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.
27 comments:
I vote continuing Charade.
The addition of the phrase you highlighted makes you wonder just what any of the other parties may have against the Park District that might be pursued.
Reference comments regarding SSI monetary assistance in news release
Does Park Board have a Probationary period employee policy which gives them space to evaluate performance of new hires over 6 o 8 months to determine if the new hire is an appropriate fit?
If after however many months the Executive Director has been employed she still is not aware of the thousands of dollars SSI contributed to facility operations and facility capital improvement, I think that is an issue. If she is referring to immediate monetary help that is so obviously not warranted. When the Board avoided acting on assuring building priority for senior operations, they chose to not accept monetary assistance. Not that hard to understand., but is taking your new hire so long to get it.
Seniors, don't give up the fight! How dare this park board treat their tax-paying citizens in this manner. I don't think the judge in this legal matter would approve if he was aware of all that is going on. I think it's time to go to the TV news stations, and put this fiasco out to the general public. The park board is not serving the tax-paying public, but only their own egos. Enough of this IDIOTIC behavior!
I'm just sick to death of all this press trying to make the citizens of our fair city think that the Park District "only wants the seniors to get the Kenmitz trust". If that was true, why in the name of God has the Senior Senate and SSI been spending all this time protecting the Kenmitz trust money from falling into the hands of the park district??? It's simple - they didn't want that at all. They wanted the money in their hands.
..and didn't we hear the board voted 7-1 to include the $330,000 in their 2012 operating budget. NOW WHAT?
The Board voted 7-1????
When did they add an extra Commissioner?
June 11 6:08
If it were 10 to 1, the validity of action should still be questioned. Who cares how many there are. It should, of course, be an odd number. (meaning odd and even numbers) not odd people.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. The Park Board, in spite of believing that Betty Kenmitz expected that money to be spent at 100 S. Western, which is reasonable considering that is where every other bequest dollar has been spent for the last 30 years, decided to forego thier claim on the money. The letter is pretty standard language for legal settlements. The settlement document has yet to be written.
Instead of graciously acknowledging the offer and working towards putting this whole mess to bed, you act with outrage? That is ridiculous.
You can't even accept when the Park Board is being conciliatory. That should make you think twice about your role, Mr. Butterly, in increasing the hostility during this whole debacle.
I normally don’t ask my readers to go to someone else’s blog, but this is an exception worth making.
Bob Trizna is a local politician, former Park Board Commissioner, lawyer, Library Trustee and was recently appointed 6th ward “kingmaker”, along with colleague Park Ridge Park District Commissioner & President, Rick Biagi.
Bob’s blog, Public Watchdog, is a good place to go to FEEL the pulse of Park Ridge.
You may not like much of what Bob has to say on many subjects, but he and his readers, seem to represent the ENLIGHTENED thinking in this town.
I’m sending you there to once again, to see for yourself, why seniors want out of the Park Ridge Park District relationship. His thoughts and PRPD Commissioners thoughts often appear to travel along parallel lines. And on the subject of PRPD/SS/Senior Center, they most certainly do.
So, go over there, crank up his viewership numbers and bathe yourself in local sludge – or not!
Ken:
One man's scholarship is sometime's another's "sludge." I'd like to believe PublicWatchdog posts are more about thinking than "feeling," but I can understand how opinions might vary.
However, "politician" is an insult I don't forgive readily.
Also, I'm not sure somebody can be a "kingmaker" while holding only one of four votes.
But despite your barbs, the coffee offer still holds.
June 11, 11:22
Pretty weird that you claim the document above dated June 1 on the Park District attorney letterhead is not perceived by you to be the Settlement document. What do you feel is missing from the "letter" to indicate it is not a settlement document even though addressed to all attorneys of all parties. It is almost as if the paragraph highlighted frightened you or other Park Dstrict associates. Now, we need to claim this is not the settlement offer--just a letter. Well, I'll be...
I agree...it does not specifically say .."settlement offer" on top of page, but neither did the last one presented by the District attorney. YOU need to do better than that in covering up reality of words written.
Carla...with your fancy law degree, you should know that a settlement letter is different than a Settlement Agreement. The former is just a brief document outlining the general terms of the offer...the latter is a formal agreement that has all of the bells and whistles associated with a contract.
1:37 - It is obviousy an offer, but I would imagine should a settlement occur, terms would be agreed upon, and further documents would be written and signed by both parties and put in force by an order of the court.
To exclaim that a mutal release in a settlement offer is some form of shady dealing is absolute nonsense. A release from further lawsuits on the topic is in almost all settlement agreements. Otherwise one could settle, then turn around and sue again.
The fight is over. Spend the money, what is left of it, however SSI sees fit. Stop creating drama where there is none.
2:19, 6/11
You mean they may all need to sleuth more to find what additionally might be slipped in? What is your interpretation of the highlighted section?
Ken, Did go to recommended blog. The TONE is so different from the tone experienced on this site.
A number of antagonists on this site have said seniors gave done much name-calling...no, it was Mr. Biagi making the claim...yet the Watchdog referred to those
'greedy geezers".
I disagree, Ken, that the words written describe the pulse of Park Ridge. i have easily found gentler, kinder residents. Do not surround myself with folks' whose tone is so denigrating.
Anon 2:19
I see that I have been named here on this blog, by you, as having written something above, displaying flawed legal skills, and being in possession of a "fancy law degree." The truth is, your assumption is wrong on at least one count: I haven't written anything on this posting.
Please don't attribute quotes to me, or positions, or anything. I will speak for myself when I wish to do so, and will sign my name-- as I have below. And I won't mind at all being quoted when I do so.
Robert J. Trizna: June 11, 2012 1:02 PM
Bob:
You covered several things there. Let me discuss them one at a time.
You said: “One man's scholarship is sometime's another's ‘sludge.’”
My response: You really aren’t equating your Watchdog endeavors to real scholarship. You’re pulling my leg. Right?
For the rest of you, "scholarship” is: “formal study: academic learning or achievement” While academic works are: “a body of learning on an academic subject.” Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition]
Further, my use of the word “sludge” was an attempt on my part to tone-down my view on THAT POST and its resultant comments. I was considering calling it c@*p but this is a family-friendly site so to speak, and SLUDGE was the least offensive word I could come up with at the time. I’ve returned four times for rereads.
No change in opinion!
You said: “I'd like to believe PublicWatchdog posts are more about thinking than "feeling," but I can understand how opinions might vary.”
My response: Feeling the pulse is a commonly used concept. Everyone knows the heart of Park Ridge blogging resides at the PublicWatchdog. That said; my use of the word “feeling” was not intended to portray your site as one of those “touchy-feely”, feminine types. Nope, yours is definitely a manly man’s blog Bob!
You said: “However, ‘politician’ is an insult I don't forgive readily.”
My response: I don’t know Bob. I definitely was not using “politician” in a pejorative way. Maybe I should refrain from referring to you as a “politician” and maybe I should ask my readers to do likewise. Or maybe not! Bob, what should I call a person who gets publicly elected, like a “politician” (PRPD Commissioner: 1997-2005), who sometimes acts like a “politician”, and who doesn’t want to be called a “politician”? Hum! I know; I’ll just call him Bob! Now, am I forgiven?
You said: “Also, I'm not sure somebody can be a ‘kingmaker’ while holding only one of four votes.”
My response: Say what? Kingmaker: “somebody who controls important positions: somebody with the power and connections to influence who is appointed to important positions, usually within a government”. Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition]
Bob, you, Rick Biagi, Gail Haller and Allison Harrington are definitely kingmakers, thanks to David Schmidt!
And yes Bob, I would love to get together over morning senior-coffee. How about MickieD’s? Just you, me and the boys! .83₵!
I’ll even get the refills!
Ken:
Just the embedded documetation in the Watchdog post would probably satisfy one of the Merriam-Webster definitions of "scholarship": "a fund of knowledge and learning."
Watchdog posts don't seek any community pulse, nor do they pretend to reflect one. They just attempt to marshall relevant facts and form a policy-based opinion on a particular issue.
As for whether or not I'm a "politician," Merriam-Webster says one of those is:
1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession
2b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
I consider both "2a" and "2b" as reprehensible, but I guess I might qualify under "1."
MickeyD's is fine for morning coffee, but 8:30? I'm not retired - how about 6:30?
Bob,
6:30 AM?
How does an 8:30 AM Saturday look?
Send me an email so we can arrange things offline.
Ken
Ken:
Why lower yourself to break bread with someone whose stock and trade is the denigration of others. The man finds it impossible to conduct civil discourse and resorts to name calling with abandon. It's a shame his verbal skills are so lacking that he has to resort to such tactics. I wouldn't watse my time. I've decided not to even respond to the tripe he recently posted. Any intelligent person will just consider the source.
Anons 6/11 2:19 and 3:33
Settlement offer language: 3:33, so right and
Important to find and state facts.
"Settlement offers almost always carry words that release "on the subject" is standard makes good sense. The District offer asks for "full and mutual release of ALL claims by all parties"; quite something else...shady action loses again. The sleuthing was necessary, 2:19
The PD owner said the following.
"I'd like to believe PublicWatchdog posts are more about thinking than "feeling," but I can understand how opinions might vary".
I am a regular reader of PD and find it of value. I think people being active in community issues is a very food thing, regardless of whether I agree of disagree with them. Usually it is somewhere in the middle.
That said, it appears to me that the above statment is often wrong. While there are certainly many cases that facts are presented, the are always presented with a spin and a tonbe reflecting his feelings. That is perfectly fine as it is his blog, but he seems to want to present it as if he is simply presenting the facts.
As an example, in describing the PRPD settlement offer he uses words like surrender and white flag. He does so because it fits his SSI as evil opinion. The reality is there is no white flag and PRPD has not surrendered. As a lawyer he should know thay have not surrendered but rather are trying to make a deal. They have said if you do x we will do Y. That is not surrender.
Many of the PD posts are provocative, which is a good thing, but they are all very much about feelings.....his feelings.
Anon June 13, 7:37 AM
Thank you for pointing out that the Park District has far from waved a white flag and surrendered. That is what they want everyone to think. They can't see how they can win, when so many of the center members have now paid dues to Senior Services Inc. They've lost the argument that the Senior Center is part of the Park District. Next Step - How do we come out of this looking good? We'll tell the world that our only objective was to have the money spent as Betty Kenmitz wanted it to be spent and surrender. PLEASE - how stupid do they think the membership is. There's always a hook when it comes to dealing with the Park Board. I've never seen such underhanded dealings in my life. It's quid pro quo. We surrender if you won't sue us for the money the seniors spent expanding the Senior Center building or disputed furnishings within the building. WHY ISN'T THAT ON THE PD OR IN THE NEWSPAPERS?
June 13, 10:13
The furnishings and equipment in the 101 S. Western building are not in dispute. The furnishings, equipment are not the property of the district.
That has been substantiated and admitted by the District.
There has been some confusion about that even among the seniors who so expressed those questions on their completed surveys in the comment section. Misstatements regarding that large block of items have been repeated by someone over time confusing many.
What does SSI want in plain and complete terms?
Make the all requests known for all to read and make opinions on instead of hearing it third hand.
All this bickering sounds like a teenage breakup played out in public.
Mike,
Settlement or continuing litigation will not occur here.
Post a Comment