At July 10, 2012’s Rescheduled Regular Board Meeting, PRPD Commissioners lamented over recent blog comments emanating from Park Ridge’s two local blog sites; while also discussing their inability to persuade SSI/Senior Senate leaders to sit down to “compromise”.
Email from: Gayle Mountcastle – Monday, July 02, 2012 4:25 PM
| Subject: Settlement Meeting |
|
|
| “Dear Carla, Barb and Teresa – As you are aware, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District has tendered three settlement offers over the past few months in an attempt to resolve the Betty Kemitz Bequest litigation. While we were obviously disappointed that these offers were rejected, we remain hopeful that the parties can come to a mutual understanding that allays the need for further litigation in the matter. It has become apparent to the District that erroneous information regarding these settlement offers has been, in some situations, communicated publically. These public statements often led to speculation as to perceived motives of the District and resulted in unconditional rejection of the pending settlement offers without further discussion. We trust that you would agree that misunderstandings and misstatements regarding a possible resolution to this matter will not aid in bringing the parties to a mutually agreeable settlement. To that end, we are asking you to consider conducting an in-person settlement meeting in the next few weeks, with counsel, in the hope that both sides can piece together a mutually agreeable resolution. Additionally, if you think that having an objective third party (i.e., a mediator) present for the conversation would prove beneficial, we are certainly willing to entertain such an idea. If you are amenable to such a meeting, we would suggest the following ground rules: 1) Meeting at a neutral location (i.e., somewhere other than the 100 S. Western building, the Park District Offices or either of the attorneys’ offices); 2) Each side agrees to check their respective emotions and personal feelings at the door and come to the table with an open mind and willingness to work toward a solution which is in the best interest of all parties; and, 3) The specific representatives from each party have full settlement authority (i.e., that there will not be back-and-forth with people not in attendance at the meeting, other than later ratification by elected bodies or other boards as set forth in by-laws or statutes). If this concept is something that you would be interested in pursuing, we would welcome the opportunity to find a mutually agreeable time and location to hold the proposed meeting. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gayle Mountcastle” |
In the end, Board resolved to shanghai Judge Flynn into the process.
See: Park Ridge Park District’s “greedy”, “rowdy” seniors need to mind their P’s & Q’s or else…
So on July 16th PRPD/SSI/Senior attorneys went to court. As expected, Judge Flynn said yes. On July 17th, PRPD’s Board met again for an update.
See: How the Journal-Topics described the meeting.
The real question is why have these “compromise” meetings at all? What can they alone accomplish that was not able to be accomplished before? In sort, “compromise” means: (“a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.”).
The Park Ridge Park District can give up trying to hijack the Kemnitz Trust money.
Pray tell, what can the Seniors give up?
Their $330k Kemnitz Trust money? Their rights to redress (“the setting right of what is wrong: relief from wrong or injury: compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury”) for prior or future wrongs - the very thing Park Board Officials offered in their last “settlement offer”?
Look boys and girls, some of you, like some members on the Board, fear future litigation for prior acts. That fear is well founded.
However, Park Board Leaders brought this on. A negotiated contract that would have transitioned the Senior Center from a private/public partnership to full PRPD ownership was foolishly kept off the public’s table. No discussion! No vote!
Had Board leaders shown just an ounce of courage back then:
- the contract would have been signed,
- the contract period would have been five months from completion,
- the transition to full ownership would have been orderly,
- hundreds-of-thousands of non-taxed dollars would now be in taxpayer coffers with more to come,
- and 800 seniors at the Senior Center would be happy as a clam.
Instead, there is still trouble in the land!
Instead of entering into a contract agreement that protected all parties, Board Leaders issued a “Resolution” that didn’t last 6 months; a document that protected no one.
See: Board Aborts Its 6-month-Old “Resolution”.
Instead of entering into a contract agreement that protected all parties, Board Leaders told unsubstantiated stories designed to turn public opinion against 800 Senior Center taxpayers!
See: Restroom-gate - Park Ridge Park District President acknowledges long-time crapper access problem… and Restroom-gate continued – Park Ridge Park District says NO lists of formal complaints of complainers exist! and A funny thing happened on the way to writing: I swear by my tattoo – Part Three!
Instead of treating Seniors right; instead of:
- respecting their creation of and contribution to Park Ridge’s senior center and programs, and respecting their financial contributions at 100 S. Western in particular,
- treating Seniors as equals,
- harnessing their knowledge and experience,
- estranging Senior Services, Inc. (SSI) and Senior Senate leaders,
- not telling unsubstantiated (Restroom-gate) stories about them,
- not subordinating and ignoring them by issuing non-agreed-to edicts and agreements,
- not winning the peace,
the Board chose to throw away thirty years of knowledge, knowhow, good will and to my personal knowledge, over one million dollars in future Trust monies.
You can’t make this stuff up folks! How stupid, arrogant and dumb can one Board act over one simple problem?
And instead of displaying the courage Obi-Wan Kenobi;
instead of displaying wisdom of Yoda;
or instead of exhibiting the cunning and leadership skills of Darth Vader,
they chose to model themselves after Homer Simpson!
The other day…
The other day I was asked why PRPD’s Board requested negotiating assistance from Judge Flynn’s court.
Well, I think I know the is the reason why.
I think, it’s because it’s become apparent to most of us, and even to this Board, they lack the skills to complete the job themselves! The decision to bring in a mediator will, of course, only buy the Board so much time. In the end, the seniors will find themselves with nothing to give up in mediation, unless you want them to give up their legitimate rights for redress.
Of course, there is an easy solution, although not risk free. The Board need only return to it!
“Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must be first overcome. ” ~Samuel Johnson, Rasselas, 1759.
Finally
Comment as you see fit, and so long as you stay on subject and aren’t too crass, you will be published!
Of course, it’s only my opinion.
49 comments:
Why haven't you just found your new club house and moved on?
SSI's true motive is becoming very evident. To screw the Park Ridge tax payers.. To that end, where can I find a list of SSI members so I know who to thank for raising my taxes?
Anon: August 6, 2012 3:23 PM & 6:06 PM,
I let your two comments through because you represent the opinion of some in this town.
Am I an idiot? To you I am. To others - not so much: whatever I am, it’s bothering the heck out of you, to the point that you were, at 3:23 PM, unable to do more than vent, “You are an idiot Butterly”.
As to moving on: I’m not sure the Park Ridge Park District Board wishes the seniors move on, else the Kemnitz Trust issue would already be resolved and the (prior contract) “Reparation” or “clawback” clause issue as it’s called, would now be stampped PAID!
As to "screwing" “…the Park Ridge tax payers”, it’s not the seniors spending taxpayer money, it’s the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan lead Board. Seniors were very happy with the Kemnitz Trust situation and it’s the Park Board that wants their money and is spending YOUR TAXES on attorney’s fees to get it!
As to raising YOUR taxes, I suggest, if your Park District taxes are increasing, you contact Board President Biagi or a good tax attorney.
Ken:
My compliments on the “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy employed in your “[s]eniors were very happy with the Kemnitz Trust situation and it’s the Park Board that wants their money and is spending YOUR TAXES on attorney’s fees to get it!” Well played, sir.
Unfortunately, that logic assumes a legal “fact” not yet in evidence: that the Kemnitz Trust bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” lawfully belongs to SSI (or whomever Teresa Grodsky already has given $250,000 of it) instead of to the Park Ridge Park District (a/k/a, all of its taxpayers) for the use of the one and only Park Ridge Senior Center at 100 S. Western.
If that bequest is determined by Judge Flynn to belong to the Park District (a/k/a, all of its taxpayers), then the Park District (a/k/a, all of its taxpayers) should have received that money from the very beginning – and the Park Board is properly expending OUR TAXES on attorneys’ fees to recover what was effectively stolen from US…by means of what appears to have been some kind of secret arrangement between Teresa Grodsky, while she was still employed by the Park District, and members of SSI and/or the “Senior Senate.”
Initially, I thought settlement was the way to go – with SSI keeping the Kemnitz money and releasing the Park District from any remaining liability for Senior Center improvements funded by/through SSI. But you and some of your commentators have convinced me that settlement wouldn't be nearly as interesting as a judicial determination.
Plus, perhaps the Park District's attorneys may be able to come up with allegations and evidence enough to state a civil conspiracy claim against Grodsky and all her SSI and “Senior Senate” aiders and abettors in what could amount to a fraudulent diversion of the Kenmitz bequest to SSI – which could make Grodsky and each of those SSI and “Senior Senate” people personally liable to repay all that money Grodsky already paid out.
Now wouldn’t THAT make for some exciting litigation!
So would you please ask Grodsky and SSI to tell the judge that, instead of mediation, they want a trial? If you do, I’ll ask the Park District folks to do likewise.
And in case you’re wondering, my offer of a $1 bet on the outcome of the litigation still stands.
You in?
Evening Bob,
So specifically, what did I say that you have disagreement with?
Are you disagreeing with me on:
• my informing you that the board discussed our blogs and reader comments,
• my choice of displaying the Mountcastle settlement email,
• my informing you that the board resolved to go to Judge Flynn for assistance rather than do the job on their own,
• my informing you that Judge Flynn said yes to mediation,
• my questioning the need for mediation, for “compromise” when one side clearly has nothing it can compromise except its rights for redress,
• my stating that PRPD Board fears future litigation or my opinion that they have reason to fear,
• my opinion that PRPD Board brought this problem on themselves,
• my opinion on what would have happened had the Board just followed Attorney Hoffman and Ray “O” recommendation to approve the PRPD/SSI/Senior Center agreement/contract,
• my observation that there is still trouble at PRPD,
• my re-informing you of PRPD’s six-month aborted “Resolution”,
• my recounting “Restroom-gate”,
• my opinion how seniors have been treated by PRPD Board and Administration since January 2011,
• my opinion on what Board chose to throw away,
• my opinion on why Board asked Judge Flynn to intervene,
• my use of Samuel Johnson’s quote,
or do yu just dislike my choice in pictures?
Now Bob, I do have a bit of a problem with this “secret arrangement…” conspiracy stuff. I normally don’t consider you the tin-foil-hat-black-helicopter type. However, surely, you have some documentation you’d like to share with all of us that support your outrageous comments. Surely, after having spent thousands of words at your blog and here, specifically beating up on: Teresa Grodsky, SSI and Senior Center members; surely, you can present to us one official document in support of your latest rant.
So Bob, do you have the “dirt” or are you just blowin-hard again?
As to continued litigation; fortunately, that’s not up to me or you.
I am disappointed and ashamed that some as Mr. Trinza and other of your angry Anons are so disrespectful of a not for profit organization as
PRSS, Inc. (SSI). Park Ridge is fortunate to boast of a large volunteer contingency. Many residents volunteer through non profit organizations. Much of what makes Park Ridge happy, as paramedics, were the result of 20th Century Juniors 1975 endeavor. That, of course, is a local valuable non profit that makes a difference. I have the event program verifying the action, if proof is needed. Perhaps one of you attended the community informational meeting at Field School? Non-profits and their work is very valuable to a community.
Non profits exist to make life better for others and to support people. They are instituted, generally, by a community or group that wishes to address an unmet need. PRSS, Inc. was born to support the citizen-developed Senior Center, to assure a gathering spot for the senior population. The Park District Board in 1980 was asked by then Mayor Marty Butler to cooperate in the project by leasing the 100 S. Western building at a nominal fee. The first agreement outlined building use and financial parameters and expectations of both parties, PRSS and the District, as lessee and lessor.
Perhaps as heads cool, the value of volunteerism--their contribution of private money as well as hands-on work can be applauded.
I have never heard of a government organization as the Park Ridge Park District and its supporters as Mr. T going after private money donated to a non profit organization. Now I have. .
So SSI is a non-profit that's benefiting the community yet it's suing the city which will increase our taxes? No really, SSI, MOVE ON! GO AWAY! PLEASE!
I'd suggest we move the community center back to it's original purpose of a teen center but it appears that it's being quite effectively used as the Park Ridge Senior Center.. Ouch! Too soon? Or can we not call it that due to pending litigation?
Ken, you must have been distracted, but August 7, 7:13 ought not be posted:
"Henceforth, any commentary not contributing to the clarification or understanding of the issues at hand will not be posted!'
How often does one need to state the truth that the District challenged the bequest distribution?
The District leadership chose to use recreation and park tax allocations to so initiate/cause the lawsuit.
The Community Center nor the 100 Western building were ever a teen center. An aging YMCA occupied the land where the Community Center sits. Prior to becoming a Senior Center, that building was a smaller storage building occupied by vermin.
Please, anon, research and think before your fingers
pound.
Ken:
Why throw up all that irrelevant chaff when you know our current disagreement boils down to: Is the Park District justified in fighting for the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center,” by virtue of its owning and operating the one and only “Senior Center” in Park Ridge – especially where Grodsky reportedly gave $250,000 of that bequest to private corporation Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“SSI”), which neither owns nor operates any Senior Center building?
U would don a "tin-foil-hats” if it would ensure hair retention. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.
A “conspiracy” based on Grodsky’s failure to provide written notification to her then-employer (the PRRPD) about the Kemnitz bequest would not be expected to have any “documentation” – especially if the only way the Park District found out about it was by her admission of it during her termination proceedings at the end of 2011, 3 years after Kemnitz’s death.
So now that you’ve convinced me that we need Judge Flynn to decide, once and for all, whether that money belongs to the Park District (a/k/a, all its taxpayers) or to special interest private corporation SSI and its double-handful of officers and directors, stop avoiding the issue and put your money where your mouth is.
Are you in for a buck?
Anon: August 7, 2012 7:13 PM,
You said: “So SSI is a non-profit that's benefiting the community yet it's suing the city which will increase our taxes?”
My response: SSI is a non-profit that's benefiting the community. SSI is not suing the City of Park Ridge or the Park Ridge Park District for that matter. As a private 501(c) 3, SSI has no authority to impose any tax on any citizen. The City of Park Ridge and the Park Ridge Park District do however; and over the years, have consistently done so. Should you have a problem with your taxes, I strongly suggest you engage a good tax lawyer/accountant and become directly involved with Bon Trizna at Park Ridge Public Watchdog. Bob is an experienced tax complainer and will, I am sure, set you on your path of tax-righteousness.
Now, Park Ridge Park District is currently proposing a tax referendum in support of a new land purchase. I’m sure you’ve heard about it. The estimated four to six million+ dollar purchase is to be financed by the issuance of bonds. Think of it as a few of your fellow voting citizens, purchasing this new land on your behalf and with your credit card with installments on interest and hopefully principal to be paid yearly; year-after-year. That purchase, of course will raise your taxes by a yet to be determined amount.
At the same time, Park Ridge Park District Board is mistakenly engaged in the acquisition of the $330k Kemnitz Trust through ongoing litigation. Of course, you’ve also read about that in the local papers and blogs. That unfortunate Board decision made last December; may not raise your taxes considerably or even at all, since PRPD has “rainy-day” millions stashed away in the bank; so to speak. The Boards Senior Center related legal problems, will however; continue to drain current resources away from other pressing Park District activities and maintenance projects. Of course, you can, through your continued silence, continue to enable your neighbors, Board President Rick Biagi and Vice President Mary Wynn-Ryan, or you can communicate with them directly at a Board Meeting, phone or email to express your desire to end the charade. It’s up to you!
In the meantime, hold onto your wallet!
As to your plea for: “SSI, MOVE ON! GO AWAY! PLEASE”, I am quite sure the seniors will “move on” once PRPD disengages from its trust-snatching activities and, additionally, pays them what is owed; the three-hundred thousand dollar reparation (clawback) as prescribed in each PRPD/SSI contract.
The Park District knows it owes the money. However, the Park District Board Leadership refuse to acknowledge the debt and pay it; hoping that by ignoring or fantasizing its nonexistence, the bill will miraculously go away. The same kind of childish, wrong-headed thinking is what’s gotten these silly boys and girls into this mess.
You said: “I'd suggest we move the community center back to it's original purpose of a teen center but it appears that it's being quite effectively used as the Park Ridge Senior Center.”
My response: I agree 100% with you when you suggest: “we move the community center back to its original purpose of a teen center”. In an affluent north-shore-like community like Park Ridge, there is no need for a taxpayer-funded fitness center, especially when many commercial tax generating fitness centers exist close by. I say yes! Do it for the children!
Ken:
I just read your posting of my comment and would like to correct two typos in the second paragraph, which should read:
I would don a "tin-foil-hat” if it would ensure hair retention. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.
Thank you.
Ken, Here is the main problem. You state as fact that the Kenmitz bequest belongs to SSI, and "The Park District knows it owes the (clawback) money." These are obviously points on which there is disagreement. Stop pretending that a reasonable person could expect that Mrs. Kenmitz would expect her estate to fund improvements in the building where she spent her time. And certainly stop pretending that the clawback is something board believes is in effect. These are the exact items in dispute, and you putting your side forward as indisputable truth makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation.
Mr. Tinzi:
Shake hands with Harry Reid. Your allegations of a conspiracy between Senior Services, Teresa Grodsky and Senior Senate are tantamount to Harry Reid standing on the floor and saying Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years but has nothing to substantiate his allegation, except to say he was told so by a reliable source. Funny but the IRS hasn't been knocking on Romney's door.
Your comment that Teresa Grodsky didn't tell her employer for 3 years is all the proof you need is ridiculous. That has nothing whatsoever to do with your allegation of a conspiracy between 3 separate entities.
Your theory and evidence are ludicrous.
Mr. Trinza:
You made a very interesting comment in your last post. You stated that the Park District would never have known about the distribution of the $250,000 to Senior Services if not for Teresa Grodsky's admission during termination proceedings. Now, pray tell, would you mind enlightening us on how you know that's how PRPD learned of the distribution. Aren't you the person who claimed that he was not friends with, nor associated with the Park District attorney or anyone on the Park Board about six months ago on this blog? Oops.
Anon 8/8, 4:35 pm
Yes, there is disagreement. But I believe that the clawback is in effect. The Park District negotiated with SSI for months, with comments at Board meetings to substantiate that the negotiations were ongoing. If SSI was ready to sign the agreement, why isn't there an agreement in place? Very simple - the Park Board refused to sign.
Now to the Kemnitz bequest. The Park District's argument that the Senior Center is part of the Park District doesn't hold water. Earlier agreements between SSI and the Park District state that the Senior Center was an "independent organization". One agreement even states the relationship is between lessor and lessee. One knowledgeable person who was there at the time the Senior Center was formed has stated, the only relationship between the two entities might be compared to a baseball team using a Park District field. That doesn't make the baseball team part of the Park District. This was a trumped up argument at best.
And to another post. Please stop spouting this lie that SSI or the Senior Center sued the Park District over the Kemnitz bequest. The Park District started this litigation by laying claim to the money.
Ok, 9:33, let's carry the analogy further. Let's assume the the relationship between SSI or the Senior Senate and the PRPD is similar to the relationship between Park Ridge Baseball and the PRPD. You are right that baseball is a seperate entity, and controls it's own finances. Now let's say someone died and left money to Kalina Field (the ballpark at South Park). That ballpark was built largely by donations from Park Ridge Baseball. Now let's say Park Ridge Baseball and the PD have a falling out and they no longer wish to use Kalina Field. Who gets to decide where that money is spent?
Now imagine that, rather than the full autonomy that baseball has, the baseball program was run by a Park District employee and that all costs were born by the Park District. That makes it even less clear, doesn't it? Now imagine if that Park District employee was the trustee of the estate, and cut a big check to the director of Park Ridge Baseball, and didn't tell the Park District about it.
* Anonymous 08.08.12 @ 7:07 PM:
I have no desire to “shake hands with Harry Reid.”
As for the possibility of a “conspiracy,” Grodsky’s filing of her lawsuit only AFTER having given away the lion’s share of the Kemnitz bequest to SSI suggests someone caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
* Anonymous 08.08.12 @ 7:17 PM:
I stand by whatever it is I wrote six months ago. Everything I know about this situation I learned from asking questions, reading the court file, doing on-line research, and observing the single-minded selfishness of a small fraction of our community’s senior citizens who talk and act like they’re entitled to a subsidized clubhouse from the taxpayers.
* Anonymous 08.08.12 @ 9:33 PM:
The only Senior Center Agreement that could even remotely have any continuing legal validity at this time is the last one, running from 01.01.06 through 12.31.10. It clearly identifies the “Senior Center” as a building – specifically “the Centennial Park Fieldhouse (except swimming pool-related facilities) including the addition and stage area” – which is indisputably owned by the Park District.
As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
None of youse is fit to wipe Harry Reid's nether parts, let alone shake his hand. If the UnMitt-igated Galling One isn't under IRS investigation it's only because Bush gutted the IRS agents' ranks and because history is written by the victors. Other than that, Mr. Trizna is correct, as are all the anonymous commenters who point out that Senior Services, Inc. was originally a fund-raising organization the way Friends of the Library is for the Park Ridge Public Library. Teresa Grodsky herself, in a written email to Ray Ochromowicz, stated for the record that the Senior Center is part of the Park District. She may have been self-serving but the only reason she turned most of the Kemnitz money over to Senior Services, Inc. and not directly to the Park District was that for many years Senior Services turned around and routinely gave bequests like this to the Park District, as they were supposed to do. And let's remember that the Park District DID offer the Kemnitz money to the SSI to start their own club elsewhere or go to Club Med with it -- the ONLY condition was that it not be used to sue their fellow taxpayers through the Park District. And SSI refused because they did and do plan to sue for the "claw-back." I say great. Let them: And the Park District can then countersue for the millions spent on this small group of people over the last few years alone.
The more the public knows, the worse SSI looks. Them's the facts, Jack.
Anon: August 8, 2012 4:35 PM,
Yes, I “state as fact that the Kenmitz bequest belongs to SSI”, and "The Park District knows it owes the (clawback) money."
I do so because PRPD was made aware of the Kemnitz Trust in November/December 2008. I do so because the first installment of Kemnitz Trust monies came to the old Park Ridge Senior Center in early 2009, almost two years before the end of the PRPD/SSI contract in January 2011. It was processed, under the normal procedure utilized by PRPD management. PRPD made no claim on the trust in 2008. It made no claim on the trust in 2009. It made no claim on the trust in 2010; and did not discuss the issue with Boards attorney until July 22, 2011. That July 2011 detail billing entry states:
“Address questions rec’d from SH re Kemnitz bequest re required payment points in the guidelines .20”. “SH” appears to be Commissioner and Board Treasurer, Mr. Steve Hunst.
Yes, I claim “The Park District knows it owes the (clawback) money."
I do so based on the wording of the non-renewed 2005-2010 contract. It states in part:
“15. Termination. Upon a determination by District that the needs of the District require use of some or all of the Premises for other recreational or park activities, District may cancel or modify this agreement as to all or a portion of the Premises upon at least one hundred eighty (180) days written notice to Corporation. In the event of such cancellation of this Agreement by District, it is acknowledged and agreed by District consistent with its previous letter agreement with Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. dated July 16, 1987, the Corporation shall be entitled to be reimbursed for its share of the cost of the initial edition (including all amounts raised by it and used to pay for the initial addition of the Senior Center), less 3.3 percent of the Corporation’s total costs (now amounting to $353,000) of the addition, per year or part thereof that the addition has been pleaded. For purposes hereof completion of the initial addition shall be deemed to have occurred on June 1, 1990. The costs of any additional improvements made by the Corporation including but not limited to the stage addition which was completed on December 30, 1999 at a cost of $306,377, shall be subject to recovery by Corporation in accordance with this formula, calculated from their respective dates of completion and installation by the Corporation, with written notice and verification of the expenditure to be delivered to the District together with the Corporation’s written certification of the date of completion.”
It will be up to a judge to determine if my opinion is the correct one. However, if the Board did not fear possible litigation on that issue, they would have motioned the contract agreement and voted it down rather than contrive and execute a maneuver designed to not officially and publicly accept or not reject the proposed negotiated contract renewal. That decision is the basis for the entire story thus far.
Commissioner Vile is fond of calling it “the elephant in the room, the reparation agreement.”
As to “… pretending that a reasonable person could expect that Mrs. Kenmitz would expect her estate to fund improvements in the building where she spent her time.” Sorry, red herring! However, since you brought it up, I don’t think Ms. Kemnitz expected any of her money to go toward any Park District building no matter the name.
Further regarding the “clawback”:
I don’t know what the “Board” OFFICIALLY believes, as they have refused to deal with this issue OFFICIALLY and PUBLICLY. I do know however, the Commissioners are not of a unanimous mind on this issue, and some fear future litigation over the “clawback” clause.
As to “indisputable truth”, I think the only way we are ever going to get to that state of consciousness is at the point of death. In the meantime, the courts will have to do.
Anon, August 9, 4:23
Effective analogies report similar circumstances. Your suggestion that funds were donated to Kalina Field is not analogous to the donation of the Kemnitz donation. It was not designated for the Senior Center building. That is the point at which your analogy failed.
Quick note about the agreements signed from 1980 -2006. (to be effective through December 31, 2010.) The clauses from agreement to agreement were seldom revised, but may have been slightly tweaked.
From the onset, the District through the agreements obliged itself to contributing an amount of money to offset salaries and related employee benefit expenses up to a certain amount which was subject to future revision. SSI was obligated to pay for some of the salaries and related employee expenses as well as all operating costs of the building. A formula was developed to determine SSI share because water and utility expenses of the pool and the building are on the same meter. SSI pad 100% of the telephone bill. As I have stated previously, SSI and the Senior Center organization have never defaulted on an invoice from the Park District.
There is no clause in any agreement which indicates management of the SENIOR CENTER is or ever was the responsibility of the District.
All agreements designate the building and grounds as the District responsibility.
As designated by the agreement, any alteration SSI wished to make to the BUILDING had to first be approved by the District. A number of those written construction documents do exist in records which clearly show SSI honored the agreement clause as well as others agreed to.
As a board member of SSI, I continue to encourage the District to live up to its agreement responsibilities. The suggestion of a lawsuit to right this wrong as suggested as a "fact" should not even be suggested. I have hopes the Commissioners will act as necessary and very soon to make right what is now an agreement infraction The Board just needs to carry out its responsibility as agreed upon. They need to be good stewards of public money which has temporarily been allocated to them for their care and use.
Moreover, this was one of the clauses agreed to over the last 30 years, so should surprise no one intimately involved.
8/9, 8:24 AM - Mr. Trinza:
Mr. Moynihan's statement was correct and your facts are in error. The final agreement, 1/1/06 to 12/31/10, states that the District will provide Centennial Park Fieldhouse for "use" as a Senior Center. This would be similar to renting an apartment. The tenants in legal jargon have the right to "Quiet "use" and Enjoyment" of the premises.
Anon, 8/9, 10:05 AM
What's wrong with you? Are you incapable of civil discourse? How disgusting! I thought this blog wasn't going to print these types of obnoxious posts anymore. Your credibility is in the sewer.
Less than a hundred years ago women couldn't legally vote or own property. So what? Who cares what ill-fated, special-interest-appeasing deals were made 30 years ago? Ninety percent of seniors don't belong to the Senior Center. So lump them in with the rest of the ill-used taxpayers. To repeat: The more the public knows, the worse SSI looks.
Mr. T and others who declare deceipt on Teresa's part or the part of SSI. should know that an annual financial report was submitted by SSI to the district as indicated in agreements between the District and SSI.
Did you expect Teresa to rub the District leadership noses in the financial reports wherein the deposits of all bequests were listed? In addition, over the last several years, the District requested that SSI use the same auditor they used. SSI cooperatively complied. Where did the responsibility lie? It must have been Teresa's fault.
The bylaws of SSI invited a park commissioner to be an ex-officio member of the SSI board. (such person to be identified by the Park Board.) Had the Park Board complied, the board may have been better informed on all matters Senior. This bylaw was added because the District demanded such during one agreement negotiation period. Then, it was ignored for most years. I only recall a Roy Sues, Park Commissioner, to have attended an SSI board meeting. Believe Roy died in 1997. He was an avid Senior Center participant.
Go figure...Were leading horses to the pond for water..but...
Anon 8/9 4:10 response to Anon 8/9 10:15 AM
I'd like to clarify my comment. I didn't mean that Ken Butterly had lost his credibility by printing that obnoxious post. I meant the person who wrote the post had lost their credibility. Why respond to anyone spouting vile dribble.
Mr. Trizna,
I understand you were or are an attorney.
What is the legal result when a person or body defaults on a contract? If several infractions occur, is there a different penalty?
Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Ms. Main:
I was and still am an attorney.
When a party defaults on a contract, usually either they are assessed damages to compensate the non-defaulting party for any loss the default caused, or specific performance of the contract is ordered. And that customarily is irrespective of how many infractions occur.
But just in case you're interested, an award of money damages also is the remedy when private individuals and/or organizations conspire with an executor or trustee to defraud or otherwise deprive the intended beneficiary of an intended bequest.
Anonymous 08.09.12 @ 3:52 PM:
The Senior Center/SSI agreement is not "similar to renting an apartment" because Para. 15 of the last expired Agreement expressly states that it "shall not be construed to constitute a lease...it being expressly understood...that the rights and relationships of [the Park] District and [the SSI] Corporation hereunder are those of Licensor and Licensee, respectively."
Anon 8/9 3:52
Why don't you also interpret the longer first paragraph of Section 15. Termination. which outlines the parameters of under what circumstances the agreement can be terminated and the penalty agreed upon by all parties and how specifically that termination is to be communicated?
And thank you, Mr. Trizna, for your comments. Your personal attacks are unbecoming.
8/10 4/54, Mr. Trinza:
Notwithstanding your comments that it is not similar to renting an apartment, the agreement still states that the Park District will provide Centennial Park Fieldhouse for "use" as a senior center. That does not mean that the building is the senior center.
Bob,
First, I view the Kemnitz Trust issue in the context of the entire Board Created Senior Center fiasco; of which, the District engineered Kemnitz Trust dilemma, is only a part. Even now, with or without mediation, Park Ridge Park District President Rick Biagi could end this stalemate at any time, by relying on his leadership skills and not his litigation skills. Question: does this Board President have the balls and the skillset to do that? He’s your friend, you tell me!
Next, you've been following my work on this site for almost two years. If you've learned nothing else about me, it's that I don't BS when I say I have a document underscoring my position about this or that issue. So, when I tell you I have a document, and SSI/Grodsky attorneys the same document, and PRPD has the same document (that’s where I got mine under FOIA), that refutes your conspiracy allegations, you should believe me. I have such a document; and no Grodsky/SSI conspiracy exists.
And no, I will not disclose the document on this site until it has been displayed in open court!
Now, I’m not usually one to tell an attorney or fellow blogger what to do, but I suggest you talk to your friends on the Board and demand they show you the ENTIRE CACHE OF THE DOCUMENTS they have on the Kemnitz Trust and Senior Center issue; and thoroughly read its contents before you continue down this path. Consider this suggestion a friendly bloggers courtesy.
Lastly Bob, Grodsky-bashing comments belong on your blog, not mine!
The more the public knows, the worse the Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners looks.
Ms. Main:
The Agreement expired on 12.31.10 by its express terms. It will be up to Judge Flynn to decide what, if any, rights and obligations survive that expiration – including the “penalty” to which you refer.
Ken:
I don’t put a lot of stock in undisclosed “smoking gun” documents. But with or without your document(s), I’m content to let this whole case proceed to a judgment before Judge Flynn. Why aren’t you? And why aren’t you willing to put up your $1 for our friendly wager on the outcome of the lawsuit?
Ms. Main & Ken:
I enjoy the irony of your criticizing me for what Ken calls “Grodsky-bashing” when you and yours have done nothing but bash Biagi, Ryan, et al. since this issue arose – as you’ve just done, Ken, with your comment about Biagi’s “balls.”
Like it or not, they were elected by the voters of the District to represent all the people of the District, not just 800 seniors. Consequently, they are legally charged with making sure the Park District and its taxpayers aren’t unjustly deprived of whatever money from the Kemnitz Trust to which they are entitled.
That's why the litigation should proceed, and let the chips fall where they may.
Good morning Bob,
I don’t see the humor in your “Grodsky-bashing” any more than I see the humor in my forced direct and consistent criticism of the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan tag-team as it’s related to the Senior Center issue.
I criticize them directly because Rick Biagi and Mary-Wynn Ryan are the elected (politicians) responsible for the strategy and decisions surrounding the Senior Center “debacle”.
If Executive Director Mountcastle or even the janitor were the source of this problem I would criticize them, but they are not. I would criticize the other Commissioners were they the source of this problem, but they are not.
They wanted the job, the power, the freebees and the bragging rights. Well they gotum! If Mr. Biagi or Ms. Wynn-Ryan have problems with what I say, they can write a comment here and I’ll respond directly. To date, they have been silent.
Bob, my daddy taught me not to focus on a mean-spirited dog’s tail when it’s the mouth that bites. And I currently consider those leader’s actions, mean-spirited, as I do your recent remarks.
Now, when someone throws the “their elected officials” argument at me, I’m always reminded of other prominent “elected officials” that have come our way since my birth; Dan Walker, Otto Kerner, Dan Rostenkowski, George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, Spirio Agno, former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Minnesota Senator David Durenberger and Richard Nixon to name just a few. I am certainly not suggesting our two Commissioners have done anything illegal, only that being an elected official does not make the elected one automatically wise or right.
Ms. Grodsky is not an elected official, but a former PRPD employee and someone you appear to have particular peculiar dislike. Your continued bashing of this former employee is unseemly and below a man of your professional stature. Of course, I could be wrong. Bob, I think it’s time you put your hate-stick away. You really are not helping yourself or your friends or their goals if my emails are any indication. And I say that, as one who likes you enough to tell you so!
Last three things.
1. As to “smoking gun” documents, I never expected you to believe it. You are predictable!
2. You’re right Bob when you said you weren’t a politician. I'm sorry for having referring to you as one.
3. Sorry I offended you with my “balls” comment. I thought you were more sophisticated. In politics, having “balls” has nothing to do with what’s between your legs but what’s in your heart and between your ears!
Mr. Trinza--
As a professed attorney you ought to have known that Judge Flynn is the circuit court judge assigned to the Kemnitz trust lawsuit.
Unless you know something I do not know (and you often suggest such) there is no lawsuit filed to determine the infractions the Park Board of Commissioners committed related to their failure to renew a building use agreement with Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. How can a judge be assigned to a case not filed?
Mr. Trizna,
Further, I am very careful to not personalize my comments or "bash" anyone. My intention has been to discuss policies and actions which is not name-calling. I hope you could/will discern the difference. (That is an action, not a bashing of you.)
Ken:
I don’t pretend to speak for anybody on the Park Board, past or present. My comments are not intended to “help” the Park District but merely to express my own opinions. And they SHOULD be “predictable” because they are consistent with the policies and principles I have been espousing for years.
Your branding of my criticism of Ms. Grodsky and SSI as “mean-spirited,” “unseemly” and the product of something called a “hate-stick” is just a cheap tactic that can’t obscure the facts behind that criticism.
For the record, during my 8 years on the Park Board I never had one cross word with Ms. Grodsky. Of course, that was before the events that led to her departure from the District and what appears to have been her diversion to private corporation SSI of at least $250,000 (so far) of the Kemnitz funds arguably bequeathed to the Senior Center owned by those taxpayers.
Ms. Main:
The Park District never was obligated to sign a new contract with SSI, just as SSI was not obligated to sign a new contract with the Park District. I'm not sure where you got the contrary idea, but you have been misinformed.
Mr. Trizna,
I never suggested the District was obligated to renew an agreement with SSI. My contention is, as stated in the agreement, that the District was obligated to identify alternate District recreation needs for all or part of the premises before ignoring to negotiate a new agreement. Such need was never identified. The agreement has a clause which states that notice of intending to not renew must be made in writing to the Corporation 180 days, 6 months, (July 2010) prior to such action being taken. (or not as was the situation.)
Further as, first, a tax payer whose property taxes are somewhat significant as we are blessed to live in a lovely property). second, as a mother and grandmother of 6 who reside in Park Ridge and pay huge fees to participate in District activities, I urge Attorney Hoffman as he prepares the August Park Board agenda to include "Discussion of Agreement Responsibilities"
Each passing day of refusing to be honest and responsible officials for meeting agreement responsibilities just costs the residents additional dollars.
Ms. Main:
You either have not read the last Agreement or you are affirmativly choosing to mis-state its terms.
Paragraph 15 - the "Termination" provision that contains the 180-day notice requirement to which you refer - does not mention the words "renew" or "renewal." Furthermore, it provides that the District "may cancel or modify this agreement...." That's "may" as in can, not "shall" as in must.
Mr. Trizna, 8/13 7:11 pm
The terms of the agreement in my copy are exactly those quoted by Ken in a post on this string. All see August 8, 4:36 p.m.
The only time I see the use of the word "may" in the correctly quoted 15. Termination clause refers to action that "may" be taken by District "to cancel or modify" the agreement...'they may or may not upon their determination that NEW ...
I chose to not be repetitious in my previous comment by quoting the clause as it had been done just days ago. Rather, I chose to paraphrase and used the word 'renewal', which is a word often used when describing the continuation of a license or agreement. I do not see quotation marks around the word renew on my post you are criticizing.
I had put too much money on the suggestion made somewhere previously on this blog that writers on the dog watching blog were sophisticated and exhibited high levels of communication skills. Such does not appear to be the case as you have suggested I used the term renew when it does not appear in the text of the clause. I did not use quotation marks. Your quotes around may and shall emphasize for me and should for others as they view the exact words, that perhaps whoever suggested superiority on behalf of dog watching participants just may have been incorrect.
You do understand when one uses quotation marks in communicating just why that is done. If quotes are not used, the message is simply one from the writer. Effective messengers are obligated to use quotation marks when referencing words previously expressed by others. Again, this is an action, not a 'bashing' of you.
Because the Termination clause #15 is correctly quoted and visible to all who scroll back, almost enough said. In my previous post,I did not wish to border the reader with again quoting the clause.
Mr. Barton, Secretary of the Park Board in 2005, who signed on behalf of the government body whose integrity is now being questioned must be terribly proud of the actions of the succeeding seven who now represent the District.
Ms. Main:
You stated: "The agreement has a clause which states that notice of intending to not renew must be made in writing to the Corporation 180 days, 6 months, (July 2010) prior to such action being taken. (or not as was the situation.)"
So even if you intended "renew" as merely "describing the continuation of a license or agreement," there is nothing in this particular Agreement that provides for its renewal or any "continuation" by either SSI or the Park District.
I suggest we let the litigation play itself out; and, to that end, I'll offer you the same bet Ken Butterly apparently doesn't have the "balls" (his word) to accept: I've got $1 that says if the case goes to judgment rather than is settled, the Park District wins. Will you take SSI for $1?
Unfortunately, not even I am perfect. Please reference the accurately quoted 15. Termination agreement clause on the Ken Butterly comment dated just days ago on August 9 at 11:02 am
Apologies for the inaccurate first reference. Also typo of border which ought read bother.
Ms. Main:
Just read it - the very same provision in the copy of that very same Agreement I got from Ken. No mention, however, of "renew" or "continuation" - just the District's right to "cancel or modify," which it apparently has not done.
Now...how about that $1 bet?
Bob, (as I feel I am beginning to know you well)
I suggest YOU may have missed my comment posted August 12 at 12:37, but
There currently is no lawsuit regarding the Agreement and the Judge is assigned to the Kemnitz Trust lawsuit.
Are you suggesting such be filed because YOU who know some of the Board and current District leadership, expect they will never act honorably as intended by those who preceded them in service to the District. They (as well as those who served in 1987 whose agreement is referenced in the latest document) agreed, I BET, to the language in the agreement expecting those who might serve in the future including 2010 to now 2012 to carry out and stand for their personal integrity and honor. Of course, you are aware some of those 1987 and 2005 people are still living.
Sandee (back atcha):
I am pretty sure SSI could join a claim for specific enforcement of the Agreement to the Kemnitz suit if it wanted to - assuming it actually had a valid claim, which I don't believe it does given the terms of the Agreement, its expiration in December 2010, and the Park District's continued operation of the Senior Center as a senior center.
As far as acting "honorably," you and I clearly disagree on what that means in this situation. I see SSI as a special interest that has at least two conflicts with the Park District and its taxpayers - one of which concerns the $330,000 Kemnitz Trust. And that's the conflict as to which I'm willing to bet a crisp $1 bill ultimately will be resolved in favor of the Park District.
Bob,
I am finished. Monopollizing this site by attempting to convince one who cannot see black and white is a poor use of time.
However you must have seen and can internalize simple language from the agreement: The word 'other' is the word I am impressing upon you to understand or help me understand better.
"Upon determination by the District that the needs of the District require use of some or a portion of the premises for OTHER recreation or park needs, District may modify or cancel...." Is a Senior Center a Senior Center? Yes it is the same recreation activity. Is football football and is baseball other? Yes it is. I have been asking what the "other was in 2010 that had been identified for building use. I am happy to understand what other is other than what I think it is. But write me a letter.
Bob,
I gave up "I'll bet you" when I graduated college. I consider the Kemnitz Trust and SeniorCenter issues important and unworthy of this sophomoric activity. Why you insist on goading others into participating in this childishness alludes me; my "balls", however defined, notwithstanding.
So save your dollar Bob. If the economy continues to tank, we'll need every one of them.
Ken:
I guess I've been properly chastised by my more mature elders. In my defense, I'm only 60 so "sophomoric" might not be all that much of a bashing from you ancients.
And don't look down your nose at gambling: if not for the buffets at the "boats," you'd have fewer alternatives to Golden Corral.
Finally, I intended to save my dollar...and add yours to it.
Bob,
I think you make a terrible mistake when you diminish your argument with "sophomoric" side-bets. I read you site and other than the senior center issue, your arguments are intriguing. I’m not the only one you met at MickyD’s, who feel that way. My dispute is your take on the whole Senior Center issue. I consider those strategy and supporting arguments not well thought out, and your inability to move away from the worst of them, discouraging.
The seniors need to get THEIR Kemnitz Trust and THEIR reparations (CLAWBACK) money, so they can move out and move on. Doing that alone, would eliminate close to $100k in pay and fringe. In the near future, there are going to be bigger financial fish to fry and it would behoove PRPD officials to close the books on this problem; sooner rather than later.
As to the utilization of our dollars, might I suggest Starbucks. If I recall, it’s my turn!
Ken
Bob,
Obviously you are one who must have the FINAL word...here is your opportunity.
You served on the Park Board, you state, and I expect it must have been sometime during the last 30 years. During each of those years there was an agreement between the District and SSI To allow the senior community to use a building as a gathering spot. Did you vote affirmatively or negatively when the building use agreement came before your board for approval?
How many other bequests made to the Senior Center over the years did you challenge?
A reminder: the clauses in agreements over the many years hardly differed except for dates and the names of the representatives of both boards who signed on behalf of their members.
Ken:
Right now there is only one issue re the Kemnitz Trust bequest: to whom it belongs. As an attorney who has handled trust litigation in both the trial and appellate courts, I firmly believe that a bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” belongs to the Park District for use limited to the Senior Center building and operations; and that such language cannot reasonably be interpreted as intending a bequest for Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. Obviously, you disagree.
But irrespective of my legal opinion, the practical question I expect Judge Flynn to eventually ask is: Given SSI’s identity and activities inextricably linked to the Senior Center for the past 30 years, why is SSI opposing the Park District getting the money if its use is limited solely for the Senior Center? And don't expect him to accept your rampant distrust argument.
If you’re buying, I’m there.
Sandee:
I don’t require the final word, but I won’t turn down the offer.
I served on the Park Board from May 1997 through April 2005. Although there were approx. 13 license agreements or amendments signed by SSI and the District between November 1980 and November 2005, only the penultimate one – executed 12/31/00 – was done on my watch. And although its signature page says it was approved by resolutions passed at Board meetings held on 10/19/00 and 11/15/00, I have no recollection of any contract having been presented for a Board vote; and I have been told that the official minutes of those two meetings contain no mention of any such resolutions.
Frankly, until this current brouhaha erupted, I didn’t even recall there being a private corporation known as SSI – although that must have been an extended “senior moment” because my memory was refreshed by the Senior Center stage agreement dated 1/21/98, even though there is no recital in that agreement about it having been approved at any Board meeting(s). And my signature is not on either the 12/31/00 or the 1/21/98 agreements.
I vaguely recall only one bequest – I think related to the stage addition – but I don’t recall whether it was to the District, to SSI, or to someone else.
Are we done for now?
Post a Comment