…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!
33 comments:
Your grapevine got it wrong...it was in open session and the media was present.
Anon: June 22, 2012 9:08,
Thank you for the correction. Even I, screw up sometimes! But don't tell anybody.
Will be more informative to read the actual outcome of the meeting vs. reading the spin of the media. Why was that such an "important' issue for correction?
I hear the Park District has learned finally to be honorable and address previous obligations to avoid participating in further unnecessary lawsuits.
honorable? previous obligations? you had better hope the public never figures out how much mooching was done at their expense.
the park district has been honorable long after all others have not.
Anon 6/24 11:02 a.m.
I expect you describe the expectation of the "public" to have cleared roadways in the winter as "mooching"?
My experience with the Park District staff and most commissioners is that their actions have not been honorable. Please do not interpret this as my saying the people are not honorable, but rather their actions fall short of being described as honorable.
Look in the mirror Sandee...your actions through this whole process namely, your willful dissemination of misinfomration and falsehoods, has been most dishonorable.
For what it's worth, it is my understanding that the Park District informed SSI and Grodsky's lawyers that they would agree to waive all claims to the bequest money in return for a release of claims related only to the Kemnitz matter (as SSI had demanded). The only other caveat was that SSI would need to agree not to use any of the monies from the Kemnitz bequest to fund litigation costs for any future suit they might bring against the Park District.
Anon 6/25 10:14
My English teacher background forces me to refer you to any English textbook which indicates the use of the plural noun (actions) requires the appropriate verb to be "have", not "has" as you used. This is a willful dissemination of information of how to correctly use the English language.
Good catch...thanks Sandee.
Anon, June 25 11:37
Clever. "For what it's worth"--not much.
'The only other caveat and so forth as you suggested" was added as a result of the PD Board meeting on Thursday evening. It was not a part of the "honorable" settlement offer made previously. Sandee must be right regarding all this honorable stuff...to suggest that was part of the settlement offer is crass. The board made an offer one day without caveat and changed its honorable mind the next. What is it that worries the board that additional court action might even be occur (to add such a caveat).
"information of how" should be "information about how" or "information on how". Are we having fun with this? What a childish mess.
Anon: June 25, 2012 10:14 AM,
I decided to post your comment, although I believed it inappropriate. I did so to allow members of the Park Ridge community, and specifically, members of the Park Ridge Park District Board, to witness first-hand what THEY have brought upon THEIR community.
Anon: June 25, 2012 10:14 AM, YOU CHOSE to directly attack, (by name), a long-time highly thought of Senior, a member of your community, one of your fellow tax-paying citizens. You attacked this lady under the cloak of anonymity. In my opinion, that was cowardly. You obviously didn’t use YOUR NAME, because, I am convinced, you would have felt ashamed of your action had it become known, and am also convinced; you knew your action was one you would not have wanted to perpetrated upon you, your family or close and dear friends. Ms. Main is a citizen with an opinion just like you, and not a politician. She deserved better!
Now, I would like to personally thank former PRPD Park Board President O’Brien, Ms. Mary Wynn-Ryan and current PRPD Board President Mr. Rick Biagi, and all of the other members and former members of their Boards, for showing all of us the New Park Ridge Way of politics. Without their leadership, 800+ Senior Center seniors would still be under the illusion that Park Ridge and its Park District represent, in the words of Park Ridge’s own website: “A Wonderful Place” to live out one’s life!
Should you apologize? Of course not! An apology from Anonymous is, well, worthless!
Of course, that’s just my opinion!
Ken, your rescue is appreciated, but you set me back a moment when you referred to me as a "Senior". I guess I am.
My involvement with the Senior Center is through board membership on SSI. I was perhaps 50-something when asked to serve as a community representative interested in assuring and promoting healthy aging for the senior population. SSI was developed to garner community input and oversight and provide financial management for the Senior Center. Community leaders have served on the board for 30 years...the history is interesting.
I did pay membership dues when I came of age; primarily to show support to Teresa and the Center.
Very convenient to receive flu shots in the building, so we did that for years. ...but that is it. Hmmm, guess you are right, again; I am blessed and became a Senior.
And, I would be pleased to share any references I have used with any disbeliever(s). Just call.
Rumor has it that SSI rejected the Park District's settlement offer...and no counteroffer has been proposed.
Oh well...back to Court.
The SSI's "financial management" aside from gifts given by those no longer alive (a limited pool of donors, we hope!) consisted of demanding ever-larger subsidies from the public through an irresponsibly compliant Park District staff. While it costs 10 times as much to join the Community Center and a 13-year-old kid has to pay $8 to use it for one day, members of the Senior Center got a year's membership including many free activities for $35 A YEAR, and only very reluctantly let Ray Ochromowicz raise it to $45 A YEAR. Meanwhile, the deficit between what the SSI's own fundraising brought in and the cost to the public to operate the building has reached about $160,000 PER YEAR. Donations to build on additions to the building are great, but day-to-day operating costs have to be met somehow. SSI's position is that they are entitlements for which the public should pay without question. Others feel otherwise. Good thing the former manager herself has denied that SSI were the financial managers!
Did not have to wait long to capture a perfect example supporting my contention that actions of some commissioners and PD leadership are not honorable actions.
Reference is found in Journal Topics. The dynamic duo of Biagi and Mountcastle commented on the latest settlement offer made by Park District. As usual, only PART of the caveat required by the District was mentioned which indicated they "just wanted to make sure SSI would not use Kemnitz dollars to sue the Park District in the future." Omitted was the kicker that the District was requiring that SSI make their financial records available to the District. This omission and suggestion that SSI was draining public funds is an example of the lack of honor and integrity Seniors have been dealing with. SSI is a private charitable organization whose board members are charged with controlling and allocating funds of the organization. To allow the District to meddle with the funds or direct their use would cause board members to be abdicating their fiduciary responsibilities. Quite a basic practice.
Quite a lack of knowledge, integrity on the part of the Park leadership to even suggest such in a settlement offer.
Why would there even be a suspicion of a future legal issue, anyway...should they be responsible for something they have ignored? (not the pool leaks).
Mr. Biagi 'honorably" stated there was no reason for SSI not to accept the settlement and THEY were being unfair to the tax payer who had to pay all these legal fees....but integrity compromised when editing the caveat so he sounded very noble, eh?
His Mountcastle partner in the dynamic duo felt the need to comment that that "all they have always wanted to do was what Betty wanted to do. " I did not know Betty, but many of those of us on "this side" of the issue feel she just wants them to get out of the way as honorably as the are able without placing blame where none exists, but in their pockets.
Honor and integrity or just continued bad decisions?
OR BOTH?
The idea the SSI might want to sue for something else was first publically presented in this very blog on June 10, warning 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."
Which was reason enough to reject the offer. And was flushed out with more detail by a commenter suggesting that the Park Board was worrying that SSI might:
"sue us for the money the seniors spent expanding the Senior Center building or disputed furnishings within the building."
The Park Board offer didn't even prevent those lawsuits. It just prevented the use of the Kenmitz bequest to fund those lawsuits. I would imagine that there are few who would argue that Betty Kenmitz envisioned her life savings paying for a lawsuit against the taxpayers of Park Ridge. By rejecting the offers, the SSI and Senate has said that they plan on doing just that.
So now what? More legal fees paid for this lawsuit, including court time, which is pricey. And if there is any money left over in the coffers of the SSI, another suit against the Park District? Is that showing fiducuary responsibility? Everyone needs to quit letting the lawyers bleed us all dry.
The Park District should have thought through the financial implication to the residents and the Park budget when they challenged the allocation of the bequest when that was done. All they have to do now is drop out of the lawsuit with no admission of guilt.
Anon: June 29, 2012 11:47 AM,
Yes, I agree. That said; I think Board Leader egos are so at play here; they can’t disconnect long enough to think straight. Too bad really!
On the other hand, the Kemnitz story is an interesting tale to tell, and of course, so long as The Great Kemnitz Trust Fund Raid is an issue, so long as the story is relevant, people will talk and write about it!
11:47 and 1:28 - It takes two to tango.
Anon 6/28 5:05 p.m.
It appears the park leadership in its infinite wisdom and public blathering about the lack of SSI fiduciary responsibility in allowing the Trust to be diminished due to attorney fees never considered that an anonymous donor may have stepped forward months ago. Perhaps they should be more concerned about explaining high fees in most recreation activities because they spent the tax money intended for recreation initiating a lawsuit.
Sandee, then why turn down the settlement offer?
Anon: 5:33 a.m.
You missed the point again in your "infinite wisdom."
As has been stated before on this blog, settlement and litigation will not be determined at this site.
ANON 6/28/12 5:05 p.m.
You seem to be overly concerned with this suing stuff. Reread your statement and quotes:"The idea that SSI might want to sue was first publicly presented in this very blog on June 10, warning that "Senior Services would give up their rights of redress against PRPD for things that happened up to the date of the signing.'"
Redress means, by definition, "putting a right to a wrong"...I agree with Sandee in that she would probably suggest: "honorable people display integrity by putting rights to wrongs out of the court setting."
I did not count the number of times you said "sue' and did not review all comments to determine how many times it was said by those not of your persuasion. I do think you and yours won and said it the most.
love "the anonymous donor who may have stepped forward months ago" idea. Since the SSI has made it clear repeatedly that its money and accounting books are its own business but the public's money is theirs to spend as they wish, there may be a hundred well-heeled anonymous donors giving money to the SSI but the public will never know it.
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, eh?
And again, let's remember it's not "seniors" -- it's less than 10 percent of the over-65s -- and a lot less than that of over-55's -- who are even participating in the Center, and less than two dozen ingrate malcontents causing all the costs to the public. It is NOT "the seniors."
Another screeching anonymous tiger leaping out of the Jungle, 6/30/3:51 p.m.
My public thanks to the gentleman who called. Indeed, we are not directing future contributions to funding the defense of the Kemnitz Trust lawsuit.
Contributions of those wishing to support the evolving Park Ridge Senior Center are invited to do so. Please do make your checks payable to Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc., our tax-exempt charitable organization registered name. Please do not make your check payable to the Park Ridge Senior Center as we are currently experiencing a lawsuit with the Park District related to that very issue.
OUR ADDRESS HAS CHANGED. Post Office BOX 1301, Park Ridge, 60068, is assigned to Park Ridge Senior Services, the Senior Center Senior Senate, and the Park Ridge Senior Center. We cannot trust receipt of any communication sent to us at our old address, 101 S. Western Avenue as it has obviously become a Park District controlled entity. The newsletter distributed is prepared by the Park District. Be reminded that the Board of Commissioners on separate occasions chose to "not recognize" each of the community based 30 year organizations, the Senate and its funder, Park Ridge Senior Services. Neither group is allowed to hold meetings in this public building or other Park building without making a reservation and being quoted the room charge.
Again, as occurred in 1981, it appears a warm, friendly gathering spot for seniors will be established somewhere. Results of a recent survey responded to by 34% of those who received it showed that a significant 75% of respondents wished to move. I will share some of those comments at another time, but be assured those comments are what keep me involved and willing to accept slanderous verbal assaults.
Again, thanks to my inquiring caller who reminded me others might wish the information. It would be interesting to track these donations...on the memo line, please place an asterick*.
There's already a warm, friendly gathering spot for seniors. It's the Park Ridge Senior Center operated and funded by the public through its Park District.
And please -- who could possibly believe that the SSI has no intent of misusing the Kemnitz bequest to sue the public, when THE ONLY CONDITION the Park District put on its offer was that the bequest not be used up on lawyers? If somebody offered me three hundred grand if I would just promise not to do something I had no intention of doing anyway, why in heaven's name would I say, "no thanks; I think I'll sue you for it instead?"
The public may be trusting, busy and distracted, but they're not stoopit!
Hey, Sleuth, 6/28 5:05 p.m.
You transposed the key words defining Redress--which does mean making WRONG things RIGHT...not right things wrong.
So according to Sandee, the Park Ridge Senior Center is alive and well and operating out of a PO Box and a private charitable organization and NOT the building at 100 South Western? I thought SSI wanted their own private clubhouse so saying that they are the Park Ridge Senior Center is deceitful.
Way to keep the Park Ridge seniors best interest in mind SSI and misrepresent yourself!
It's really great to see the ACTUAL Park Ridge Senior Center continuing on without the cry baby SENIORS of SSI! Don't let the door hit you on the backside.
Anon 7/2 11:21 a.m.
After following all this stuff, it never occurred to me that the Park district ever owned the $300,000 and could put strings on the money. I thought the money was money the lady gave the Senior Center not the Park District.
Mike,
You missed something along the way. The Park District Senior Center operates at 100 S. Western, not the Park Ridge Senior Center, which formerly did and was designed as a self governing centralized site for seniors to gather. It was developed in 1981 by community leaders as former Mayor Marty Butler and representatives of multiple churches and businesses. The PR Senior Center self governing entities, SSI and the Senate were designated "not recognized" by the Park Board over the last 2 years.
The Park District now solely operates the 101 facility. Check it out to see the current action there before you sling mud. That place is now the Park District Senior Center. The successful 30 year program which formerly operated there had no intervention by the Park District.
If you had no house yet, where would you go to get your mail?
Hey Sandee, you should advise for the lawsuit! The Park Ridge Senior Center is a building that hosts programs for seniors and those in the community that wish to attend.. It's all splitting hairs at this point but I do wish SSI the best of luck getting their new clubhouse up and running.. Maybe efforts to do that should be taken instead of whining about how evil the Park District is?
And hey, I'm all in favor of a water park in your front yard at the the youth campus! Great idea!
What's missing, as usual, is the fact that, no matter how many clubs, churches and other government entities thought the Senior Center was a lovely idea in 1981, ONLY the Park District is actually paying money for its existence, staffing, upkeep, etc. Senior Services Inc. has made some very nice donations to expanding the building over the years, but the day-to-day costs of keeping it in existence - at any size - are borne only by the Park District. The employees, including Teresa Grodsky, were paid 100% by the Park District.
Kinda puts a different spin on who owes whom and who owns what, eh? If you don't agree, I want to rent from you!
Post a Comment