or Seniors own their stuff – Board owns seniors stuff – Seniors own their stuff – Board owns seniors stuff…
What the heck is going on here?
Over the last couple blogs I razzed the Park Ridge Park District Board for acting like Homer Simpson.
But I never thought they’d model themselves after this version: Homer (The Godfather) Simpson.
![godfather[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis89aD8kt9IOTzBKuTPmiZydYrW8mqC2mz5pqdbXq-uKJLpLEWwHi9EyP0sqCddxv17bbUixhOpCLTh4F2hi_cor5asvpQ6mky1GlzVU7oMlRmFvPEBtzu3_XJ3tWxZTQIQGeXK6cqTwye/s1600-h/godfather1.jpg "godfather[1]")
What a difference one blog post makes!
See: Well I never said I could eliminate intransigent or wanton ignorance!
Now I’m hearing PRPD Officials are apparently, once again, this time in court (using Taxpayer-$$$), claiming ownership of Senior Service, Inc. assets. Assets PRPD has already stated under the Freedom Of Information Act to belong to Senior Service, Inc.
Previously stated under FOIA:
Senior’s, maybe it’s time to kiss Don Homer’s ring, and ask the Don for his forgiveness and protection.
He says he only has Seniors best interest at heart!
A little tribute! A little respect; and apparently at this moment, maybe those SSI paid Senior Center Assets is all he requires.
And maybe someday, and that someday may never come, he will ask you for another favor, or tribute, or gift, or maybe your final gift:
Your Trust Money!
A personal observation…
PRPD Board Members continue to act in curious ways, almost as if they are taking the process personally; and forgetting to keep this important rule: I think this Board has gone down the rabbit-hole. When a group of seemingly intelligent men and women rely on local blog generated banter as intelligence or as a substitute for direct Senior/Board communication, and use those same opinions as the basis for what I now see as litigation-based decision-making, you’ve got to wonder what type of people Park Ridge voters voted in. See: Negative comments on local blogs - PRPD Board’s excuse for seeking court mediation!
I think the real story is about a local Park Board full of itself and angry their ideas and demands have been rejected by constituents they’re unwilling to or incapable of dealing with! PRPD’s expensive taxpayer-paid court-shenanigans are starting to look to me like these kids are out of their league; and because they couldn’t get their way by tantrum and bullying, are just getting back at those old codgers; and making seniors pay through the nose with legal bills. It apparently, is all they have left! This Senior Center problem, under Boards current leadership, has morphed from a purely and easily solved political challenge into a complex legal jumble, and one not to be fully resolved by any court order. Another example:
Well, PRPD Board decided it no longer wanted to deal with SSI and Senior Center Members, Senior Senate. So, they just voted to officially eliminate them, made them at worse, Soviet style nonentities; at best, persona non grata (“"an unwelcome person”). In other words, the Board fantasizes SSI/Senior Senate no longer exist; a wish, a vote, a change in Board Policy Manual; snap, crackle, pop, bibbedy, bobbedy, boom; SSI and Senior Senate no longer exist!
Bet Board leaders wish they could do that trick with their Youth Camp property problem! |
Is this the sign of a healthy Board? You tell me!
Guys, I don’t think so. When one sees a government body resort to using the courts to solve its political problems and acting as if their opponents don’t exist, you know they’re in trouble and some of them know it too!
So, let me not mince words!
SSI, it’s over! It really is.
An organization that refuses to acknowledge your existence is incapable of rationally resolving differences.
It’s time to take all your property (see FOIA’d list above) from 100 S. Western to a local storage facility until you can open up an independent senior center of your own – unencumbered by local taxpayer-funded-litigation-crazy political hacks. Assuming of course, PRPD lets you take your stuff!
In the mean time, I think this Board intends to continue using taxpayers money to keep you in court (the clawback, …that dirty little secret, that elephant in the room…), make you pay and bleed you dry!
If Mr. Trizna’s “comments” over the last two posts continue to bellwether (“a person or thing that shows the existence or direction of a trend”) Board thinking and imminent Board actions, as they have in the past, we can expect many more expensive taxpayer-paid days in court.
Can you all shout conspiracy?
Litigation, the cause of and solution to, all Senior problems!Of course, it’s just my opinion!
16 comments:
I think the State's Attorney should investigate you for hate crimes for your veiled reference to Commissioner Biagi a a mafia Don.
Since early to mid 2011 when the District Board or its representatives were creating their Resolution(s) to dictate a relationship with SSI and the a Senior Center, i was overwhelmed with the audacity of the group.
How they assumed it was their responsibility to determine the responsibilities of SSI or soon, the Senior Senate, was a mystery to me. Their relationship was just that of licensor to the licensee, Corporation SSI.
As all readers know by now, SSI applied for and received 501 c3 status from the state of Illinois. It is and has been for 30 years, a not for profit corporation sanctioned by the state of Illinois. It is managed by a board of directors whose responsibilities include carrying out its mission and protecting its assets, which SSI Board members are entrusted to appropriate according to their mission of serving seniors in Park Ridge.
Why the Park District staff or PRPD board believed they were charged with identifying or managing SSI purposes or revenues is astonishing. After rereading various generations of their now defunct Resolutions, I can read many instances where total control of SSI revenue and purposes was a desired outcome. Obviously, SSI never approved any resolutions presented to it.
The actions we are observing now are consistent with practices observed since early 2011.
At last Thursday's meeting, in open session, the Board authorized filing a Declaratory Judgment Action against SSI on the "claw back" issue and will be doing so shortly.
Why for goodness sake would the Board authorize an action against SSI when SSI to my knowledge has never said it will even bring an action on the "claw back" issue? Isn't that an expensive step for the Board to begin, unless it knows that Seniors intend to try to get the claw back money? Otherwise, why doesn't the Board just wait for the mediation to take place, and let things work themselves out that way. Seems so foolish and irresponsible of the Board.
Anon: August 21, 2012 9:32 AM,
My Biagi, is not the Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners, although he might think so. The questionable judgment he brings to that public body; just as Ms. Wynn-Ryan’s questionable judgment before him, has, in my opinion, lead to the creation of the “Homer ‘The Godfather’ Simpson” cartoon atmosphere we are seeing now.
If the Commissioner has an “Italian-Pride” issue, it is his to bear – alone!
Relationship that is "just that of licensor to the licensee, SSI" -- except for a leetle matter of the Park District (aka the public)paying almost all Senior Center utility bills, all maintenance bills, all salaries, all hourly workers' O/T, all programming and implementation staff's considerable benefits, etc. etc.
Folks, it's never too late to grow up. But you might start about now.
ANON 8/22 11:00 am
The Park District did all of those things you mention BY CHOICE. SSI did not force them to do so. The Seniors did not force them to do so. The seniors/SSI did not determine the wages or benefits of the PARK DISTRICT employees, it did not hire them or fire them. It was a Park District building to be used by the Park District if they chose-- the right to use the building was NOT EXCLUSIVE to the seniors, ever! Clearly, the Park District was not held at gun point to do any of that.
SOOOO... why is SSI to blame? And for what? For entering into agreements with the Park District? Was the Park District incapable of making judgments about these things?
Apparently, the Park District over the years chose to do those things as its way of contributing to the senior programming offered in the Park Ridge community. That was WHAT THEY CHOSE to do, and they memorialized that choice in a contract with SSI. So, please stop blaming others for the choices the Park District made, and stop treating the seniors like those at fault.
That the Park District no longer wishes to continue to maintain that kind of relationship is fine, and is well within their rights. But they are now trying to take the seniors money and I guess their property as well. And they are angry that the seniors aren't just turning it all over without resistance.
The attorney for SSI said, in open court, that the claw back issue is the primary issue between the parties and is the reason for the hold up on any settlement in the Kemnitz matter. That's why the Park District is suing.
Thanks for the kind words Ken...it was nice seeing you too this morning in Panera.
Rick Biagi
Hi Rick,
You’re very welcome, and thank you as well.
I’m sorry we weren’t able to exchange more than pleasantries, but you were in the midst of another conversation and I didn’t wish to intrude. To be honest, I was hoping for a word or two before you left, but you didn’t come around and I waited too long. Sometimes; chance encounters by opposing sides lead to better understanding and sometimes - even breakthroughs. Oh well, maybe next time!
Anyway, have a pleasant end-of-summer weekend.
August 22, 11 a.m.
May I suggest you request two reports from the Park District to verify your assumptions that the District has paid 100% of all expenses at the 100 S. Western Avenue Building:
1. A copy of all agreements between the District and SSI since 1980. First agreement was effective for November 23, 1980- November 24, 1984. Signed by MarY Kay Walker for Park Commissioners and by Raymond Hollis for SSI. For the first several years, the District Agreement to pay for the salaries as the employees who were District staff. I expect the District agreed to this because the community leaders who organized the Senior Center felt the Senior population should be included in the benefits of tax money used for recreation. I was not there, but my research indicates a high evel of cooperation existed in this community.
The first agreement 1996-2000 to designate the formula for District payback from SSI of operating expenses: Under the clause title either Program Expenses or District Subsidies, one would find a subsidy of a particular amount---96-2000 was $50,000. Any amount exceeding that for salaries and benefits were to be paid by SSI as well as building expenses according to a formula: 100% telephone, 40% both water and electric, 70% natural gas. (because Centennial pool and accessories and the Centennial Park building are metered together.) This formula for payback of building expenses is in the current Agreement and every agreement between. The district subsidy was changed every Agreement period. The latest subsidy was $104,991 determined by the District supposedly based on the annual financial report submitted by SSI. Guess I just did your research for you.
2. Request copies of all invoices sent to SSI. Be sure to ask for verification that the invoices were paid.
When you complete this exercise, sneak back in and jot a note to us about your findings regarding how the Taxpayer has paid ALL the expenses of the Senior Center.
Only since the Commissioners serving at the end of 2010 decided to not entertain a continuing Agreement with SSI, did the District choose to pay all expenses which exceeded dues payments of seniors. Unfortunately, for the new year just beginning the rumor on the street is that fewer than 550 have paid dues to date. In a report from 1996, I recall, membership was listed as exceeding 1300. That helps pay expenses better than fewer than 550. The District staff and board appear to have made made some fine choices.
When you finish your review of documents, you might request that the Park Commissioners request from District staff aa tool, as a pie chart, to determine and assure they are EQUITABLY distributing Recreation dollars among all age groups. If you can determine how that is currently done, let Ken know. Am certain he would publish the work of the District on this blog to keep all of our lips zipped.
Apples to oranges again. Assuming you are stating facts, 1996 was sixteen years ago; halfway through Saint Teresa's tenure. The SSI relationship's change did not occur with the board until eighteen months ago. So if the membership has been tanking from a high in 1996, you can only blame the board for two of those sixteen years. Certainly prior to that the SSI did emphatically have virtually exclusive use of the building and costs were largely passed through, with anyone attempt to reduce costs demonized by then-staff. SSI ran the table if not the building for 14 of those diminishing years, so whose fault is it, really? And let's not forget how few seniors -- whether you use 1300 or 500 as your benchmark -- have ever been senior center members compared to the total number of eligible over-55's in town. The disaffected ones are a hundred or so leaders who don't wanna share the clubhouse so they've taken their dollies and gone home. The rest of "the seniors" are still using the senior center and are also using many of the other Park District classes, clubs, memberships, programs, etc. just as they do the Library's. If you really think only the programs at 100 S. Western are for residents over 55, I feel for you. The vast majority of seniors know better.
8/23 3:06
I am certain I do confuse myself and others, but really cannot discern what you mean by "apples and oranges"? I just presented facts and resources of information. Can not figure where you are trying to go.
If you were referring again to lack of use of building by 100 percent of residents over 55. I do get that. Many aging residents sell homes, move to Park Lane, etc. some of which have their own swimming pools, activities. Some over 55 years of age are fortunate to have had children and, now grandchildren, and are busy family people. I did not page through the PR Country Club membership listing and count how many are over 55. The members of all ages swim, golf, play cards, lunch, enjoy special events. I suggest the majority of the members are over 55 and find their recreation needs met there.
If you are responding, in part, to my suggestion that the Board and administration base decisions on what programs to offer and financially support to assure under the requirement of allocating tax dollars equitably to all age groups, please support me in requesting and requiring that hard data is documented to support those financial decisions. I believe a pie chart is the most useful administrative tool in determining expenditures per age group. The District would then need to account for distribution of maintenance fees to buildings or property served and the large staff pool to various programs.
Anon , August 23 3:06
Trying to see where in Sandy's remarks she blamed the board, as you stated, for the tumbling number of seniors wishing to pay dues since even the previous year who joined in June/July of 2011 which looks like the beginning of the dues period expiring this 2012 summer. I am sure she knows Boards usually do not have the responsibility to micromanage Park programs, but to write and assure policies of the Recreation district.. I am sure she knows the Park staff or administration manages the various programs like they do in many communities.
Seniors appear to have been willing to give new staff a chance to perform well for them following Teresa's leaving. I have no idea how many members the Senior Center had in the previous year, but see 800 often here. I do not live in your community, but follow the comments like a some of us at NRPA do.
General Comment,
I assumed [incorrectly] everyone reading this blog post read Alice in Wonderland. Apparently, not everyone has.
From Wikipedia:
“Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (commonly shortened to Alice in Wonderland) is an 1865 novel written by English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll. It tells of a girl named Alice who falls down a rabbit hole into a fantasy world (Wonderland) populated by peculiar, anthropomorphic creatures. The tale plays with logic, giving the story lasting popularity with adults as well as children. It is considered to be one of the best examples of the literary nonsense genre, and its narrative course and structure, characters and imagery have been enormously influential in both popular culture and literature, especially in the fantasy genre.”
As I review the hundreds of pages of documentation associated with the Senior Center fiasco, I’m drawn more toward the “rabbit hole” metaphor than ever.
Now, does that help?
Ken:
No offense intended, but your suggestion that my PublicWatchdog posts on this Kemnitz bequest matter have influenced the Park Board’s thinking gives me far too much credit, and the Park Board far too little.
By paying SSI $250,000 of the Kemnitz $330,000 bequest, Grodsky effectively forced the Park Board members – who are under a fiducisary-like duty to the District’s taxpayers – to fight on behalf of those taxpayers for that money to which they reasonably believe the District is rightfully entitled.
If the Park District rather than SSI were currently holding $250,000 of the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest, you'd be writing about this litigation as if it were SSI's Arthurian Quest for the Holy Grail. So why is it wrong for the Park District to treat it similarly?
Why should the Park Board, legally charged with representing ALL of the residents of the Park District, walk away from $330,000 that very well may belong to the District by virtue of Kemnitz’s bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” (rather than “Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.”) just to avoid spending some money on the litigation? Even if the District were to spend $100,000 on the litigation, if it wins and gets $330,000, the District and its taxpayers are $230,000 to the good.
The reason we have courts is to resolve disputes created when people screw up – like all three of the principal actors in this soap opera (Grodsky, SSI and the Park District) appear to have done. So why continue to be disingenuous about the cost of this litigation, especially when SSI could have stopped it simply by accepting the Park District's settlement offer of committing all $330,000 to the Senior Center building and operations?
Post a Comment