanding about the way things would be going forward. And that is when the Park Board and Staff turned away from them. As the quote goes, "you can't shake hand with a clenched fist."
If the park district and Park Ridge want to have the kind of senior center where people "just want to enjoy their bridge games" they are well on the way to getting it.
It's too bad, though, because the senior center was so much more than that. It was wonderful. And I don't think it is anymore. You can enjoy your bridge game in a lot of places, but our center was so unique and special and now it isn't. This is not progress.
If the response to Anon 4/20@6:39 p.m. by Anon 4/22@10:52 a.m. exemplifies vile and hostile name calling or fails to reference specifics of lack of negotiating opportunities (for the Anon addressing "no meeting" misstatements), seniors, indeed, operate from different frames of reference. I believe ACTIONS exhibited by most Commissioners have been made from positions of lack of knowledge, but I do not believe that is personal name calling.
Now for my Did you know..in the News Release distributed last week by Gayle Mountcastle she stated that "The Park District never recognized the Senior Senate". That may, in fact, be true. However, because she acknowledged the fact that the agreement was with Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.,there is reference to the working relationship between the two groups in PRSS,Inc. bylaws under purposes of organizations. Who is and has been uneducated or lax in their duties of educating themselves to make correct statements and decisions.? The District was, in fact, in a position of recognizing the Senior Senate and should have if they failed to.
Correction to my previous post: PRSS submitted MINIMALLY $100,000 (cash) annually to the District.
Anon: April 21, 2012 4:13 PM,
Part 1 of 2
I must admit, that your comment was one of the most inane statements I’ve received in a week. And the reason I allowed its publication was to show my readers to what extent some of the “friends of the Board” will go to perpetuate an untruth. Let’s deconstruct this little critter together.
You said: “The rest of the public, including some 7,000 seniors who are not members of the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center…”
My response: Excuse me? You speak for “the rest of the public”? You speak for “some 7,000 seniors who are not members of the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center”; really, Anonymous?
You said: “…, don't see much "marvelous" in running six-figure deficits and being blocked at every turn when efforts were made to close the gap.”
My response: Since you do not speak for the 37,775 residents of Park Ridge or for that matter, for the 7,000 Park Ridge seniors, what value to my readers is that assertion, other than to parrot the current party line?
You said: “There is no point in mentioning that there were NUMEROUS smaller, informal, meetings between Park board members, lawyers, staff, etc. and the senior organizations because "they never met with us" is just one of the many intentional untruths that certain seniors and those who purport to help them keep repeating.”
My response: If “there is no point in mentioning…” why did you mention the assertions? Of course, those were the same repeated assertions made by Ms. Wynn-Ryan at last Thursdays Park Ridge Park Board meeting. But since you did “mention” let me respond. “NUMEROUS” meetings, no! Not unless you consider Ms. Mountcastles highly structured “dog-and-shows” - meetings! To represent those presentations as “meetings” is, in my opinion, disingenuous at best.
The two give-and-take meetings your statement implies occurred prior to the “resolution”. After the “resolution”, there were none! Wouldn’t call that “NUMEROUS”, would you?
Anon: April 21, 2012 4:13 PM,
Part 2 of 2
You said: “Those of us who are friends with board members know how hard they tried, and for how long and under what kind of unprecedented, vile and hostile name-calling, much of it in this blog.”
My response: How do you know, “how hard they tried”? Were you there or are you one of them? And by the way, how long did they try? As to “vile and hostile name-calling”, let me remind you, it was the Wynn-Ryan/Biagi “Everybody knows” Toilet-gate story, that started the hostility.
For the record, may I remind you, Ms. Wynn-Ryan’s charge of “abusive behavior by Senior Center members” was based on a previously untold story not publicly revealed, until, Monday, January 23, 2012; a year after I first heard Ms. Wynn-Ryan tell the tale!
In an email, Ms. Wynn-Ryan divulged her story to Mr. Biagi and my-self this way:
“As you know, my daughter was a gradeschool-aged Girl Scout when, after her troop sang Christmas carols to the members of the Senior Center, they were told by their leader she'd been advised they could not use the bathroom at the Senior Center but had to wait until they got to the Community Center.”
Later, when asked when this alleged incident occurred, Ms. Wynn-Ryan wrote:
“I'm estimating about 12 years ago or so; exactly when doesn't stand out because the unwritten rule was well entrenched by then; this only caught my attention because it seemed especially churlish to refuse children in uniform who had just performed in the spirit of giving.”
I cannot imagine Ms. Wynn-Ryan holding onto that story (if true) and the apparent anger it brought her, for 12 years. One can only hope she’s over it, now that she’s got her “clubhouse” back!
You said: We remind them to take heart at the comments from seniors who just want to enjoy their bridge games. They are the majority.”
My response: The members who come to play bridge will play bridge wherever the “Senior Center” is housed. As to being the majority; they are! Unfortunately for the Park District, so are the seniors who give their names and voice their objections publicly at Board Meetings and at this blog site.
You and your toiletgate. The fact that you keep harping on one honest (a new concept for you) statement by one board member that her daughter and all the rest of her Girl Scout troop were denied use 12 years ago -- and NEVER bring up that another Board member's wife and little kids were denied use a year ago -- and that many others have had the experience between over the years until Ray Ochromowicz started improving things -- is proof that you just keep fanning the flames for the fun of it. One incident 12 years ago would not have triggered such ire, and you know it. You just look silly on this issue. As to Ms. Main's statement that in 2009 the Senior Center's rentals were budgeted at around #4,500, that's the board's point! There was no real plan to make full use of the facility because staff at that time was "trained" by militant users to discourage rentals because "what if somebody touches OUR pool table?" Toiletgate was just emblematic of this "our clubhouse" mindset. And as for the vile name-calling, re-read everything on this subject, Kenny. Even you will see who has been hateful and insulting. But don't worry, nobody expects you to man up about it. We all know the radio stars who are your role models.
Mrs. Main's statement was not that in 2009 rentals were Budgeted, Mrs. Main's point was that $4,570 was the ACTUAL revenue. Now Mrs. Main refers you to the REVENUE BUDGETED FOR 2012 for the Senior Center which is $4,225. Is 2 years not enough time to assess building usage now that the District id on its own? The Seniors have rarely used Senior Center after 5 p.m. for 30 years. Such continues. You missed the larger point that perhaps cost accounting is not equally applied throughout the District. Are employee expenses charged back to all programs or is this done selectively? Such detail is not available to the public online. Those comments dealt as well with the question of applying all expenses, including staff costs, of programs against its revenue.
One does wish to protect one's possessions from careless handling, but when it was requested that our belongings which we insure be treated with the same care and respect as are required of the District's belongings in room rentals throughout the District, Ms. Mountcastle responded in e-mail writing that the items remained at the building "at the risk of PRSS." The spirit of cooperation? With whom is it difficult to do business?
Anon, 4/23/12 at 6:24
Whoops, forgetful me, each of the two pool tables cost Park Ridge Senior Services just over $7,000 each. District's responsibility and success in renting the building off hours was a couple thousand dollars short of even being able to purchase one table.
What part of "the District didn't make a full-out effort to rent it because a militant minority had a fit" don't you understand? To be flayed now for not doing what the selfsame crew resisted so vehemently back then would be funny if -- well, actually, it is funny.
Here is what is "funny". You act as if there is this virtual gold mine of potential clients waiting in line in the parking lot to remt out the senior center.
Riddle me this Batman.....PRPD currently has space available on Sibley as well as right across the parking lot that is available for rental. What is the rental occupancy percentage for this existing space???
I am over at the Sibley building several times a month for a local PR childrens group (I do not even know if we even pay rent) in the evenings and the vast majority of the place is empty.
I guess all these groups have been sitting on their hands waiting for the "super cool" senior center to become available.
Let's meet back here one year from now and discuss rental revenue at the senior center over the last 12 months and see if it was a real issue or not. I will be more than happy to eat a little crow if required but I am not worried about it!!!
4/24 5:34 a.m.:
Militant minority? The did "rent to the dogs". I recall Tuesday evening board meetings of Park Ridge United Way in the building focused on dogs and their trainers. None of us complained. We just listened to them bark and directed the owners to the appropriate room. Likeyly could find a dozen others who could confirm this. Militant?
General Statement,
I appreciate the give and take expressed at this site but with all of the Anonymous commenters and comments, I am having a hard confusing time determining who is speaking to whom. And I suspect, so are the readers.
Please address your response comments to the commenter you're responding to. Pretty please?
Management!
How did the meeting go last Thursday?
Who attended? Anyone show up to defend the actions of the Park Board? Anyone show up to condemn?
Anon: April 23, 2012 6:24 AM,
I’m sorry the Toilet-gate story upsets you so. Maybe I’ll consider giving the story another name – just for you!
That said; Ms. Wynn-Ryan created, proofed and sold the “everyone knows” story to her Board compatriots, family and friends.
I merely retold and tested the story for evidence and found there was none.
Under FOIA request, I had Park Board personnel search as far back as 1995 for written complaint records of any kind, to validate Ms. Wynn-Ryan’s claims. Two FOIA’s revealed – no records exist – ergo, no proof!
And, Ms. Wynn-Ryan surely knows, Park District Personnel would not lie under FOIA.
So Anon: April 23, 2012 6:24 AM, what do you want from me? Surely, such an honest tale from an honest local politian; would be grounded in easily verifiable evidence; right? But that’s not the case here, is it?
No verifiable evidence on a 12 year-old story that includes the following line: “they were told by their leader she'd been advised they could not use the bathroom at the Senior Center”.
Notice Ms. Wynn-Ryan did not say they were told by a senior they couldn’t use the Center bathroom.
She stated: “they were told by their leader she'd been advised”. Advised by whom?
How do we know the girl-scout leader didn’t take it upon herself, seeing the potential for possible confusion and upset with a troop of excited little girls, in uniform, and dozens of excited bladder-filled senior ladies, who had just sat through a Christmas concert without a potty-break, trying to use the Centers limited toilet facilities simultaneously, and, being of practical and sound mind, just told the girls to wait a moment or two; the time it takes to walk between the buildings.
And not wishing to deal with the inevitable question: “WHYYYYYYYYY”, merely, stated; she was advised.
If that was the case, I say, give that Girl Scout Leader a merit badge!
Did it ever dawn on Commissioner Mary Wynn-Ryan that something reasonable might have happened or was she just looking for an excuse to press home her case. Well, we’ll never know. Will we?
Unless of course, YOU are Mary Wynn-Ryan and you have something to say. But of course you aren’t Ms. Wynn-Ryan, because Ms. Wynn-Ryan wrote me on January 25, 2012:
“I echo VP Biagi's decision: No back-and-forth in a name-calling environment from me.”
(Mr. Biagi stated on January 25, 2012: “However, as I stated in my earlier message, I will not engage in a back-and-forth dialogue on your blog where people are able to launch baseless and often false allegations against me or others under the cloak of anonymity.”).
Of course, unlike Mr. Biagi, Ms. Wynn-Ryan never said she wouldn’t publish under Anonymous.
Lastly, were you really demanding I discuss the Biagi story?
More to follow!
"dozens of excited bladder-filled senior ladies?"
and you like to think you are their white knight?
Geeze. Louise.
Stick a fork in me. I'm done here.
Post a Comment