A Letter From Sandee Main to Executive Director Mountcastle – Dated: July 1, 2012

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”