Park Ridge Park Board Attorney, on behalf of the Wynn-Ryan/Biagi PRPD Board, continues to pursue the Betty Kemnitz trust money, looking over every metaphysical grave marker as they do so.
Watching from the sidelines, I’m reminded of Tuco Ramirez (The Ugly) in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
Take a look at the clip below.
I think readers familiar with this particular twist in the on-going PRPD/SSI/Senior Center saga, will know what I mean.
Too bad the late Arch Stanton, unlike the late Betty Kemnitz, didn’t have watchful seniors protecting his gold!
Of course, that’s just my opinion!
7 comments:
Thank God for those seniors or Betty Kenmitz would be turning over in her grave. She wanted that money to be spent for and by the Senior Center. Not to be spent by a bunch of city officials who don't give a damn about the seniors. It's all about getting their hands on her money. They want to dismantle the Senior Centr organization, so they can go into court and say we don't exist. We're just part of the Park District. Well Betty, all of us who knew you, won't let that happen, if we can do anything about it.
I hope they teach you to read someday. The Senior Center is the facility run by the Park District (not the City of Park Ridge) -- the District that paid Teresa Grodsky a good salary year in and year out to create programming and run meetings, the District that paid the other staff, paid the utility bills, made infrastructure repairs, did all of the cleaning and most of the food purchasing. The Senior Center that will be here long after the faux "Senior Center" gang (another, hastily made up name for a few folks on Senior Services and Senior Senate)are gone. No matter what happens to Betty's money (and thanks for admitting that it was Betty's money, not money the Senior Services earned with fundraisers)the Park District will serve seniors. And maybe when this handful of ill-tempered individuals have moved to a better, cheaper place (good luck with that)the vast majority of remaining seniors in town will be free to enjoy themselves without the nonstop cajoling to take their dollies and go home, too.
Anon 5/20/2:40 P.M.
Referencing "teaching you to read", you may indeed read, but appears you have missed much when you read. You reference faux groups as SSI, yet missed the FACT that for 30 years, the District invoiced Senior Services for utilities and some wages. I do wish we had not existed to pay all that money to the District. Generally the owner of a building does make repairs to buildings as needed, so I do not "get" that reference as being so honorable, particularly. The district should maintain its buildings and its pools to minimize issues. Tax payers expect their property to be maintained.
Included, in fact, in the 2010 4th quarter invoice of the Park District to Senior Services submitted in early 2011 was a charge of $25,000 for Illinois Retirement Fund wage fee which was part of a larger invoice of $55,719.46 for the last quarter EVER to be paid by SSI to reimburse the District.
The purchase of food reference is puzzling as Seniors, if there was food associated with an event or program paid that fee in the program charge. If food was purchased for a fund raising event often using a Park District charge card, all fund raising expenses were reimbursed by SSI also by quarterly invoice.
You might check all the references I make by contacting the Park District requesting copies of all invoices between the two entities as well as verification that such were paid and by what check number.
Again, please read. Nobody said SSI was not a bona fide organization; only that the hastily invented "Senior Center Organization" is bogus, and everyone knows it. I can say I'm City Hall but that doesn't make me so. And as for the Park District bearing all the costs of facility maintenance so that one small clique could use it on a near-exclusive level for decades, um, no. Not ok. Seems the crew adheres to the idea that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." When the prior executive director asked for help in defraying some of the ever-increasing costs, the SSI crew sat right there and said they didn't have any money -- all the while sitting on $300K -- and while the PD paid the senior center manager, who also neglected -- oopsie! -- to mention the $300K the SSI was sitting on. If anybody has a right to feel betrayed, it's those poor dolts on the park board -- and the public they tried to serve.
Anon, 5/23, 2:19 p.m.
This is a repetitive comment,
AGAIN...Legitimate organizations generally do not allocate bequests to offset generaL operating expenses. SSI adheres to its policy which mirrors that of other legitimate not for profit organizations. If you were to read the bylaws of either the Senior Senate or SSI you would easily find the word "Senior Center" referred to in the purposes of the organizations. Future duplicate comments due to lack of reading and understanding on your part will not be addressed by me out of courtesy and respect for others who need not be "preached" to more than once.
Moreover, the suggestions made by district staff to more economically operate the Senior Center had been part of the operation, in many instances, for years. Example: advertisements were solicited by Teresa and secured to offset printing costs of the Senior Newsletter.
Perhaps the Park District should follow that model as it prepares its seasonal catalog distribution to the community to offset its huge printing and design expenses.
Part 1 of 2
Anon: May 23, 2012 2:19 PM,
I’ve got to admit, that was quite a spin. Nice try my Dear Watson!
You said: “Again, please read. Nobody said SSI was not a bona fide organization; only that the hastily invented "Senior Center Organization" is bogus, and everyone knows it. I can say I'm City Hall but that doesn't make me so”.
My response: I have been involved with this story for almost 19 months and your comment was the first use the term "Senior Center Organization" in this way. If you are referring to a prior comment by Anon: May 17, 2012 9:49 PM, than all I can do is suggest a through eye examination or a cognitive skills test. The statement read: “They want to dismantle the Senior Centr organization, so they can go into court and say we don't exist.” Now, maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe you just need to learn how to read. And of course by now, “everyone knows”!
You said: “And as for the Park District bearing all the costs of facility maintenance so that one small clique could use it on a near-exclusive level for decades, um, no. Not ok.”
My response: I’m glad you limited your statement to “facility maintenance”. The PARK DISTRICT was a LESSOR and, the SENIOR’S, were the LESSEE. The LESSOR, unless specified within the contract, is RESPONSIBLE for the maintenance of the LEASED property. All of the PRPD/SSI contracts were LEASES and specifically stated:
“2. Premises. The District shall designate all areas of the Centennial Park Fieldhouse (except swimming pool-related facilities) including the addition and stage area, for use during the term of this Agreement, on a non-exclusive basis as hereinafter provided, as a Senior Center for a fee of ONE DOLLAR ($1,.00) per year. District retains the right to utilize such facilities for other uses when Senior Center activities are not scheduled. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the District shall retain the exclusive use of the warming room and outermost washrooms during the sledding season and during the summer months when picnics and District programs are in session; the warming room shall be available for use by the Corporation at all other times during the term hereof and any renewal or extension hereof. District shall be responsible for all reasonable repairs to the building and surrounding grounds, not required by reason of Corporation’s acts or omissions.”
800 to 1,000 taxpaying members; a “small clique”, right! Also, PRPD had use of the building after 5PM and on most weekends. That they did not choose to take advantage of that opportunity, falls squarely on PRPD’s shoulders.
You said: “Seems the crew adheres to the idea that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."
My response: I think you got it backwards. It’s PRPD’s Board Commissioners who appear to believe: "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." Kemnitz Trust Fund money comes to
Part 2 of 2
You said: “When the prior executive director asked for help in defraying some of the ever-increasing costs, the SSI crew sat right there and said they didn't have any money -- all the while sitting on $300K -- and while the PD paid the senior center manager, who also neglected -- oopsie! -- to mention the $300K the SSI was sitting on.”
My response: Brother Ray “”O” operated the Park District under a misguided premise: that a Park District can and should be run on a break-even or profit-making basis. He sold this faulty idea to an uncertain Board, terrified of possible future revenue loss. And who can blame them for taking the bait? Why shouldn’t all Park District activities generate a profit? Why should one activity financially support one less profitable? They ask!
I would hate to have a child in a School District that operated under that premise! Sure would cut down on a lot of after-school activities – wouldn’t it? But we don’t operate that tax-funded body that way – do we?
Well, I’m sorry; Park Districts are not Corporations or mom-and-pop businesses or amusement parks for that matter. Park Districts are taxing bodies that distribute dollars in support of park property acquisition and maintenance. More affluent Districts also provide additional varied activities for taxpayer use. Ice-skating rink, swimming pools and young-children’s play areas being three examples. Every PRPD taxpayer: whether they can use them or not, helps defray the activity cost by their taxed dollars. Where Park Districts, in my opinion, go wrong, is they, when left unchecked, add additional amusements (activities) such as a driving-range or a gym-workout-daycare facility masquerading as a Community Center: activities commercially available but provided at a subsidized cost to their users.
Now, where do you place Senior Centers? Squarely in the middle! They; may or may-not be needed but Senior Centers serve a great purpose and are nice to have if a community can afford them. This is where the rub comes in. Park Ridge Park District cannot and never could, afford a proper Senior Center on its own. In 1980, local authorities recognized this fact and partnered with an independent group, Senior Services, Inc. (SSI) to allow Park Ridge an opportunity have such a center and the bragging rights that eventually went with it. Before this fiasco, PRPD’s Senior Center was a nationally known commodity. Now, it’s just a memory, and for some, a nightmare.
As to the $330,000 Kemnitz Trust, I’m glad you acknowledged the true and rightful owners of those funds: Senior Services, Inc. Further, the conditions of the “Trust” does not provide for its use to defray PRPD operational costs. If SSI acceded to PRPD’s requests, SSI would be in violation of its fiduciary responsibility.
You said: “If anybody has a right to feel betrayed, it's those poor dolts on the park board -- and the public they tried to serve.”
My response: I fail to see how the ones holding all the cards (power) can feel betrayed. Maybe you’d be so kind as to explain this alleged betrayal that a little more!
Post a Comment