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.
27 comments:
Nothing like putting things in perspective with some great humor. Some time and creative thought went into this post. Kudos to Mr. Butterly for a continuing Job well done. Not only do we get the real skinny on a rather sordid example of
political hi jinks, but we get a good laugh to boot! Precious!
a good laugh, yes.
the real skinny, not even close.
Anon: July 19, 2012 9:24 AM,
Ten words! That’s it? Just ten words to express everything on you mind supporting your “… the real skinny, not even close” position? How cheap can you be? I spend a lot of time creating posts just for you and all you can say is “not even close”.
So what to do?
Anon: I could ignore you. I mean, you really didn’t say much and certainly nothing of value. On the other hand, I’m fascinated by the display of intransigent or wanton ignorance!
So here’s the deal.
Come back to me with examples of “the real skinny” as you see it. Tell me all what you think the story is all about. Then, I’ll respond, nice and polite like. While you’re at it, give an example or two to support your position, examples that don’t include a rant targeted toward me, my readers or this site.
I’ll be waiting.
Ken,
You've been sold a bill of goods, and have become a mouthpiece for something entirely different. Knowingly or not, remains to be seen, but Big Dog, you've been had.
Anon: July 19, 2012 9:24 AM & 5:26 PM,
So tell me, what “bill of goods have I been sold” and whom have I “become the mouthpiece” for.
This “Big Dog”, as you’ve called me, want’s a bone or two. How about throwing me something more than just an anonymous opinion?
Seems only fair, I do it for you all the time.
You've heard the real skinny from various legitimate sources and chosen to ignore them, so I'm not wasting my time. Just look back at all of the stuff you've FOIA'd and put on this blog, and all of the comments of people who don't agree with you. The truth is there, well articulated. Just one example: The FOIA'd written comment from Teresa Grodsky to former Executive Director Ray Ochromowicz to the effect that everyone at the Senior Center has always known that the Senior Center is part of the Park District and that most members don't know what SSI even is (paraphrased, but you can look up the original on this blog). In fact, everything you FOIA and publish gives more credibility to the Park District's position, so thanks!
The truth is staring you in the face but for your own reasons you are among those who have eyes and do not see. But you're having fun, so what the hey?
Not even close. Please! This blog is the only source of reliable information about this debacle. Our Park District is spending thousands and thousands of our tax payer dollars fighting for money that was left to the Park Ridge Senior Center. All other bequests to the Senior Center went to the Senior Center. Just what made the Park District think that this bequest was any different? In the meantime, the Park District attorney is lining his pockets with thousands and thousands of our hard earned money.
Anon: July 19, 2012 6:22 PM,
Your scurrilous accusations did not specifically answer my two questions: what “bill of goods have I been sold” and who have I “become the mouthpiece” for? Were these questions not simple or specific enough?
As to the quotation you referenced at: “A little more Senior Center history!” it reads:
“When asked of the Senior Center members, “Who runs the Senior Center?” Nine out of 10 times, the answer is “the Park District.” Most of the Center members don’t even know who Senior Services is.”
You stated in your comment: “everyone at the Senior Center has always known that the Senior Center is part of the Park District”.
Obviously, not the same thing, is it?
One more thing; to long-time senior members, Teresa Grodsky and the Park District were one and the same. Further, quietly operating in the background is exactly what SSI was supposed to do.
Now, the Grodsky answer might not make sense to 40-or-50-something year-old Board Commissioners, but that answer makes perfect sense for someone who happens to be around octogenarians. I have a 94 year old mother. Stick around 80 to 90 year old folks long enough and you’ll understand what I mean.
Anon, if you want to deliberately distort facts you’ll have to go somewhere else. Might I suggest the PublicWatchdog?
7/19 7:58
'...comments of all the people who don't agree with you"
We are to imbed as truth? Whoops...a big stretch when one of those folks name called and referred to the seniors as 'whiny' just because Ray O suggested raising the dues to $45.00.
The front page of the newsletter whose printing and publishing had been taken over from Teresa says something else. See May 2011 newsletter, cover page 1. "At their March meeting, the Senior Senate voted to raise membership dues for the coming year." I do not believe Ray was at or near the meeting as he had already fled by March 2011 when "the Senate voted to raise the dues by $10 across the board."(at their March meeting.)
Perhaps you have documentation that he sent a letter to the Senate requesting their cooperation and making such a recommendation. That I do not have. Please share to verify your ongoing 'accuracy ' as well as my ongoing bloviating.
Thank you for reproducing Teresa's comment for all to see once again.
The current phantasm repeated to the newspapers and others is that the SSI ran the place, including the financials. We see here that the manager herself knew better and said so for the record. So it's more than obvious anyone making a bequest meant the facility run by the Park District, not a handful of people running a foundation to funnel such bequests to the Park District. And meanwhile, after a year and a half of no agreement, the Senior Center run and funded by the Park District is still there for the seniors of Park Ridge.
More correctly, the Park District Senior Center is there funded also through dues and program fees paid by participating seniors. As usual, the whole story is not communicated. Were you not aware the senior dues and program fees were to be used to offset expenses?
Sandee...the program fees barely offset the cost of the programs themselves. Moreover, the dues make up a minuscule portion of the nearly $200k operational deficit from year to year.
Anon: July 20, 2012 7:38 PM,
You make claims of this and that. What authority do you have to make these claims? We have no idea who we're talking to. Yet we're supposed to take your "$200k" number to the bank.
Without an authentic name we're speaking to a phantom.
Unlike the SSI books which are held secret from and unaccountable to the taxpayers, the public budget including its operating deficit is available to see. It's a matter of record that when Ray Ochromowicz asked SSI to contribute more, they said they couldn't afford to -- while sitting on at least $330,000. Ms. Main recently suggested that that was ok because SSI had the right to earmrk donations for capital improvements, furniture, etc. they wanted. Well, I'd love a new $50K kitchen but my mortgage banker is funny about his payments. Operating expenses have to come first for all of us. Meanwhile, SSI may be sitting on millions from "anonymous donors" Ms. Main alluded to earlier, while SSI is crying poormouth and expecting everyone else to ante up,but the rest of the taxpayers will never know.
Anon 7/20, 7:38 p.m.
On the other hand, perhaps the District has the responsibility to more efficiently staff and manage its entire park operation. Are there efficiencies throughout the district that could make all programs for all residents more attractive? Could start with curbing legal assistance. Is that included in your $200K NUMBER AND THOSE FEES CHARGED IN BUDGET AGAINST SENIOR PROGRAMMING?
Currently, I am told that more than one body is needed to replace Teresa. How long ago did I suggest on this blog that that might happen.
Refer to past invoices sent by PD to SSI; you will often find a credit from over collection of program fees used to offset expenses. That was when Teresa, the Senate and SSI were involved. I actually have little concern on how the new regime will suffer in its lone operation and financial woes.
J
Ken:
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
The facts, as shown in the Park District’s audit for 2011, are that Senior Center revenues last year were $217,863 and expenses were $453,903, for a loss/deficit of $236,035. Or, looking at it a different way: each of the Senior Center’s 800 members got $295 off the taxpayers’ dole.
And that was while the Senior Center still was under the management and control of St. Teresa.
If SSI truly wants to resolve the Kemnitz trust litigation consistent with Ms. Kemnitz’s wishes, as evidenced by her bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” (and not to “Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.”), it will take the opportunity afforded by Judge Flynn’s mediation order and accept the Park Board’s repeated offers to escrow the Kemnitz funds to be used solely for the Senior Center building and its senior citizen operations.
Or the SSI leadership can sit on its $241,000 (as reported in the latest Form 990 posted on Guidestar) and burn up both the Kemnitz money and the Park District’s tax dollars in stubbornly pursuing what might very well be a losing litigation effort .
So Ken, I’ll bet you one crisp new $1 bill that if the case goes all the way to judgment, the Park District will win. You in?
July 21 Anon 10:19
If you wish yo refer to my comments or suggestions, please quote me exactly and do not infer what you think or wish I had said.
Robert,
Now, I too was always a fan of Senator Moynihan but I like Dirty Harry Callahan’s take on opinions better: “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.”
Now, where were we? Ah yes, facts.
You said: “The facts, as shown in the Park District’s audit for 2011, are that Senior Center revenues last year were $217,863 and expenses were $453,903, for a loss/deficit of $236,035. Or, looking at it a different way: each of the Senior Center’s 800 members got $295 off the taxpayers’ dole.
And that was while the Senior Center still was under the management and control of St. Teresa.”
My response: I don’t understand how you can be so upset about individual Senior Center’s 800 members receiving $295 of service “off the taxpayers’ dole” while at the same time not being upset with seven board members getting $350+ off those same taxpayers for the same time period, and every year they serve to boot. That included you for eight years.
From: Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board of Commissioners Internal Policies and Bylaws. Last revised March 28, 1985.
Section –A: – Policies: Paragraph 3. The Board of Commissioners: Sub-paragraph 3.03. Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities.
Quote: "It is therefore declared to be the official policy of the Park District that the incumbent Park Commissioners shall be entitled to the free use of the facilities and grounds of the Park District and to free participation in all programs of the Park District where there is sufficient enrollment to cover program costs of the Park District...".
Current fee for a Single, Non-Commissioner Park Ridge Resident at the taxpayer-subsidized Community Center, is $363.00!
And to add insult to injury, no US 1099’s were issued. Who created that policy? Oh ya, the Commissioners! So please Bob, you had that taxpayer subsidized privilege for eight years. Don’t be a hypocrite and stop complaining!
Further, your continued demeaning of Ms. Grodsky is unbecoming and I would appreciate you only doing it on your site, and not mine.
Now, PRPD Management, under the leadership of Mary Wynn-Ryan and Rick Biagi assumed full responsibility of the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center on January 1, 2011. If their Center operated at a loss for 2011, the responsibility for that deficit; is theirs alone. Seniors were denied a contract renewal which would have brought in at least half of your purported loss.
You said: “If SSI truly wants to resolve the Kemnitz trust litigation consistent with Ms. Kemnitz’s wishes, as evidenced by her bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” (and not to “Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.”), it will take the opportunity afforded by Judge Flynn’s mediation order and accept the Park Board’s repeated offers to escrow the Kemnitz funds to be used solely for the Senior Center building and its senior citizen operations.”
My response: You’re behind the information-curve again Bob. That was the first offer! Three more offers have been issued by PRPD’s Board. As to what Betty “wanted” that’s going to up to someone else above our pay grade to figure out.
You said: ” Or the SSI leadership can sit on its $241,000 (as reported in the latest Form 990 posted on Guidestar) and burn up both the Kemnitz money and the Park District’s tax dollars in stubbornly pursuing what might very well be a losing litigation effort .”
My response: Or PRPD’s Board can get off it duff and quit burning up the Kemnitz Trust, (something it says it does not wish to do), and the taxpayers dollars, “in stubbornly pursuing what might very well be a losing litigation effort.” Bob, the Park District is pursuing that money, not the other way around. All that needs to be done to end this adventure in poor judgement, is for PRPD to halt this activity, unconditionally. Something it has refused to do!
Ken:
I never accepted a free Community Center membership – or any other free memberships or programs – while I was a Board member, or at any other time. In fact, even though I had nothing to do with the creation of that stupid ordinance/policy, I tried to get it repealed when I was on the Board - but I couldn't get 3 more commissioners to vote to do so.
I was successful, however, in promoting increases in the membership dues for the Community Center to reflect the costs of operating that facility – the exact same position I have been advocating re the Senior Center.
There is no “information-curve,” Ken. There’s just one factually, legally and policy-correct solution to this Kemnitz bequest issue: The Park District gets the funds which it will use solely for the Senior Center building and its senior citizen operations. Everything else is simply wrong, including continued litigation.
But even continued litigation is better than for the duly elected people’s representatives on the Park Board to let the special interest SSI and Grodsky effectively steal the Kemnitz bequest from the District and its taxpayers.
Now, are you in for that $1 bet?
Ken, Bob is correct this time. The Park District's offer or offers have all and each agreed without reservation to use the Kemnitz trust only for the senior center and seniors. The one condition the Park District ever put on its no-strings offer to give the money to SSI (for use at the Senior Center, some other Senior Center, or a trip to Cancun for each SSI board member) was this: That SSI not use Betty's money to sue the Park District. And as you know, SSI refused the money -- since its next plan is to use that very money to sue the Park District. All they have done is alienated the rest of the public. And the more people who know, the worse they look. Kinda sad.
Mr. Butterly:
You say that the best thing for everyone involved is an unconditional surrender by the Park Board. My understanding is that the Park District made the following offers to SSI:
1) When the issue first came up, prior to any law suits being filed, the Executive Director and the District's attorney communicated to SSI and its lawyers a willingness to use the money only for the Senior Center/100 S. Western. That was rejected and SSI then filed suit against the Park District.
2) The, Commissioner Biagi added a line item to the 2012 budget that stated, in the event the District receives the funds from the Kemnitz bequest, those funds will be apportioned to go only toward projects and costs associated with 100 S. Western (to allay SSI's concerns that the District would use Betty's money for other Park District expenses. Members of SSI as well as you accused Commissioner Biagi and the Board of trying to make a “play” for her money by doing this.
3) Then, once the suit was filed, the District tendered a settlement offer that said it would agree to put the money in escrow, come up with a list of proposed projects for the money to be used only at the Senior Center that all parties agreed on (i.e., SSI, Senate and PRRPD) and then the money would be distributed only for those things.
4) SSI rejected that settlement offer and said that they wanted those things on the list to be movable (read between the lines…so they could take the stuff with them when they started their new place). The District said it would agree to use 50% of the funds for “movable” stuff (such as computers, furniture, etc.) and the other 50% would go toward fixed things (i.e., improvements to the facilities, redecoration, etc.)…SSI rejected that as well.
Now the District has offered to waive all claims to the money in return for a limited release (only for claims related to the Kemnitz suit) with the promise that SSI would not use the Kemnitz funds to pay for future litigation against the taxpayers, vis a vis, the Park District. They have even offered to hold a face to face meeting in the hopes of trying to resolve the remaining issues. Every indication to date is that SSI and Grodsky are unwilling to participate in such a meeting and will not entertain the current settlement offer.
So, remind me again, who is the one being unreasonable in all of this?
Unless you are a member of SSI, don't make assumptions on "its next plan", and then try to pass it off as fact. It's people like you that get those rumors going.
Why so quiet these days? All I'm hearing is crickets chirping.
Anon: July 24, 2012 6:10,
Silence, it's a good thing. You should try it, some time!
So don't worry about me, I’m was just following my own advise by taking a little thinking time for me.
No response from the peanut gallery to Anon, July 23, 11:06?
Anyone...
It sure looks like SSI's lawyers put the ki-bosh on any further discussion over here.
My god, you guys surely are an impatient lot.
I told you, I'm taking a bit of my own advice. Sometimes you have to take a breath. Try it! Yes, yes - in, out, in, out. - one, two. One! Two! See?
Trust me boys, this blogger isn't going away any time soon!
Post a Comment