More Non-Revenue Generating Land for Park Ridge?–Updated: 07/02/2012

Maybe they really want that space for those new trendy lacrosse fields!

 

                       It’s a done deal!

 

Park Ridge Park District Commissioners created a mess and put senior’s through 19 months of hell because Senior Center revenue could not cover a projected $160,000 or 1.33% shortfall on a $12,000,000 budget for 2011.  Now these intellectual giants want to put their fellow taxpayers in hock for another six to eight million bucks? 

Rubbish!

Park District does not lack park space. 

It lacks tax revenue!

 Of course, there’s always TIFF!  Where’s Frimark?

What do you think?

Of course, its just my opinion.

Was there really a rumble in the jungle… Updated 06/23/2012

…or did PRPD’s Board just have a bad case of gas?

Rumor on the street, is that PRPD Board met in closed open session last night (June 21, 2012) to discuss their latest revised-response to the Kemnitz Trust problem; and apparently, a good time was not had by all.

Further information describing the event and the result of that meeting, if history again repeats itself, will soon be forthcoming for our review and comments. 

Just something else to think about over the weekend! 

Ed. Note: See change - I screwed up.  Sorry!

Happy Fathers Day Weekend Thoughts…

Trizna Meeting

Had a delightful meeting with Bob Trizna and others yesterday morning at, where else, MickyD’s.  This was my first time meeting the “other blogger” and “sometime-nemesis”.  The talk was open and frank and covered a variety of Park Ridge subjects, including, of course, issues revolving around the PRPD/SSI/Senior Center controversy, a subject we are still in fundamental disagreement on.

I know, some of you, on both sides, are shaking your heads, if not your fists screaming “TRAITOR!” at your computers screen.  Don’t waste your time, neither blogger betrayed his readers.  Bob still holds to the same misguided beliefs he had when he walked in while I’m still committed to reality, supported by FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) derived facts. 

There was something I was surprised to learn however, Mr. Trizna had never seen most of the PRPD/SSI contracts.  Unfortunately, he was writing without the benefit of this critical information. I emailed Bob a full FOIA derived set later in the day. 

Do I believe the meeting worth while?  Yes, absolutely.  Would I do it again?  Yes, absolutely.  I’m in the educating/opinion/experience business, that’s what most blogs are.  In my opinion, the meeting certainly was educating, we shared opinions, and it definitely was an experience.

Now, onto the next issue, one of several subjects Mr. Trizna and I actually agree on.

PRPD Claims Open Board Meeting Videos – Copyright Protected

Four months ago I submitted an email to Park Ridge Park District Executive Director Mountcastle, requesting PRPD’s permission to copy portions of Park Ridge Park Districts publicly funded Board Meeting, videos already residing on Park District’s publicly-funded website.

My February 14, 2012, email said:

“I just have a question regarding PRPD copyright of Board Meeting Videos uploaded on the PRPD website. I intend to create videos containing portions of specific board meeting; subsets, if you will. The videos on PRPD’s site, even if they were the right format, are too large for effective viewing and cover additional information not required for the subjects I am covering. At this time, I intend to produce several videos. Each will include an “opening text screen” showing it’s origin and date, followed by the opening “roll call” vote, followed by those parts of the original video connected to Senior Center related discussion. No changes to the original material will be made. The finished product will be uploaded to Youtube from where it will be downloaded to my blog site for discussion. Youtube has strict copyright rules and of course, that's the reason for this email. So, will I have a PRPD copyright problem and if so, what published policy should I look to for guidance?”

On May 3, 2012, I received this emailed response from Ms. Mountcastle:

“The Park District claims copyrights in its videos of Park Board meetings; no broadcast, re-broadcast, publication, re-publication, transmission, re-transmission, or display of such video or copies thereof, in whole or in part, is authorized by the Park District without the prior written approval of the Park District. You are advised to seek your own legal counsel regarding any questions you may have about personal liability exposure you may face should you infringe upon a Park District copyright. The foregoing is not to be construed as a denial of access under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and your right to inspect or obtain a copy of a video(s) of any specific Park Board meeting(s) will be honored upon the Park District's receipt of a request and pre-payment of any applicable copying charges. The Park District, however, does not grant its consent to the publication, in whole or in part, of any video that may hereafter be provided to you in response to any FOIA request that you may make.”

A later Park Ridge Park District statement by Ms. Mountcastle on POLICY read:

“I just talked with Attorney Hoffman, who said he advised you last week that this is not a matter of policy, but of law. We do not have a policy on this.”

I wonder if ABC, CBS, NBC, WTTW, Pioneer Press or even the Journal-Topics, would have received the same response.

Now, I think Park District’s response is ultimately, politically motivated, and not legally driven, because I suspect, some Park Ridge Park Board Members would probably find their comments and/or actions… well, to put it kindly, somewhat unsuitable for Park Ridge’s less politically sophisticated, emotionally challenged blog reading audience. 

That’s you, by the way!

As you can see, in Ms. Mountcastle’s response, PRPD says I can’t use any part of the video, including, by extension although not expressly stated, the audio. 

They may own the video!  They may own the audio!  And they may have copyright protection for both, but do they own the dialogue?  A question still to be answered.  So, I thought, how does one get around this roadblock?

Well, I have an Idea!

Looks easy enough.  A lot of senior talent waiting to help, I’m sure.

Earlier, I reported Mr. Trizna and I found agreement on this subject.   We’ve agreed that PRPD is acting wrong-headed by invoking “copyright” protection for publicly-funded Open Board Meeting videos.  And, that PRPD should use their common political sense and reverse their decision!

Finally, Happy Fathers Day!

What do you think?

As always, just my opinion.

The Kemnitz Trust Affair…

The Kemnitz Trust Affair started with the passing of Betty Kemnitz on November 18, 2008. 

Betty, had been a long-time member of the Park Ridge Senior Center, (not to be confused with the NEW Park Ridge Park District Senior Center – PRPDSC), and apparently:

• felt strongly enough about the mission of that organization
• and well enough about her experience as a PRSS member,
• and knowing the vital need for finances to sustain PRSC activities in the future,

chose to bequest some $330,000, which included monies derived from the sale of her home at: 8053 N. Prospect Avenue, Niles, IL 60714.

And to assure the proper dispersal and use of those funds, Betty chose her friend and long-time PRPD employee, Teresa Grodsky; then Senior Center Manager, as trustee.

It’s Over – It’s Not Over – Nothings Is As It Seems To Be

Last weekend we learned from Park Ridge Advocate’s own Jenifer Johnson, the Park Ridge Park District Board was calling it quits; they had had enough, and Park Board Officials were offering to give up on their on-going attempt to acquire the Kemnitz Trust money by force.

Park Ridge Park District Officials sent out this press release.

At first glance, it sure looks like they’ve thrown in the towel.

Well, not so fast there Sport!

Over the last 19 months, I’ve come to be wary of those quick, out of the blue actions initiated by the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan lead PRPD Park Board.

So, I waited until a copy of the actual Settlement Offer came my way, before commenting. 

For your entertainment pleasure, the PRPD’s Settlement Offer.

Take a look at this paragraph from page 2.

“Public service” my eye! - It was never their money!

PRPD Board Attorney Mr. Hoffman is asking for what is known as a "general release" of any and all claims seniors may have against the Park District in return for the District giving up their claim to the Kemnitz funds. General Release definition press here! Based on that definition and my discussion with a couple legal eagles, this very broad release, as I understand it, would basically mean that Senior Services, Inc. and Senior Senate would give up their rights for redress against PRPD for things that happened up to the date of the signing.  I suspect that includes all court and attorneys fees, former unfulfilled contractual matters, etc.

No attorney in their right mind would let their client enter into an agreement containing that deal-breaking clause!

Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if the response from SSI & Senior Senate didn’t mimic those of General Anthony Clement, the US Army general who commanded the 101st Airborne Division troops defending Bastogne, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, when confronted by a German surrender ultimatum:

“NUTS!”

More Public Relations bunk?  More smoke-and-mirrors?

Finally

The Park Ridge Park District stated in its Press Release:

“It would rather see the bequest funds spent on the senior citizens of Park Ridge, whether it is at the Park District Senior Center or not.”

Clearly, holding the Kemnitz Trust funds hostage in this way, does not, at least to me, seem to be the best or most direct direct path toward accomplishing that goal! And I don’t think the Commissioner who put forth the motion to end this silly, unwise and costly Park Ridge Park District misadventure, is very happy today with the result of his efforts! 

Of course, unless it’s all a charade!

So, what do you think?

As always, it’s just my opinion.

20,250+ Views…

The View Counter

On January 18, 2012 I wrote the following:

“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.”

That post was 160 days ago.   

Can you believe it?  Still no resolution folks.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by!

“…we are not in possession of any corporate records for SSI.”

Or, they wonder why so many Park Ridge Senior Center members no longer trust Park Ridge Park District leaders.

I received an interesting email from Senior Services, Inc.’s (SSI) Sandee Main discussing requested Senior Services, Inc. corporate records.  Sandee, I’ve been told, recently retrieved detail Board Attorney billing records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  There, she found the four curious entries presented below.

Here’s the story!

On October 25, 2011 Ms. Main sent the following emailed text to Teresa Grodsky with a Cc: to Gayle Mountcastle. 

Subject: PRSS corporate records. 

The emailed text read in part:

Note: Removed unrelated text and adjusted the formatting for better readability. (Ed.)

“Because it is three weeks since I asked for the records of PRSS, which are stored at the building, are we or are we not going to be allowed to remove those records? I copied Gayle as she seems to be the only one sanctioned to make such decisions. Perhaps that was one of those "loose ends" referred to in the PD statement of policy to be addressed by management…”

At this point, it appears Ms. Mountcastle communicated with PRPD’s Attorney and on October 26th, the following attorney actions were initiated. 

Source: Detail entry from Board Attorney billing to PRPD for legal services rendered, October, 2011:

That same day, Ms. Mountcastle responded to Ms. Main’s request as follows:                                                                                                                            

“Sandee – After discussing this with Teresa and upon review, we are not in possession of any corporate records for SSI. Thank you.”

Now, as you can see, the response from Ms. Mountcastle was not targeted toward answering the question.  Ms. Main was asking “for the records of PRSS” not just the corporate records, but known reference materials, including purchase receipts for SSI purchased furnishings and equipment, documents widely known to have been stored in Teresa’s office for reference purposes.

I bet it was a real shocker to Ms. Main when she discovered this February 9, 2012 entry on Board Attorney’s detail bills.

So, it appears this Board has created another credibility problem.

Now, I know PRPD officials could easily say, the stuff inside the box was ---- cookbooks!

Yea, right!

Let’s see: $200.00/hr. attorney picks up worthless box of cookbooks for what: a 1.20 hour - $240.00 service charge?  Even with this group, I would find that one hard to believe. 

So, what valuable SSI material did Boards Attorney pick up for review and/or safe keeping?  

Anyway, I know Ms. Main and other Seniors are still surprised and angered by this type of activity. 

Having retrieved and viewed quite a few documents under FOIA myself, I no longer tend toward surprise or anger, only constant, immense disappointment!

What do you think?

Of course, it’s only my opinion!