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!
15 comments:
Iam still attempting to determine if this is a fine example of how Teresa was indeed intentionally targeted for blame or if it better exemplifies "what goes around comes around."
You're wondering who thought up that stupid defense that cost the tax payers a boat load of money in legal fees. My guess, it was the Park District attorney.
Anon June 2 7:00 p.m.
He must have been working at the pleasure of the Commissioners...or minimally, the executive dIrector, who must have approved his bills.
IAnons 6/2
I could check my e-mails to determine when I was informed that Mr. Hoffman had called Mr. Smith, one of Teresa's estate attorneys to challenge the distribution of the Kemnitz estate. Then, we could check the Park Board minutes just prior to that seeking the board motion directing the attorney to challenge the distribution.
You'll be looking for quite a long time. The Board never moved to direct the attonrey to challenge the distribution...remember...the Park District is the Defendant, not the Plaintiff. It was the PD that was sued by Teresa.
Anyone care to share how much of poor Betty's money was sent over to Teresa and SSI's attorneys as a result of the lawsuit that THEY filed? I'm sure that is precisely how she wanted her hard earned money spent.
June 2 Anons:
Interesting and continuing curious events:
October 18, 2011 letter from Atty Hoffman to estate attorney of "disputed" estate as confirmed by estate attorney in letter to Hoffman dated Nov.3 that "your client believes ...distribution should be directed to PD rather than SSI.
The meeting minutes of the two meetings immediately preceding the Hoffman letter and response fom the estate attorney do not include any mention or motion from the client to pursue Senior Center estate dollars. Sept. 15 closed meeting session did include a land acquisition agenda item. Perhaps the minutes of that closed meeting carries the motion to challenge the recipient of what became a contested estate.
I reviewed minutes of Sept.8 and 15, 2011. No reference to a motion that clients wished to pursue a claim to bequest money. Closed session of October 20 meeting was advertised "to discuss matters pertaining to discipline, performance, compensation and/or dismissal of one or more employees of the PD.
Activities and actions, especially of public boards, must be specified in minutes. It makes perfect sense to me that if FOLLOW UP letter from the estate atty is received that some mention of such would be made to "the client". Nothing.
My assertion would be consistent with yours--the Attorney may have acted without the direction of his client...or he may have been following the request of his client.
I did not sit through the video tapings of the three meetings, but ACTION which could cost the greater client (the community) EXCESSIVE tax expenditures ought to be written and verifiable easily through documentation in the meeting procedures.
Perhaps your assertion is correct...the attorney acted on his own behalf or...
Someone on the board, pleeeze prove me wrong and indicate where i can review the documentation that verifies the full board wished to call the trust dollars their own by challenging the estate distribution.
Waiting.....waiting....anyone?
Anon 6/4
Indeed there is no such documentation in the board minutes during September or October. I was under the misguided notion that the Park Board of Commissioners was established and elected to define and develop Park policy for the greater community. Mr. Hoffman must not challenge anything without direction from the board. I guess he can eat and drink what he chooses without asking his clan.
Had the estate distribution not been challenged and so documented in an affirmation letter dated November 3, 2011, (by Mr, Hoffman), supposedly on behalf of his client, the Park District, there would have been no need to ask the court to determine the recipient so that Teresa could complete her responsibilities as trustee and distribute the remaining dollars IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRACTICES. There is written proof that a challenge was made by Hoffman. Why would the PD even be a defendant?,...out of the blue?
Very disturbing to think our representatives act so poorly.
I am very concerned about the continuing lack of stewardship exhibited by the staff and commissioners of the Park District. There should have been board action by motion directing the attorney to act as he did in initiating the challenge. Watch what this group has done and does, folks.
Anon 4/12 1:01 p.m.
Sorry my anger caused me to reply so incompletely and jump to a response.
It is actually, so very easy. Why is the Park District a defendant anyway? Why were they not defendants and there was no lawsuit when the first two distributions were made--in November 2009 and June 2010?
Anon 6/4, 1:01 PM
First, this was written by an attorney. Few people would be able to determine who is the defendent and who is the plaintiff. Few even know what a plaintiff is. Perhaps the Park District attorney?
Sandee Main is correct. The Park District wasn't a defendent until such time as they challenged the distribution to Senior Services.
No matter how they try to paint themselves as making a magnanimous offer to give up the disputed funds (Advocate Press Release), we must remember, they were the organization that put the funds in dispute in the first place. They forgot to mention that fact in their Press Release. But then, that wouldn't have made them look good.
Now you have the money, you can create the perfect Senior Center.
Have at it!
General Comment…
I’ve been watching the comments and notice that significant time has been devoted to pointing out the role played by Board’s Attorney in this and other Senior Center related matters. I can understand the fixation. The Attorney, in this case, is the point of the spear and the one charged by Board leadership (Mary Wynn-Ryan/Rick Biagi) to carry out PRPD Board approved or unapproved matters in court and elsewhere.
Now, for the record, Mr. Hoffman and I have had a 30+ year working and personal relationship as councilor, client and friend. The PRPD Board, SSI and Senior Center leaders have known this fact all along. SSI and Senior Center leaders know the angst I’ve felt having to oppose my friend. And I am keenly aware of the dilemma placed on Mr. Hoffman by my vocal opposition to certain PRPD Board actions, and the stress it has caused.
That said; Mr. Hoffman has a job to do and so do I.
So, not from friendship, but from common sense, may I suggest we continue to review matters, not by focusing on employees or hired guns, but instead, by focusing on those actions initiated by PRPD Board leaders.
Anon June 5, 8:24 AM
Your sarcastic remarks failed to distract us from the fact that the Park District is the one who initiated this grab for Betty Kenmitz's bequest, when for 30 years all bequests went to Senior Services Inc. You now want to come out of this looking like angels, when that is far from the truth. You created the whole problem and now this white wash in the press, as the only goal of the Park District was and still is that Bett Kenmitz' funds be distributed as she wished. She left the money to the Sr. Ctr., not the Park District. Why did the Park District start all this trouble, if that was their only wish?
I hear we have an in over at Kalo, and they are looking to bring Teresa on board. These are exciting times indeed. No pity for us, we've already found our new home!
June 7 9:50 a.m.
Duh, somehow Kalo and Teresa do not sound like a good partnership. Kalo strives to honor historical excellence and those artists are dead. Teresa is a proven people person who makes people feel alive.
Post a Comment