or this Board’s political insanity is why there are over 27,000 views on this site!
The PRPD/SSI/Grodsky/Senior Center imbroglio, has been going on for almost two long years; and every time we turn around these fumbling incompetents, come up with another laughable Park Ridge Park District moment, one designed to stretch out the process and bankrupt Senior Services, Inc.
For those who no longer bother to read the local rags, this is what Journal-Topics Reporter Heather Holm had to say:
Note: To see the complete, full-screen Parks File Preemptive Suit to Senior Group, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Parks File Preemptive Suit to Senior Group
Now let’s see if I got this straight.
| PRPD, who started the Kemnitz Trust suit by informing Kemnitz Trust attorneys of their alleged claim to the Kemnitz assets, voted to do a Pearl Harbor like sneak attack on these old World War II era Seniors. Hysterical Board leaders, Biagi and Wynn-Ryan convinced their sycophantic Board associates to believe rumors, based on comments revealed on this blog. The commenters were demanding that SSI contractual rights be honored. The boys and girl concluded those |  |
| pesky old codgers were planning a legal offensive of their own to gain what Seniors believe PRPD owes them; the agreed-to dreaded “clawback” provision money. |
| Your representatives who voted yes for this insanity: | Rick Biagi |
| Mary Wynn-Ryan | |
| Steve Hunst | |
| Richard Brandt | |
| Jim O’Brien. |
The lone Commissioner who voted no: Stephen Vile.
WWII era Senior’s don’t like sneak attacks!
For those Board Commissioners too young to recall or understand how many seniors of this era might view their act, look at the video.
Biagi! Wynn-Ryan! Have you no political common sense? Have you no shame?
UPDATE: 08/31/2012
I received a copy of the following email this morning.
| Senior Services, Senior Senate and Senior Center members, and friends of seniors, As some of you already know, this week we made a counteroffer to the Park District in an attempt to end the Kemnitz lawsuit once and for all. As you may also know, the Park District had offered to settle the suit if we agreed that we would not use any of the Kemnitz monies in legal action against the Park District. Publicly, the Park District's rationale was that Betty Kemnitz would not have wanted her bequest used in such a fashion. Given our responsibilities as a non-profit organization to preserve and protect our assets, we could not agree to such a broad restriction on the use of our own money. We need to protect our rights and our assets, and legal action is sometimes the only way to do that. However, we made a very reasonable counteroffer. Following a lengthy consultation with our attorneys, we agreed that we would not use Kemnitz money to sue the District over the capital payback provision of the contract we had for many years with the Park District. We agreed to this because of our desire to end the lawsuit now, and because we believed our offer addressed the real concern that the Park District had, which was that we would use Kemnitz money "against them" to recoup monies from the Park District. Instead of accepting our offer on the spot, however, we learned yesterday that the Park District has inexplicably filed yet another lawsuit against us. In this lawsuit they are asking the court to declare that they do not owe any money to us under the capital payback provision. We view this lawsuit as unnecessary and a complete waste of our own and taxpayer money. Neither SSI nor the Senior Senate has made a decision to sue the Park District under that provision, so the Park District is taking a step it need not take at all. And our counteroffer creates a substantial restriction on our ability to even bring such a suit if we wanted to do so. Unless they drop this latest suit, not only will they be spending more and more taxpayer dollars, but we will have to pay our attorneys to respond to the lawsuit. That could get expensive, and all of the money would have to come from our Kemnitz assets. Up until now, the bulk of the legal fees we have incurred in the Kemnitz matter have been largely paid not out of the Kemnitz funds but through our insurance coverage. Our insurance coverage will not be available to defend this latest lawsuit, however, so if we have to defend it, it will come straight out of the Kemnitz money. We don't want to see that happen, and don't think Betty Kemnitz would either. After nearly two years of trying to resolve this matter in a lowkey manner, we believe that a more direct appeal to the Park Board and others is now needed. For that, we need your help. Please contact members of the Park Board and ask them to ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER SSI HAS MADE IN THE KEMNITZ MATTER AND ALLOW ALL THE PARTIES TO MOVE ON! Seniors do not need this matter to drag on even one more day, and the Park Board should end this immediately. We've met their most important demands, they should accept the offer and MOVE ON! Here is the contact information for the Park Board members:
(We encourage you to send a copy of your email to us for our file at prseniors@gmail.com) Feel free to share this email with your friends and neighbors as well- the more voices, the better! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email us
(contact us at prseniors@gmail.com)” |
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
45 comments:
Comparing elected-by-the-public (not just private club members) officials to those who bombed Pearl Harbor?
Who is it who has no shame?
In the best interest of our community, I would have preferred the Board Commissioners had addressed a motion to authorize PRPD Finance to issue a check to Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. for the amount they are due consistent with recently expired Agreement signed in 2005 and "acknowledged and agreed to" between the lessee and the leassor "consistent with its previous letter agreement dated July 16, 1987...that Corporation shall be entitled to reimbursement for capital improvement costs hereafter or previously incurred" (See Clause 13 latest Agreement executed between both parties, Corporation and District, 2005) Quotes mean phrases and terms stated exactly from an Agreement
Prior to the call for the resolution of the question, the discussion could/should have reviewed:
* Stewardship responsibilities for government representatives,
*The role of not for profit organizations in a community and its volunteers who serve on such boards of directors,
The legality of an outside body to direct the purposes and/or funds of a separate independent organization,
*Why agreements or contracts are initiated and executed between various bodies or organizations,
*What impact defaulting on an Agreement might have on Park Ridge's ability to join into future contracts with other vendors or organizations or communities.
Sandee:
Cutting and pasting language from the 2005 agreement between the PRRPD and SSI presents an inaccurate depiction of the relevant provision. Both the 2005 agreement and the 1987 one to which you refer expressly provide for reimbursement of capital improvement costs to SSI only if “the District should at some time in the future decide to terminate the License…” (1987); or if the District cancels the agreement (2005).
The 2005 agreement was never cancelled by the PRRPD: it simply expired by its own terms on December 31, 2010, and was not renewed – a situation which neither the 2005 nor the 1987 agreements even address. And the License provided for in the 1987 letter agreement continues de facto by the PRRPD’s ongoing operation of the Senior Center as a senior center, which thereby continues the amortization of the capital improvement costs.
Just because you may not like the result doesn’t justify cherry-picking those pieces of the agreement you like and excluding the pieces you don’t, especially when you are selling the result to Ken’s readership as the truth.
Good for the Park Board. There is no way that "clawback" money is owed at this point -- the contract lapsed.
Can anyone address the ethics behind Teresa serving as executor to the estates of a number of Seniors over the years? Smells somewhat fishy to me. Maybe the Saint is not so Saintly after all.
Oh, the non-existent, Evan Lacrosse is back. If you check, there isn't one in the whole state.
Your reference to Teresa Grodsky smelling fishy disgusts me. Are you aware that the women just received another well deserved award?
The Park District knew full well that estate monies were left to Senior Services over the years but the officials on the other Park Board's weren't greedy like our present Board. They're spending the taxpayers money so fast on water parks and buying the Youth Campus land, they're grabbing every nickel they can get their greedy little hands on.
Also, if the Park District didn't refuse to sign the contract, why were they negotiating with Senior Services right up until the very end. When the contract came up for a vote, they used the excuse that one or two commissioners weren't there. They had a quorum. It was a tactic to camouflage the fact that they were refusing to sign the contract. Rather transparent I think.
Evan (fake Name),
Ethics is the wrong word. When an individual does not have immediate family to act as executor, he or she may ask a TRUSTED friend to serve that role. I know others who care about people and accept the responsibility. Perhaps you know nothing about common practices regarding TRUST, which is likely the word you meant to use. Good what for the Park Board? (no reference in your comment.)
Bob, not worthy, as we have been down this path of word parsing before, and what "result" are YOU referring to?
I am alive and well and living in here in Action Ridge. Not sure what you folks are talking about.
I just feel Ms. Grodsky overstepped her bounds, and if she had any sense of ethics would have referred some of those people to someone who didn't have an interest in where the money ends up.
Evan Lacrosse August 30, 2012 6:06 PM,
You have been submitting comments here for several months. Like Sandee, I have repeatedly been unable to find your name in Park Ridge or anywhere else in the United States. So, to clear up this issue, here’s what you and I are going to do. You’re going to send me an email with your phone number; and I’m going to call back to say hello. Until then, I’m going to hold off publishing your future comments.
Best,
This is my first, and possibly last, visit to this blog. Your comparison of a dispute between the PRPD and SSI to Pearl Harbor is insulting to me and should be insulting to anyone who served. I am the son of two WWII vets and the nephew of a WWII Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient (DOW Germany, February 1945). I find that your comparison serves to diminish both the significance of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the credibility of your position on the subject at hand.
This is my first, and possibly last, visit to this blog. Your comparison of a dispute between the PRPD and SSI to Pearl Harbor is insulting to me and should be insulting to anyone who served. I am the son of two WWII vets and the nephew of a WWII Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient (DOW Germany, February 1945). I find that your comparison serves to diminish both the significance of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the credibility of your position on the subject at hand.
This is my first, and possibly last, visit to this blog. Your comparison of a dispute between the PRPD and SSI to Pearl Harbor is insulting to me and should be insulting to anyone who served. I am the son of two WWII vets and the nephew of a WWII Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient (DOW Germany, February 1945). I find that your comparison serves to diminish both the significance of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the credibility of your position on the subject at hand.
Sounds like the seniors are getting worried... Hey SSI, found your new clubhouse yet?
Way to go Butterly. So this has turned into a cronie board? I've always admired your crafting use of html but now I just laugh when you start to delete posts that you don't agree with.
And you shouldn't flatter yourself, you have 27,000 because it's entertaining the way SSI think they are entitled.. As a taxpayer, I'll be happy when SSI gets NOTHING and has to pay the $300k to the PRPD!
Better start having bake sales to make up that $50k!
Publish or don't, doesn't bother me, but I'm not sending you my phone number.
Do you ask that of everyone who posts here?
Anon: August 30, 2012 7:40 AM,
Publicly elected officials can sometimes act like thugs and/or bullies. They can sometimes act in other ways injurious to their constituents or others. They can sometimes act as sneaks telling the public and their opponent’s one thing while planning and executing a plan of a different sort. They can even tell lies when it suits their purpose. Public officials are not kings or gods and hold no divinely given authority over us although they sometimes act as if they do. You obviously think different. Future contractees can learn a lot by a Board that honors leagalese and deception over integrity or morals or legal commitments by predecessors. The Chicago Way has come to Park Ridge! It was also the way of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and that was not lost on the seniors I talked to.
It was Park Ridge Park Board President Rick Biagi who said: “We are preempting a strike by them…”. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE – not talk – Wow! Japan could not have stated it better. War-words by elected public officials seem to be in the air a lot these days – don’t you agree?
Peaceful, honest dialogue by all of our “elected officials” would go a long way toward solving many of our seemingly unsolvable self-created political problems.
Bob,
You said: “The 2005 agreement was never cancelled by the PRRPD: it simply expired by its own terms on December 31, 2010, and was not renewed – a situation which neither the 2005 nor the 1987 agreements even address.”
My response: Grandma’s senile life was cancelled last year by her children, the heirs to her fortune. She simply died when the ignorant kids decided they would no longer acknowledge her right to live, choosing instead, to withhold her food and forbidding others to acknowledge her and feed her. They didn’t quite (directly) kill her. They didn’t stab her to death but she was dead anyway.
PRPD leaders never really KILLED the contact; never stabbed it to death by an official DOWN vote. They just decided to not recognize the new agreement and let the old one (die of starvation) lapse.
Ms Holms reported: ““Part of that contract said if we were to terminate, we would have to pay back money for capital improvements,” said Rick Biagi, president of the park district. This money, known as clawback money, would only be awarded to SSI if the park district terminated their agreement. However, the agreement was never officially terminated, only allowed to lapse and not renewed, so that provision would not be triggered, according to Biagi.”
I’m not a legal eagle like you Bob, I like to look at things as right or wrong; and certainly, based on my moral upbringing learned in the Catholic Church, it certainly looks to me like your friends on the Board killed that contract just the same as if they had run it through a shredder at a public meeting! That contracts death by an ignorant act would have been far better than that contracts death by pretermission!
If I recall Bob, even you suggested back in February 2011 that PRPD’s Board needed to vote the then newly negotiated contract proposal up or down! You no longer seem to believe that. Time and Board friendships tend to do things like that.
Evan Lacrosse,
You made the following statements that caused me to question you authenticity:
August 30, 2012 2:31 PM
“Good for the Park Board. There is no way that "clawback" money is owed at this point -- the contract lapsed.
Can anyone address the ethics behind Teresa serving as executor to the estates of a number of Seniors over the years? Smells somewhat fishy to me. Maybe the Saint is not so Saintly after all.”
August 30, 2012 6:06 PM
“I am alive and well and living in here in Action Ridge. Not sure what you folks are talking about.
I just feel Ms.Grodsky overstepped her bounds, and if she had any sense of ethics would have referred some of those people to someone who didn't have an interest in where the money ends up.”
Your comments, in my opinion, were on the verge of being libelous. Others who’ve done the same have done so knowingly, and under their own name. I figured if you knew I knew who you were, you’d be more careful or artful.
On August 31, 2012 4:48 PM You commented further:
“Publish or don't, doesn't bother me, but I'm not sending you my phone number.
Do you ask that of everyone who posts here? “
Let me answer you here. I have asked others over the years. Only one had the strength of his conviction to send me his phone number. I called, thanked him and he still comments here from time-to-time. You, obviously, are not that type of person.
So, go in peace!
Evan Lacrosse (or whoever you are) isn't the only person who has made libelous comments.
My father taught me many things. One of his favorite lines was, "don't waste your breath on ignorant people and people who resort to swearing have a limited vocabulary". I, however, felt compelled to respond in this case, as I found your statement so repugnant.
Ken, your comment on 8/31 7
Ken 8/31 7:53
YOU really are a sleuth. The reference, now publicly announced by Heather Holm quoting the statement of Board president, RB outlines the district's position on why the funds previously invested by SSI in the 100 S. Western building are unrecoverable. It confirms what many of us thought was strange. Rather than discuss and act on the business of the District which in early 2011 was to address the overdue action required on the District and Corporation Agreement. Agendas for meetings, are, of course, preplanned. It was determined by someone that if the action scheduled for the Board meeting were just tabled and never taken off the table, the Board could just communicate that the Agreement died under the table on its own terms which is exactly as planned. Deceipt? Honorable? Stewardship?
Now, I am more informed as to why RB and the board were so concerned that Teresa must have leaked a board strategy. I never heard of it...BUT TRUTH ALWAYS WINS. That strategy must have been how they had planned to handle the contract to avoid Financial responsibility and payback. A number of us had wondered why such action had been taken. NOW, IN BLACK ANSD WHITE, we see the plan outline. TWO very major issues now, are that newer more honest board members were dragged into such a dishonest practice. Moreover, an outstanding employee performer was sacrificed and forced to retire early because , it appears, the Board leadership erred.
Perhaps this process explains by RB is the "story" BGA is looking for: Public bodies which operate on public tax funds may only hold private sessions if they are dealing with individual personnel matters. All other business must be conducted in public session. Residents attending meetings will be invited to share ideas and ask questions at the conclusion of every board meeting.
Some power greater than all of us urged RB to so communicate the Board position through their news release.
Mike August 31, 2012 1:49 PM - 1:52 PM,
You said: “Sounds like the seniors are getting worried...”
My response: Looks to me like Rick Biagi and his lot are the ones getting worried. They know they hold the weaker hand in the Kemnitz suite. Even Rick’s friend Trizna acknowledged that estimate a couple months ago; and Biagi and Board’s Attorney know how to go in for the kill, and if there was a kill to be had, the suite would be over by now.
You said: “Way to go Butterly. So this has turned into a cronie board?”
My response: Thanks for the “way to go”. One can always use a little pat on the back.
As to this site being a “cronie board”, I beg to differ. I’ve always made it clear to my readers that I couldn’t care less if PRPD had a Senior Center. At the same time, I don’t think PRPD should be running a publicly-funded workout facility when commercially available alternatives exist. I don’t think PRPD or any park district should be in the tax-subsidized amusement park business. That includes the eventual waterpark some members of the Board have in their sights.
Mike, if you’ve been paying attention at all, you know that a standing offer exists for Park Ridge Park District or other public officials to share their ideas here, publicly. To date, only Mary Wynn-Ryan has responded.
The reason it might seem to you that I pay too much attention to, or provide too much support to, “the seniors”, is that I do. Who else in this community can they count on stand up for them, to tell their story? You? The local rags? Trizna’s Watchdog?
You said: “I've always admired your crafting use of html but now I just laugh when you start to delete posts that you don't agree with”
My response: Again thank you for the compliment. I like to bring a little levity to the conversation. As to my deleting a post, I have done so in the past. However, the deletion of the post in question was purely accidental – big fingers – small ipod. I will address that issue with the commenter later.
You said: “And you shouldn't flatter yourself, you have 27,000 because it's entertaining the way SSI think they are entitled.”
My response: When I reference the number of viewings to this site, in this case 27,000, it is to acknowledge the ongoing silliness of the Board and its leaders. The Biagi/Wynn-Ryan tag-team’s ongoing endeavors ARE THE REASON for my continuing to write post after post. Their actions created this blog and their prolonged stupidity fuels my resolve to continue!
As to SSI thinking “they are entitled”; well they are! See contract. See Butterly comment to Bob!
You said: “As a taxpayer, I'll be happy when SSI gets NOTHING and has to pay the $300k to the PRPD! Better start having bake sales to make up that $50k!”
My response: As a taxpayer, I’m unhappy that PRPD Board leaders have piddled away tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars destroying a highly recognized and fully functioning Senior Center to bolster their petty egos. Had the O’Brien/Wynn-Ryan/Biagi lead Boards renewed the contract for one year or even two years, the contract period would have been over or almost over, there have been no controversy, a smooth collaborated transition to PRPD ownership/management of the then “Park Ridge Senior Center” would have occurred, 800 happy seniors would have been willing to share their time and might I say, “wealth” ($1,000,000 in future Trust money) and additionally, hundreds of thousands of dollars would have flowed into PRPD’s coffers. No contract – no respect – no money!
Instead of focusing our combined attention toward effectively addressing the wound, applying soothing ointment and bandage, PRPD's Biagi and Wynn-Ryan ignore the injury and let the wound fester.
What do we have now? Another Biagi & Co. smokescreen – two self-created court battles!
Finally, instead of seniors having “bake sales” to save 50k, might I suggest PRPD save tens-of-thousands of additional tax dollars by ending their insanity – now!
Ken:
Contracts are not people, so let’s dispense with that factually and legally frivolous analogy. And while “pretermission” is a clever term, it is factually and legally inapplicable here.
People enter into a contract to create their own private standard of “right or wrong” for the contract’s particular purpose. Such contracts have negotiated beginnings and endings, just like every one of the contracts SSI signed. If SSI wanted something different, it should have had its own “legal beagles” negotiate something different – like perhaps one long-term contract instead of all those short-term ones.
You are correct when you say that I suggested back in February 2011 that the Park Board should have voted up/down on a new contract. I still believe that. But that doesn’t change the fact that the last of the Senior Center contracts legally expired on December 31, 2010.
If SSI wants to fight in court about its right to retain the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest that Ms. Kemnitz directed to the “Park Ridge Senior Center,” it has no right to complain about having to also fight for whatever clawback money remains unamortized. Lawsuits aren’t just one-way streets where SSI wins irrespective of whether the coin comes up heads or tails.
And as a Park District taxpayer who also happens to be a “senior” and an 8-year Park Board member, I’m glad my elected representatives on the Park Board have finally shown the good sense and the courage to fight for the Park District’s rights in respect to both of those amounts.
General comment.
Commenter Evan Lacrosse made the following comment:
“Can anyone address the ethics behind Teresa serving as executor to the estates of a number of Seniors over the years? Smells somewhat fishy to me…”
Evan Lacrosse was incorrect. Teresa Grodsky was executor to one trust only; the Betty Kemnitz Trust. Misleading comments such as the one above are the reason Evan Lacrosse will not be published here in the future.
I thought you should know!
Funny, look at the offerings at the senior center today and tell me that the PRPD has killed off the center..
Funny how the loser is always the one that cries fowl and tries to get the other party to stop.
Is there a contract in place today? Did someone CANCEL the contract? IS anyone in BREACH of the contract? Or did the contract expire.. I'm not an attorney but an expired contract is not a valid contract and has no bearing on discussions..
GO GET 'EM PRPD! The tax payers are behind you.. And by taxpayers, I mean the ones that aren't afraid to have yearly increases instead of "freezing" their taxes.
M. T. Coyne, August 31, 2012 12:16, 12:18 and 1:21 PM,
First, let me apologize for deleting your original version of the three copied displayed here. I was attempting to move you comment to another location for response. Large fingers + small ipod = deleted comment.
Now, my response!
You said: “This is my first, and possibly last, visit to this blog.”
My response: I think it would be a shame for you not to dig deeper into this blog site. You might find something you do like or something else you’d like to comment on.
You said: “Your comparison of a dispute between the PRPD and SSI to Pearl Harbor is insulting to me and should be insulting to anyone who served. I am the son of two WWII vets and the nephew of a WWII Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient (DOW Germany, February 1945).”
My response: I am sorry you felt insulted. The seniors who first gave me the idea for the post were also insulted, except they were insulted by PRPD’s actions. Those seniors are in their 80’s, and WWII veterans with combat experience. I too am the son of a WWII vet. My father was Chief Petty Officer in the Navy and served on a minesweeper off the Aleutian Islands. He also taught diesel mechanic’s at Navy Pier where he met my mother. My mother worked for Western Electric in support of the war effort. I had uncles in all service branches, two of them wounded in action. My father won a gold star in grade school and received a broken heart, more than once; at least that’s what he said. I served 3 years, 9 months, 7days in the US Navy between 1966 and 1969.
So, are we done with our silly spitting match yet?
You said: I find that your comparison serves to diminish both the significance of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the credibility of your position on the subject at hand.
My response: Please explain further. I actually am curious!
Mr. Butterly:
I am writing not to discuss the legitimacy of any legal claims nor to address any of the childish name calling that is directed at me on your site. I am, however, writing to provide some facts that your readers have chosen to disregard.
First, and frankly, most importantly, I reached out to Carla, Barb and Teresa in mid-summer by email (which I would be happy to share with you) to ask for an in-person meeting in the hope of resolving this whole mess. I received a "speak to my attorney" email from Teresa, a "no" from Barb H. and a very nice, amicable series of emails from Carla where she and I had a quite civil conversation. I was under the impression that we were moving toward holding such a meeting (even though you frequently poo-pooed the idea on your blog by suggesting that any such meeting was a complete waste of time and that the Board/PRRPD should simply throw in the towel and agree to all of SSI's demands). Indeed, I was so confident that such a meeting was going to occur, that I sought the Board's approval to effectively deputize me to act on behalf of the entire Board at a settlement meeting with the other parties (so as not to have to waste time during the meeting in going back and forth to the various Board members to seek individual approval for each provision discussed in the meeting). I don't recall which meeting this occurred at (either June or July) but I'm sure you can FOIA those records and get confirmation yourself.
The point of this is that the Board has been attempting to settle this matter for quite some time, but has been met with a brick wall each time a settlement offer was tendered. Indeed, the Board put forth three separate and distinct settlement offers in this calendar year, each met with a firm "no" and no subsequent counter-offer...up until a few days ago...after SSI's attorney (Snakard) was informed that the Board had authorized the filing of a DJ action in connection with the claw back provision.
And while were at it, let's discuss the claw back and Mr. Snakard. Some seem to think that the Board authorized the law suit because of comments made on this blog. That, however, could not be farther from the truth. I was present at a hearing in July on the Kemnitz matter (I was standing next to Mr. Snakard in front of the bench) when Mr. Snakard told the Court that this entire case (Kemnitz) could not be resolved in mediation because of the "800 pound gorilla" in the room...the claw back in the prior agreement. The Judge then inquired about the agreement and said claw back, Mr. Snakard obliged the Court, and the Judge went on to order the parties into mediation not simply to settle Kemnitz, but to engage in discussions to reach a global settlement of all matters between the parties. In point of fact, the law suit (claw back) was filed as a direct result of Mr. Snakard's comments before the Court and SSI's unwillingness (up until three days ago) to entertain any type of settlement discussions.
I was, and still am, willing to sit down with SSI and Teresa in the hope of reaching a resolution to all of this...and while not speaking for all 6 other Commissioners, I am quite certain that they feel the same way. I would like nothing more than for this to be put to rest.
I'm certain that you and your readers will now attempt to disparage me personally and pick apart everything I've just said...if that is what you need to do, then so be it.
I would just like to challenge those who prefer to demonize me and the Board by asking a simple question...why did it take the filing of the most recent law suit for everyone to suddenly be quite interested in meeting to resolve this dispute?
- Rick Biagi
Rick,
Welcome!
When we chance encountered at Panara’s the other day, I thought, ah – maybe I can talk with this guy – have a cupa and see where things go. I (we) missed that opportunity; you, for your reason, while I just waited too long. As I wrote on August 22: “Sometimes; chance encounters by opposing sides lead to better understanding and sometimes - even breakthroughs. Oh well, maybe next time!”
Well that “next time” is here – and it’s at this blog-site.
Rick, you’ve made a breakthrough. I certainly didn’t expect it considering our past email conversations.
So let me rescind my previously published assessment of you by hereby stating: Rick Biagi possesses “political balls”!
Now that we’ve cleared that up, the next question is: shall we use this breakthrough as an opportunity for the good of the community or do we nitpick or snip at one another and throw it away?
I suggest we use it!
Why don’t we consider this new on-line encounter a more open version of our prior meet by holding a real conversation; one between Rick and Ken – with an occasional comment from interested parties.* Yes?
So how would that work?
We will hold this informal conversation here, within earshot of anyone and everyone.
Coffee Shop rules apply! Rule #1: We practice civility and straight talk. Rule #2: No comments are taken personally. Rule #3: All relevant subjects are open for discussion. Rule #4: No BS!
Note: Our coffee shop time does not replace official negotiation channels or procedures but only provides the basis for better PRPD/Senior dialogue and understanding.
Interested? How do you like your coffee?
* Rick, there are quite a few people interested in this story. Some of them; even a couple of your own Board members I talk to regularly, review what is said here. Senior’s, of course! Passersby of all stripes and from both sides of the aisle will want to know something or have something to say. Of course, too much of that good thing could get in the way. I will therefore act as gatekeeper, only allowing in opinions or questions relevant to the discussion, pertinent comments that inform or move forward constructive dialogue.
Ken,
As offered by RB, do request the copy of the early July email sent from him and Gayle Mountcastle to Carla suggesting a meeting. Ask him to include Carla's response to that memo. Her response clarifies some of the misstatements made in his comments above and in the email sent. I have both, but not mine to release.
I have no idea if he and Carl chatted. I do not know Teresa's or Barbara's responses, but Carla and Barb have been lock step in everything else, so? I cannot disprove that statement.
Although I was not standing alongside Steve Snakard in court, I can understand why reference to the clawback was made given I know the stipulation that was added to the 3rd offer, making it the 4th offer which carried the stipulation that no funds from Trust could be used against the District in any suit against them. Indeed the offer was not being accepted. District in this settlement offer Number 4, not 3, was dictating use of the funds and preventing SSI from ever defending itself if needed. SSI has the responsibility of protecting and controlling its assets. Number 3 was changed to 4 a day or 2 after presented and in process of being accepted.
If you truly think the prior Board renewing the lapsed agreement would have resulted in a magical collaborative and smooth transition to Park District management of the Senior Center, you are beyond help. There is no way the clique over there would have ever, ever consented to losing their power. Ever. And you know it. It's all about turf. Meanwhile, the Senior Center has gone on just fine for 18 months without SSI's support and with its active efforts to bully other seniors out of volunteering and participating. Lincoln Middle School across the street must have given the ruling clique its mean girls training, but this, too, shall pass. And the Senior Center will go on, cleaner and more inviting than ever.
non 9/3 11:20
Did yu think about what happens when the new center takes its programs with it?
More options are always a good thing, and seniors are a growth market thanks to the upcoming Boomer generation. At the current Park Ridge Senior Center, Some of the best programs are being conducted by volunteers who have no plans whatever to leave. And most current programs are the work of Park District staff as well as members.These things don't budget, market, create, contract for and implement themselves. When the "new center" has to pay real wages to keep things going and to originate and implement new programs, I hope there are enough volunteers to do all the work. At this point it's hard to get members to wash their own coffee cups. But I'm sure all that will change when you are fully funding and genuinely managing every aspect of the offerings and operation. Again, and I say this sincerely, I hope it all works out beautifully for you.
Anon 9/4 8:24 am.
It sounds like you can hardly wait for those awful residents to go. I am not a participant at the center, but i do not recall there was ever a problem with the seniors washing their own cups. Teresa must have been protecting the seniors to not report that as a major issue at the SSI board meetings. That was a small, but good way, to save on paper goods to reduce expenses.
You should urge the Park Board as recommended above to settle the Kemnitz issue at their next meeting to get rid of those people NOW. You must be there often to be able to evaluate the kitchen sink. I now understand why the ambiance is reportedly difficult to find and the place is just sterile, except for the dirty cups, I guess.
Mr Biagi,
If you make misstatements, you should expect to be challenged on what you say.
I have never had a personal communication with you regarding a meeting to settle the Kemnitz suit.
On Mon, July 2, I received an email from Ms Mountcastle's email account, requesting to consider an in-person settlement meeting. Yes, the email was signed by Gayle as executive director, and then by you as president of the Park Board.
On Tue, July 3, I replied to Gayle since she was the primary author of the email request. Here is what I wrote: "I'm recovering from oral surgery, and this whole situation is something I don't want to think about until I'm pain free". Do you see the word "NO" anywhere in that statement?
On Mon, July 9, Carla sent an email to Gayle, (on both our behalf), that discussed the various settlement offers and why they were unacceptable and unworkable. She stated that we would be willing to meet and discuss a resolution based on the settlement offer of June 20, 2012. I never received a response to that email.
On Mon, July 16, I was also present at the status hearing, though I wasn't as close to the bench as you were. Mr Snakard told the court that we couldn't go into mediation because we hadn't received all the documents (discovery?) that was promised. He also commented to the Judge the reason why we couldn't agree to the last settlement offer (general release requirement). The judge questioned why this was important, and Mr Snakard said that there was ownership of physical property involved, and he mentioned the claw back provision, but he didn't make it the main focus of his statement. By the way, Mr Snakard has not yet received the 'discovery" that was requested of your attorney months ago.
I was also confident that we could all sit down and talk, and possibly get things settled, before mediation, as the Judge suggested. I reported this to the Senate members.
To that end, I also requested settlement authority and approval from the Senior Senate, so I could act in their behalf. This request went out on July 29, by email and US mail to 19 board members. By Aug 13, I had received all the authorizations needed.
Part 2
Carla and I then chose a small group of our members to look over and make comment on three different proposals that could be presented to the Park Board. We then made an appointment to meet with the attorneys in the afternoon on Mon, Aug 27.
That morning at the Senate monthly meeting, I was informed by members of the Senate and Senior Center, that it was written in a local paper, about the possible law suit in connection with the claw back provision. I was also told that the park district considered everything in the 100 S Western building a gift to the park district. I could only shake my head in disbelief.
Carla and I later met with the attorneys and discussed which of our three options, were the best to offer, in order to bring this law suit to an end. After our decision was made, we discussed the possibility of the Park Board actually filing a new law suit. We even mentioned that the Park Board would think that the threat of a new law suit is what made us offer our proposal.
That is definitely NOT the case. A lot of thought and consideration went into our proposal. We needed to survey our membership, contact our two boards, and do the best we could for all involved.
I could certainly pick apart everything that Ms Mountcastle, you, and your board has said or done in this matter, but I'm tired of it all. I did not choose to be in the position I have been placed. During the time that Barb Ingolia and Rudy Keil were acting as President of the Senior Senate, I was unaware of all that was happening. My thought was that the park district was not honest and forthcoming, and that there was a hidden agenda.
When Rudy could not complete his term of office, as vice president I felt it was my obligation to uphold the oath that I took as a Senator of the Senior Center.
No matter what, I'm going to see this through. There are many senior members who have been hurt by this ongoing, stressful situation. Many members have left the center and moved on to other centers in the area. What is really sad are the members who now just stay at home, and are alone, without the companionship that they had experienced in a once friendly environment.
At every Senate meeting, I compliment the work of Jennifer and staff. I urge the membership to continue to take part in the park district activities that please and make them happy. Life is too precious and too short.
Sandee:
You keep wanting the Park Board "to settle the Kemnitz issue" - which I assume means the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest to the "Park Ridge Senior Center." Are you willing to accept and endorse to SSI ANY of the following settlement options:
1. All $330,000 goes to the Park District, for use solely for the operation and improvment to the Park District's Senior Center building at 100 S. Western; and the Park District continues to run the Senior Center and amortize the remaining clawback money?
2. $165,000 goes the the Park District, $165,000 goes to SSI, to be used for any purpose either wishes; and the Park District continues to run the Senior Center and amortize the remaining clawback money?
3. All $330,000 goes to SSI; SSI forfeits all clawback money; and SSI packs up and leaves ASAP?
Or is your (and SSI's) idea of settlement that SSI gets everything and the Park District and its taxpayers get nothing?
I appreciate that Mr. Biagi has taken the time to address this matter publicly, and hope he is doing so to bring this matter to a close. My own desire to resolve this matter compels me to respond to Mr. Biagi's comment above. I also wish to set the record straight in this more public forum, since that is where it is now being discussed by a member of the Park Board.
It is true that the Park Board has presented seniors with several settlement offers over the past months. What Mr. Biagi fails to mention is that we were on the verge of accepting one of them when it was suddenly revoked and replaced with another offer that was not acceptable. This is where things stood on July 2nd, when Ms. Mountcastle suggested a meeting to resolve the Kemnitz suit. At that time we told her and Mr. Biagi that we had found one of their offers acceptable, and that if that offer were reinstated, we would accept it and the entire matter would end.
Mr. Biagi then contacted me directly via email and we had some back and forth about the various offers that had been presented. Mr. Biagi agreed that some things had been lost in translation relating to the settlement proposals, and that he would have an updated settlement offer prepared and sent to us for our consideration. I was encouraged by our back and forth, and believed that we could resolve the matter either by sitting down or by responding to their revised settlement offer with a reasonable counter-offer.
We received the Park District's revised settlement offer about 3 weeks later, on July 25th. The counteroffer we made last week was not the result of the clawback lawsuit the Park District filed-- the decision to make a counteroffer involved many factors and was in process for several weeks before we even knew that the District threatened that lawsuit. Due to vacations and other commitments, we simply were not able to get the feedback and have the discussions we felt we needed to have to make a decision until later in August. As soon as all of those things had occurred, we met with our attorneys to direct them as to how to proceed. That meeting occurred on Monday 8/27. The next day, our attorney submitted our settlement proposal to the Park District.
Our attorney had advised Mr. Hoffman that we planned to present a counteroffer before the hearing date on August 30th, and we did. I do not know why the clawback lawsuit was filed by the Park District before it had even seen or considered our proposal. That was an aggressive thing to do in the context of settlement negotiations. I think that the Board may have based its decision to file that suit on comments made on this blog. However, things said on this blog do not reflect the will or the decisions of SSI or the Senior Senate. I will state again: neither SSI nor the Senior Senate have formally discussed or decided to take any action on the clawback provision. Even if our attorney mentioned that provision in court, he did not say that we intended to file suit, he only mentioned it as the reason we could not accept a prior settlement proposal by the Park Board.
We hope that the Park Board will accept our settlement proposal, drop the clawback suit, and end the legal matter once and for all. It would be a simple and effective way to put the conflict to rest and allow the parties to begin to move on. No meetings are necessary. The matter is ready to be ended. The power to do so now rests with the Park Board, as it always has.
Can we please make it clear that the Park District initiated what Carla calls "the clawback suit" simply to find out from an objective outside source -- i.e., the judge -- whether the Park District does or does not owe the clawback? Seems to me Carla et al would be thrilled to find out once and for all, either way, so everyone can move on. But no; keeping the sword of Damocles threat of the SSI sueing the taxpayers hanging over this and every future board as it has for the last thirty years is much more powerful, eh?
Enough. Let's all find out and take our lumps (or not) and move on. As Barbara Hameder says so wisely, life is too short.
Why does Mrs. Hameder consider a letter signed by Carla on her (Barbara's) behalf a legitimate response but does not consider a message from Gayle's email on behalf of President Biagi a legitimate communication?
General Comment,
There will be no “Coffee Shop” talk for Rick and me in the foreseeable future.
I received an email from Rick Biagi in response to my “Coffee Shop” offer. Rick expressed a general desire to communicate, however there were strings; unworkable restrictions that would have drastically changes the character of event.
Normally at this point I would have displayed the email-string supporting my statements. Unfortunately, Rick asked that I not do so, and I agreed. However, Rick felt comfortable in my presenting those paragraphs directly connected to my decision. They read:
“I am happy to take you up on your offer to discuss matters germane to the Park District. I would prefer not using the blog as our vehicle for doing so but would rather have any such meetings in person. Be that as it may, I am willing to field questions from you and your readers on the blog, with two additional ground rules:
1. I would ask that you respect the fact that I may be unable to answer certain questions if the information is related to legal strategy, personnel matters or other such sensitive and privileged communications between the Board and staff. I trust that you will not take my refusal to answer certain questions and use that against me with your readers. I will be as candid as I can, within the bounds of the law, with you and your readers.”
After review of his response and having found his alternative (1-on-1 meeting) and additional restrictions unworkable, I decided to rescind my offer.
Obviously, I’m disappointed.
That’s life!
It’s “Bob, Let Make A Deal Trizna”!
Three choices. You only gave Sandee three choices! Well Bob, here’s a fourth:
All $330,000 Kemnitz Trust goes to SSI; District continues to run “Park Ridge Park District Senior Center” and pays SSI $50,000 per year for six years. Oh, I almost forgot. SSI packs up and leaves ASAP! Just a thought!
One more thing Bob: Howard Frimark is not going to like you taking over his nickname!
Ken:
I was just trying to get a sense of what kind of settlement Sandee was considering.
As I've said before, I'd like the judge to decide whether a bequest to the "Park Ridge Senior Center" goes to the Park District that owns and operates that Center or to some private corporation that had only a limited license which has since expired.
I'm not about to take over Howard's nickname. As you should know by now, if I believe in some principle I'd rather risk winning or losing on it than cutting some gutless half-baked deal.
And as I see the principles of this matter, the Park District should get the full $330,000 - to use solely for the Senior Center - and also get to continue amortizing the clawback money so long as it operates the Senior Center for seniors.
That sounds about as much like a win-win as you can get, assuming your goal isn't just to take the money and run.
Robert,
Just pulling your chain!
Ken
OOPS--my response to Bob got lost.
Bob, At least once before on this blog, I said I was not interested, nor was it appropriate to discuss or determine the outcome of litigation or settlement offers on this or any blog. You know that as an attorney,
Kenneth:
Figured as much, but enjoyed the opening to criticize unprincipled compromise.
Sandee:
As an attorney I understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting or speculating on the course and outcome of litigation - so long as you are not one of the attorneys for the litigants, which neither of us is.
And if you want to use this blog to push for settlement, it would seem only fair that you identify what that the terms of that settlement are.
Rick Biagi
You mention that you reached out to Carla, Barb and Teresa in mid-summer to meet in person to help resolve this whole mess. You also state that the Board has been attempting to settle this matter for some time.
I’m sure you are aware that at the August 22, 2011 meeting of the Park Ridge Senior Senate, five members of the senate were elected (of which I was one) to meet with the Park Board in an attempt to accomplish that very thing. The meeting never took place. We were told that you couldn’t meet with us because of the Open Meetings Act. We then asked to meet with just one or two members, so as not to be in conflict with the Act. We even asked if Mel Thillens could be the person to act as a liaison between the two entities. We met with a stone wall. That was one year ago.
You mention that you have reached out to the seniors to no avail. Perhaps the way in which you have reached out had some bearing on the issue. May I suggest that the Park Board, by their actions, have set a stage that is far from conducive to harmonious communication or negotiation.
The Board strategically decided not to have an up or down vote on the agreement between the Park District and SSI at a Board meeting, because some members weren’t present (even though you had a quorum making it possible to vote). Shortly thereafter, the Board sent SSI their “Cooperative Guidelines”. The entire document was drafted as a threat, with statements and I quote, “that such relationship going forward, if it is to continue” and “that SSI and the District will proceed to work together, if at all”. Is this, in your opinion, how you reach out to someone? The entire document was highly inflammatory and meant to convey that the attitude of the Park Board was, that it’s our way or the highway. You may as well have taken out the words “work together”. The title Cooperative Guidelines was ludicrous. You weren’t discussing cooperation between two entities. You were bringing the hammer down in no uncertain terms. You were our masters and we were your serfs. Is this the type of language that would foster good will and inspire us to feel that your aim was to work together toward a common solution?
Then you informed us that you no longer recognized SSI or the Senior Center Senate. This demonstrated more good will on your part. You were going to appoint an advisory counsel of six members of the Senior Center to replace the Senate. My understanding is that this never took happened, because you couldn’t find six members who wanted to waste their breath advising you of the member’s concerns. You certainly hadn’t demonstrated that you cared one way or the other what the center members thought.
In conclusion, Ms. Mountcastle told us in no uncertain terms how you felt when she told us, I’ll lock the doors to this Senior Center and shut you down. That warm, fuzzy comment spoke volumes. So much for reaching out to us.
As Ken Butterly says, it’s just my opinion.
Post a Comment