PRPD’s Board has been wasting tens-of-thousands in taxpayer monies trying to acquire the Kemnitz Trust Funds that would effectively impoverish seniors and keep them hostage at their senior center.
Time is running out!
Press here to contact the Better Government Association (BGA).
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
To my readers,
Folks, we have a problem.
I have discussed the subject of comment-abuse here before. I have displayed abusive comments and ridiculed comment abusers on this site - before.
Well, the number of “anonymous” comments not fit for print has been on the rise lately.
How to deal with this problem is one of the issues I’ve been struggling with since last weekend.
Most of my readers know how I think about restricting anonymous comments. I don’t like the idea; not one bit! However, I’ve come to the point where I am no longer willing to print some of them.
Here’s the snag. Some commenters are having a problem controlling themselves, saying things they wouldn’t normally say if their name were attached or in face-to-face social discourse in places such as Starbucks or McDonalds. Others try to provoke with unsubstantiated claims. Many of the comments are directed at fellow commenters and filled with vitriol, adding no value to the matters being discussed. Finally, others are just trying to be cute but not funny.
Henceforth, any commentary not contributing to the clarification or understanding of the issues at hand will not be posted!
Of course, some of my anonymous commenters will be upset, and some of them will no longer comment or might not even come back. So be it! For the rest of you, I will continue to do my best to make Butterly on Senior Issues an interesting, informative and sometime amusing blog; one you’ll come back to, again and again.
Thanks!
July 10, 2012’s PRPD Regular Board Meeting was not the first time Park Ridge Park District Commission members heard Commissioner Vile’s “…that dirty little secret, that elephant in the room” comment. It always proceeds the following: “the clawback”.
Press HERE for definition of Clawback.
The clawback refers to “EXHIBIT A”; a provision included in all of the PRPD/SSI contracts since July 16, 1987 that requires PRPD to reimburse SSI, should PRPD fail to renew the PRPD/SSI contract.
Page Three – again.
| “AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT DATED JULY 16, 1987 BETWEWEN SENIOR SERVICE, INC. AND THE PARK RIDGE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT |
|
|
The Commissioners are deathly afraid…
The reason the Commissioners are deathly afraid to rescind their claim to the Kemnitz Trust monies, is their fear that SSI and Kemnitz Trust, will not only use those monies to sue the District for Kemnitz related court costs and damages, but additionally, will use those monies to fund more litigation by SSI to effect the clawback provision as explicitly and repeatedly stated in the contracts. Of course, I would assume, the Board is fearful for liability for all litigation costs and damages.
I mean, we’re talking about $600,000+; (Kemnitz Trust = $300k+ & 1987-2005 Clawback = $300k+).
Going after the Kemnitz Trust, I surmise, is the Boards action to aggressively deprive SSI of their ability to fund defensive litigation.
Board President Biagi, at the last Board Meeting, quipped about the Better Government Association and what it would do with this story and the adverse publicity it would cause in the Park Ridge community. I suggest, Mr. Biagi and his Board would do better to remove the cause of the controversy all together.
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
because we’re all here only a very short time!
I received this comment over the weekend.
The Comment
| Comment from: Park Ridge Park District’s “greedy”, “rowdy” seniors need to mind their P’s & Q’s or else… |
|
July 15, 2012 10:48 AM” |
Sorry to see such upset in a neighbor. That said; the last part of the comment left little doubt of the writers political bent. Most of my readers know I have gone to great length to leave “politics” out of the story. However, the one exception being to remind the Board their self-created problem is a political one, which requires a political, not a legal solution.
Being An Elected Official
Additionally, and I know this will be hard for Anon: July 15, 2012 10:48 AM to understand, but being an “elected official” does not elevate the individual to selfless sainthood requiring blind deference. It is tiring to read the slavish defense of these volunteer elected officials, particularly in light of the Senior debacle. Not my description by the way:
From October 2011 Attorney Detail Billing Record…
Elected officials are politicians. They work for us, not the other way around, and they volunteered, sometimes without pay, but not without some personal benefit to themselves. (No, I’m not talking about breaking laws here.)
As my old boss used to say: “They knew the job was dangerous when they took it!”
If PRPD’s Board Members want their egos stroked they need to do the work right, or face the heat for their decisions or quit! Sometimes, “elected officials” who normally go unchallenged, need a reality check. They need to be reminded, that because they can do something does not mean they should do it! In other words, power-lusters need to use restraint and circumspection.
In the mean time, Anon: July 15, 2012 10:48 AM, might I suggest we take a moment and consider this perspective regarding our proper place in the scheme of things!
Now, I suspect some Board Members feel they’ve had to bear a cross. They think no one on the Senior side understands them and that seniors maybe even hate them. Hate? No, despise, loath maybe, distrust maybe, but hate, no – no, nothing so base.
Seniors, on the other hand are disappointed and want, in my opinion, all the monies owed based on the repayment schedule in each contract, the equipment they purchased and own and currently residing within the 100 S. Western building, and the Kemnitz Trust money, in order to move back out on their own – away from, if you believe their words, a “bean-counting”, “Trust stealing”, “mean-spirited”, “empathy-challenged” Board; that’s for sure!
Finally, a little more somewhat irreverent good advice for the cross-bearers among us.
Park Ridge Anon: July 15, 2012 10:48 AM, may your personal cross be lightened, and those of your friends as well!
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
A recent anonymous commenter to Park Ridge Park District’s “greedy”, “rowdy” seniors need to mind their P’s & Q’s or else… wrote:
And then I thought, this PRPD stuff has gotten a little too outrageous even for my taste. But then again, I thought, as long you guys brought it up…
How about the Spanish Inquisition?
For larger Youtube Version clock here!
And just like the Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, Seniors just can’t talk our Park Board outa anything!
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
so says Park Ridge Park District Board and Management.
Earlier this week, I received several calls and emails from Park Ridge Seniors telling me of a new set of rules Senior Center Members will be required to obey, lest be disciplined. To say those octogenarians were miffed, would be one hell of an understatement.
I went to the Park Ridge Senior Center, or as many of us now refer to the 100 S. Western building, the Wynn-Ryan/Biagi Cultural Center, and noticed the newly minted document prominently displayed in the front hallway.
This precious document…
Now, before you read this precious document, let me remind the reader of a couple things.
The Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners, first under Mary Wynn-Ryan and now under Rick Biagi, are the same Board of Commissioners who’ve publicly bemoan their failed attempts to come to any agreement with Seniors over the Kemnitz Trust Fund.
These are the same Board of Commissioners who publicly tell their Senior constituents and the press, that they want those same Seniors to stay and play at the newly renovated 100 S. Western building.
Now, with this document, the same Board of Commissioners, in my opinion, are displaying an irritating, irrationally unnecessary, personally diminishing and politically stupid Senior-targeted document, in an ill-advised attempt, in my opinion, to squelch free Senior Center Member expressions of dissatisfaction on public property, by intimidation.
After taking the picture displayed below, I went to the Community Center, South Park, the Ice Rink on Oakton and toured Maine Park Leisure Center while the Board was in closed session, and found no comparable document on display.
So that my readers are not confused by my usage of the word, let me define precious – “used for emphasis: used for emphasis to express irritation, dislike, contempt, bemusement, or some other strong emotion (informal).”
Newly Posted Park Ridge Senior Center Code of Conduct.
Talk about unnecessarily waving a red cape in front of an already angry bull.
Targeting seniors or any other group of citizens in this way is a travesty of pomp and circumstance equaling a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta . These buffoons have once again demonstrated their malicious contempt for the very seniors they purport to serve.
Additional Board Buffoonery
And notice this: “Violations if these or other non-posted rules, regulations, policies, or ordinances put forth” bla bla bla….
My friends, you just can’t make this stuff up!
How can a rule be put forth that has not been posted? Are these rules to be communicated by osmosis or channeling or crystal-ball gazing?
Next thing you know we’ll be seeing these!
And by the way, who’s standard will our overseers use to define unacceptable Senior behavior? Yours? Mine? Ms. Mountcastles? Or will they refer to some still secret mystical source?
NEXT
Board Meeting Tuesday 7/10/2012 The Kemnitz Matter.
I went to the Board meeting the other night. The subjects for the discussion were the Youth Campus and the Kemnitz Trust.
We don’t need no conflict resolution!
If there has ever been a time in the Kemnitz misadventure to resolve the problem and end the bloodletting, last Tuesday nights Board Meeting was it. The Board’s decision to return to the court with an intention to shanghai the Judge into the negotiating process, instead of manning-up and resolving the problem themselves, was another example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, something this Board is exceptionally good at.
| At one point in the discussion, Mr. O’Brien, moaning in disgust, told his fellow Commissioners to just let them go. At that moment, I was reminded of a scene in the Ten Commandments where Pentaur, (Henry Wilcoxon), commander of Ramses Legions, tells Pharaoh to let them (the Jews) go. |
The only character missing from their Cecil B. De Mille parody was:
The Senior Center/Kemnitz problem does not need conflict resolution or a judges intervention or Moses or the wisdom of Solomon.
| Senior Center/Kemnitz dilemma is a political problem. |
| It always was. |
| It needs a political solution! |
It’s time for the Park Ridge Park District to cease and desist! It’s time to make the seniors an offer they can’t refuse and move on!
Let the buffoonery end. My guts are splitting. Please! Please! I just can’t take this anymore!
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
I told you about a recent meeting at MickyD’s with my fellow-blogger-nemesis , Bob Trizna, and a couple of my friends.
It’s funny how things happen when you least expect it. Here we were discussing subjects we wholeheartedly disagree on and presto, we stumble into one of mutual interest and agreement; something that effects the entire community; open, transparent and accountable governance, including the unencumbered use of publicly funded open board meeting videos. I went on to describe PRPD’s recent assertions of copyright protection.
To my amazement, Bob expressed his disagreement with the Park District’s assertion that those publicly-funded, publicly-accessible videos were copyrightable. Bob also indicated that, even if the Park District held a legitimate copyright for those videos, he believed the public had a right to their fair use for informational, non-commercial purposes; and that it was bad public policy for the District to attempt to enforce any such copyright to stifle public debate on Park District issues and actions, reducing transparency and accountability to the detriment of the taxpayers.
Park Ridge Park District is not the only local taxing body taking cover under or behind copyright protection. For example: Evanston-Skokie School District 65 Idiocracy.
The assertion that public-money can be used to support a copyright claim on publicly funded open meeting videos, a claim even the Federal Government refuses to make, will probably, some day end up costing PRPD taxpayers significantly more attorney-fee money than its worth.
In the mean time, Butterly on Senior Issues, PublicWatchdog and others who wish to display video clip dialogue of open public board meeting can always resort to this:
So, is PRPD’s copyright assertion the right thing to do?
What do you think?
Of course, as always, it’s just my opinion.
I have made it a policy to publish letters or statements from opposing sides on this blog. Todays posting is such a letter.
Note: I was asked to include the text of the original article. Thought it a good idea!
Text of Original Journal Topics Article
Note: It appears the Journal-Topics has removed this article from the Internet!
Letter To The Editor
“Editor
Park Ridge Journal-Topics
We read Heather Holm’s article, entitled “Parks Waiting for Seniors to Accept Suit Settlement,” in a recent issue of your newspaper. Unfortunately, the article is misleading on a number of points. We are writing to set the record straight about those items, and to encourage you to contact us if you have further questions or would like to get our statement of the facts prior to publishing any future stories on this topic.
First, the lawsuit filed by Teresa Grodsky was filed because the Park District made a claim for the Kemnitz money. As a result, Ms. Grodsky had to ask the court to determine who the rightful owner of the estate should be. The bulk of the Kemnitz bequest had already been deposited with Senior Services for over a year at the time the suit was filed by Ms. Grodsky, who apparently thought that was exactly how Betty intended her bequest to be disbursed. We mention this because your article implies that Ms. Grodsky was the driving force behind the suit-- in fact, it was the Park District’s claim that caused the lawsuit to be initiated.
Second, you stated that “[i]n May, the park district relinquished any claim to the bequest” but did not mention that there were strings attached to that offer to relinquish. In return for its offer to relinquish any claim, the Park District wanted us to agree to spend all of the Kemnitz money on capital improvements to the building and other items to be used at the 100 S. Western building, which would become the property of the Park District if we chose to relocate to a new building. We rejected this offer to settle because it required us to essentially turn over every penny of Betty Kemnitz’s bequest to the Park District. We did not think that was Betty’s intent, and also knew that if we moved to a new location we would want to take the items we purchased with her bequest with us.
Third, there was an additional settlement offer following the first offer which we had all but technically accepted. That offer said, simply, that the park district would relinquish its claim to the Kemnitz money if we agreed that the Kemnitz issue would be finally put to rest between the parties. That offer came to us on Wednesday afternoon, but before we could even officially accept it, another revised offer came to us the next day. This offer said that we would now need to agree not to spend any of the Kemnitz money on “costs and/or attorney fees of any future litigation which may be brought by or on behalf of SSI ... against the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District.”
This offer was, in fact, turned down by our Boards because our attorney had advised against it. There are actually a few open issues which we will need to resolve with the Park District. It would be foolish to limit our ability to properly protect our interests by agreeing not to use any of our assets to do so.
We believe we are the rightful recipients of the Kemnitz bequest, and for that reason have been unwilling to accept offers that would essentially negate our ability to govern ourselves and maintain independence, or leave ourselves unable to defend ourselves regarding unresolved issues with the Park District, which their last offer is demanding.
We believe we are better able to judge how Betty would like to spend her money, as our mission is focused on seniors. The Park District by necessity cannot have such a narrow or specific focus. We believe Betty intended us to distribute her assets; if she had wanted the park district to make decisions about her money, she would have made her bequest to the Park District-- which she did not.
Finally, we would like to respond to Mr. Biagi’s statement in the article, that “it would be highly offensive to Park Ridge taxpayers if SSI does not accept the latest settlement.” In fact, many members of the Senior Center, most of whom are Park Ridge taxpayers, disagree with this statement, and have encouraged us look into a new home to use as our base of operations. We are, in fact, looking into such locations as a preliminary matter.
If, as Ms. Mountcastle states, the park district is only interested in going along with the wishes of Betty Kemnitz, they should drop this lawsuit immediately and stop spending taxpayer dollars by having park district staff and outside attorneys work on settlement proposals. We believe the citizens of Park Ridge should be aware that this lawsuit began with the Park District and could now be quickly ended by the Park District. They simply have not chosen to do that, and instead have deceptively pointed a finger toward the seniors. We could not sit by and allow that impression to stand.
We have attached some additional information for you to review relating to the history of the Senior Center and the current position it finds itself in. Please feel free to contact either of us should you have any questions.
| Barbara Hameder | Carla Owen | |
| Senate President | Chairman Senior Services, Inc.” | |
| Park Ridge Senior Center |
I have made it a policy to publish letters or statements from opposing sides on this blog. Todays posting is such a letter.
June 4, 2012 Statement to Senior Center Members
Ms. Main’s response.
“July 1, 2012
Ms Mountcastle; I have chosen to document, rather than call you because spoken comments might be misconstrued. Sometimes honesty feels brutal.
As one of your employers (as all Park Ridge property tax payers are) I feel obligated to respond. What follows is my opinion on your statement dated June 4, that you made to Senior Center members in their newsletter (on page 8.) Many of your comments were disingenuous misstatements. The “spin” is unacceptable.
You say -- “The Park District has named you as a defendant…by Teresa Grodsky”…
I say -- Did you not know that would never have happened had your attorney Hoffman not challenged the Trustee’s attorney that he believed the money was the Park District’s? At that moment the District committed the residents to spending tax money that was supposed to be used for recreation, maintaining parks and buildings, not for attorney fees. The existing situation was created by you and yours. Had Betty intended for the Park District to be responsible for her distribution, best guess is she would have stated Park District on her legal paperwork. Tell the whole truth. It always sounds like it was Teresa’s fault. You really do know she needed court clarification to complete the distribution because of intervention by Park people and their representative Hoffman. Such was not the issue or situation when the bulk of the estate was distributed in 2009 and 2010.
You say -- “The Park District has previously offered to settle…”
I say -- that is true. Only one offer was honorable and potentially acceptable without a release of some kind, around June 20. That one offer suddenly was altered to include unacceptable requirements of the other involved parties. Your presentations continue to suggest these were entirely honorable offers.
You say -- “It has become evident there is a strong movement … to start a new senior center”
I say -- that is correct as is your continuing pledge to operate the current successful programs. You are operating under an illusion of success.
Successful programs are measured by the participants. Instead of success we find 75 percent of the respondents to the recent survey conducted (to identify satisfaction and future wishes) indicated dissatisfaction to the extent of wishing to relocate to a site free of you and the Park District. Almost every respondent commented. One gentleman took the time to handwrite a three page letter. That shows considerable concern. He is the volunteer who has led a program activity for several years. Dissatisfaction comments varied widely. Several hundred responded to the survey. Nineteen percent did say they would stay. Another 21 individuals were undecided due primarily to financial feasibility concerns. They could go either yes or no.
The Senior Center was recognized widely as elite under Teresa’s management, care, attention, and development over many years free of any Park direction or intervention. When you all failed to negotiate with SSI and subsequently terminated Teresa, you compromised success for the Park District in Senior recreation for perhaps years. A good bet now is each secretly regrets those decisions. Moreover, in attempting to operate in the larger environment of decreasing dollars, the District must find, welcome, and maintain a large contingency of volunteers. How is that working out? The annual very popular and fund generating activity, the Men's Follies, may be cancelled for lack of participation. YOUR current participants are hardly thrilled about that unsuccessful outcome.
Successful programming? Is the current situation the envisioned and planned outcome? I invite a response which summarizes how you measure success. At the same time, please inform me of the reasoning applied when you decided to move the kid-free swim hour for seniors from the adjacent pool to Hinckley. That was ‘the last straw’ for one survey respondent. I would like to offer her your reasonable thinking that led to that decision. I expect you communicated that at the time the announcement was made, but she missed it. Those in the community I have shared that with, just shake their heads. (I believe it likely is linked to a potential increase in utilization of the Centennial pool due to the demise of Oakton Pool. It seems the historically under utilized Hinckley should be the pool of choice for those living in the Oakton area, if your media so indicated that to better use that property.)
You say -- “The Board of Commissioners understands the desire of Senior Services to possibly attempt to serve Park Ridge Seniors elsewhere while not monetarily assisting the Park District…”
I say -- once again, clarification on why SSI is not “monetarily assisting the Park District in its mission to serve seniors” at the 100 site: the Park Board of Commissioners chose to reject financial assistance from SSI when they rejected a license for Senior Center building use on a priority basis. Disappointing that is never mentioned by you or your media staff.
You say -- “…Park Board voted unanimously to inform…Park District willing to settle by relinquishing any claim”
I say –- At another late June meeting a release from SSI was required. That release was unacceptable. The Park District needs to just step away now to save whatever honor and budget remains for them. Use dollars intended for recreation and provide more economical activities for all aged residents. Spend only limited amounts for attorney assistance.
Your statement regarding “ your sincere concern” that funds from Kemnitz trust are being used to fund the lawsuit is absolutely false. You continue to spread that rumor in every news outlet and letter you write and suggest that funds should be spent on seniors. It is now your total responsibility to provide all funding for seniors. We have written comments from survey participants that suggest requests are ignored and that maybe next year that can be addressed. (by the Park District). You do not appear to be taking care of people at the site, but rather, finally, the property.
It is unfortunate that you and your multiple staff at the center do not have good relationships with the Senate or SSI. They may have been willing to share survey comments to help you determine how best to utilize the few recreation dollars allowed for Senior programming. You are, unfortunately, on your own.
I suggest you develop and present an executive proposal to the Board of Commissioners to allocate the 100 building in perpetuity as a Senior Center. This is consistent practice as implemented at, say, NE Park where soccer and lacrosse are the designated sports of the property, accomplished by a handshake. Baseball and softball are not assigned/allowed at NE park but at alternate sites Ice skating is not allowed at that park, but rather assigned to South Park. Maine Park appears to be the perpetual location for preschool activities and District offices. Such does appear to be consistent policy throughout the District. Indeed, the Seniors hate to give up the space they have designed and invested heavily in over the many years, so you have a chance to right a wrong.
The Park District could abdicate any responsibility for the seniors’ program. An insignificant 4 percent of the Park Budget should annually be distributed to SSI. Staff or other operating costs would not be your responsibility. Such an arrangement would effectively afford the District to meet its responsibility of equitably distributing tax dollars among varying age groups of residents. The Senior Center could continue to be self governed as it was so designed to be years ago. Details could be negotiated and developed. Such a positive action would likely appear honorable and acceptable by the residents, except for the few who never played well with others, anyway.
I look forward to your suggestions for resolving the entire existing situation. I know your plan will assure appropriate and acceptable, friendly and more economical recreation opportunities for all age groups in Park Ridge. Also, your thinking regarding moving the kid free swim several miles from the Center will be helpful as well as the measures you apply to determine “success”. Thanks in advance for your response.
I would be happy to share additional ideas with you.
Sandee Main”
