I received the new, improved emailed offer from Rick Biagi on 09/07/2012.
To see the complete, full-screen document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
New - PRPD To SSI Offer - Dated - 09/07/2012
Bear in mind that Park Ridge Park District started the Kemnitz Trust mess in earnest on December 12, 2011.
From December 2011 Attorney/Client Detail Billing Records.
Note: Here’s a short conversion table table to assist your reading.
| Code | Description |
| SSI | Senior Services, Inc. |
| BK | Betty Kemnitz Trust |
| DS | BK Trust Attorney Smith |
To see the complete, full-screen document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Referenced SSI To PRPD Counter Offer of: 08/28/2012
My response.
To see the complete, full-screen document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
My Response to Offer - 09-08-2012
Rick took my suggestion to include Bob Trizna in the conversation. This is what Bob had to day:
To see the complete, full-screen document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
While writing this post I kept thinking of Robin Hood and his merry men; and women of course. But then I thought, Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor!
While PRPD is attempting to rob from the Seniors and keep for themselves.
To see the complete, full-screen document, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Where Will the $330k Kemnitz Trust Money Go?
Kemnitz money will be used for the seniors. Right!
Park District citizens and taxpayers deserve better leadership; and a serious dab of honesty wouldn’t hurt either!
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
20 comments:
Beginnings are revealing.
"December 1984, To Senior Center Members from Senate: at end of page, "Your Senior Center Senate is proceeding on the assumption that we are capable of managing our own organization. We can never be certain about what lies ahead so we are organized to face the fact. Our goal remains the same.--to establish a permanent Park Ridge Senior Center which will offer companionship, activities, and a better life style for older adults in Park Ridge."
That goal thrived for 30 years. Mr. Trizna and the Park Board dismiss history which herein clearly crushes the very contention the Park District Administration and Board uphold that THEY are the governing body and owners of the Park Ridge Senior Center and its mission.
RB--Please provide such documentation that District manages and operates (or ever did) the Park Ridge Senior Center which was the basis for which you challenged the BK bequest distribution.
Surely the leadership elected by our community and You know that:
INFORMATION IS POWER
Where is District legitimate information leading to the power it bestowed upon itself to run the management groups of the Senior Center out on the street? And to add the Kemnitz trust amount to your 2012 budget under Donations is aggressive, dishonest, deceptive. More proud moments for Park Ridge!
When RB believes such information as revealed here about his leadership and directing action of the board demeans him and his family, that may be true. Looking within is why that may the result vs. the old Geezers calling him names and ruining his reputation (as he declares.)
The old folks got it right when suggesting that they could not be certain about "what the future held."
I am dumbfounded about the actions being taken against seniors...initiating one lawsuit and ow threatening another.
This public government body indeed believes 'Money is Power".
Those old geezers were way ahead of me and my actions with SSI. Had I known the District would not in the future honor its stated intentions of paying back capital investments, I may have voted 'Nay' to any capital expenditure to assure our money was safe. SSI and the Senate are continuing to maintain the enduring goal of a self governing Center for aging adults.
INFORMATION, Please, District leaders and friends.
Right, what this discussion really needs is more name calling and vitriol. Ken, if you actually believe that, then you are delusional. How about everyone act like grown ups? If the big objection to the pd offer is the timetable, then suggest one that works.
Anon: September 9, 2012 4:35 PM,
You have to be more specific.
1. What name calling are you talking about?
2. What line(s) do you consider vitriolic [“bitter criticism: extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing”]
3. What was it I wrote you found delusional?
4. Can you give an example of non-grown-up activity in that post?
I want to know! So throw me a bone.
All from your email to RB.
Name Calling: "you keep thinking and acting like a second-rate attorney."
Vitriol: “F… strong letter to follow!”
Delusional: "I can only blame myself for holding back."
Non Grown-Up: The concept that an offer is disengenuous because it has a time constraint, then railing that the problem has gone on too long. The manufacture of motive implying that the ther side doesn't want to come to agreement and put this behind them.
In Sandee's excerpt from 1984, there seems to be a sentence missing after the one ending, "...face the fact."
That sentence no doubt was something to the effect of:
"We therefore have determined to spend all existing bequest monies on buying a building of our own and then assuming full responsibility for recruiting, hiring, paying and administering benefits to staff, continually assess maintenance needs and hire or contract to have maintenance done, do the same for daily cleaning, plan and execute a full calendar of marketing events to build membership and revenues to where we are not running at a deficit."
Right?
Everybody wants power and freedom without responsibility. When a fifteen year old says so, we chalk it up to his inexperience with one of life's iron laws...
Ken:
Keep this up and I’m going to have to start charging you for content – or else start copyrighting the e-mails I send you.
Sandee:
If you want to obsess about the past, please don’t cherry-pick only those parts that you like while ignoring those that you don’t but which actually control the relationship between SSI and the PRRPD.
Re your challenge to Mr. Biagi to “provide such documentation that District manages and operates (or ever did) the Park Ridge Senior Center,” from Day One SSI and the PRRPD chose to define and control their relationship re the Senior Center by means of a series of written contracts, starting with the original one in 1980 that acknowledges the PRRPD as owner of the Senior Center property.
Beginning with the 1990 contract and continuing through the last contract that expired on 12.31.10, SSI expressly agreed (in the very first paragraph on page 1 of each) that it was merely a provider of “funding resources for operations and development”; and that the “Senior Senate” was merely to “monitor day-to-day program operations of the Senior Center, subject to the approval of the District” – with that "approval" language confirming the PRRPD’s authority as the ultimate manager and operator of the Park Ridge Senior Center, which the contracts provided that it would do using personnel “employed by the District…under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District.”
Legally – which is the only standard by which both SSI and the PRRPD chose to establish their Senior Center relationship – that’s game, set and match re the PRRPD’s authority over the Senior Center and its operations. And that’s why the PRRPD has the superior legal right to the Kemnitz bequest directed to the “Park Ridge Senior Center.”
That’s also why SSI and Grodsky continue to dis-serve the Senior Center “membership” and the rest of the PRRPD’s taxpayers refusing to turn over the Kemnitz money to the PRRPD, subject to a court order (if necessary) that the money be used solely for the Senior Center – as the PRRPD has previously offered on more than one occasion but which SSI has consistenly rejected.
Anon 9/10 12:49:
If you reread the sentence you take offense to from the 1984 newsletter, am sure you will see in 'face the fact" that fact refers to the situation that one cannot be certain what lies ahead--THAT was the anticipated fact and it certainly is all these years later.
We will see if SSI and the Senate members and seniors themselves are capable of running a business. Do you under estimate the skills and experience the geezers bring with them? Time will tell. Your list is not very creative.
Please smile if you choose to come to the Grand Opening ribbon cutting. That will likely be one of the characteristics displayed by the participants. And bring a penny to put in the collection jar.
Bob, 9/10 5:37 p.m.
Thank you so much for quoting the clause in the Agreements which summarily described the role of the PRRPD in the relationship. I do not have the Agreements at hand. At the moment as they are out of my possession temporarily for study.
I was satisfied you did not place the words x2 'merely' in quotes. What attorney preparing a contract would ever describe a client as 'merely"? Oops you are an attorney and you did. Obviously, 'merely' describing SSI or the Senate never appeared in any agreement.
Your quote does emphasize the role of the District as the 'ultimate' (your word) Senior Center owner. None of us has ever disputed the ownership or the responsibilities the District has regarding the 100 S. Western building. Those further responsibilities are delineated throughout the Agreement. We respected that ownership as well as the clauses pertaining to the District as 'Access to Property' for inspections as they determined. They obligated themselves to set the standard for cleanliness and maintenance of the building.
EXAMPLES OF OUR FURTHER RESPECT OF THE DISTRICT OWNERSHIP WAS EVIDENT as we complied with their stated requirement to seek and receive approval if any building improvements were desired. Seems exceptional that when building needs were identified the leasee actually offered to pay for the building changes.The building owner, the District, required the leasee to enter into an addendum clarifying responsibilities of all.
The addendum's further referenced the investment recovery.
Other clauses describe further District responsibilities to operate and manage the property in the best interest of the residents.
Again, the District does own the building, but not the Senior Center.
I see no valid statement yet which assigns the responsibility of managing the Senior Center programs...only the building. Maybe search the District policies and bylaws. Look around the year 1980.
I still contend it is in the best interest of Park Ridge that money previously invested in Capital improvements in a public building be allocated back as promised. Many of those dollars were bequest dollars and it is inappropriate for seniors to leave their friends behind. Who takes this kind of action against a segment of the population.? These residents act thrilled to have been given life with a 6, 7, 8, or 9 as the first numbers in their ages. May you be so blessed...guess you got to the 6.
'
SSI spent real money in real property improvements over the years, but so did Park Ridge Soccer, for example. Byt Senior Center members also paid next to nothing in dues and fees that would normally be used for such property improvements. (Soccer pays hundreds for a 3-month season). Yes, we know Niles has a cheap, great Senior Center - and also Golf Mill, factories, etc. etc. to pay taxes for it. Old news.) Without donations, big dues and fees pay for Community Center improvements, for example; Either way, users pay. But the dif is that over the years, the public, i.e. the Park District, has spent MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE THAN SSI EVER DONATED to keep a clubhouse for 800 people (of which maybe 400 are actually active users) staffed and operating. SSI got well more than its money's worth over the years, and the faux-sentimental argument that SSI should take "our friends" (in the form of the claw-back) with when they go to their new Center is crawly.
Mr. Trizna is a big believer in competition and a big non-believer in entitlements, so I'm sure he will be the first one there with the Champagne when your new place cuts the ribbon.
Mr. Trizna at 5:37 p.m.:
You've outdone yourself.
All of Park Ridge owes you a double-scoop at Oberweis -- or at
least the equivalent calories in a Starbuck's concoction!
Thank you, sir.
Sandee:
And I still contend it is in the best interest of Park Ridge that the full $330,000 expressly bequeathed to the "Park Ridge Senior Center" be handed over to the PRRPD for use solely for its Senior Center, which the PRRPD can continue to operate until all monies owed to SSI are fully amortized. What's wrong with that?
Anonymous September 11, 2012 11:46 AM:
I'd prefer to bring the champagne to the current Park Ridge Senior Center to celebrate SSI's and Grodsky's doing the "right" thing and delivering a check for $330,000 payable to the PRRPD for use by/at its Senior Center.
Anonymous September 11, 2012 11:49 AM:
Taking your comment at face value rather than as veiled sarcasm, no thanks is necessary. I'm saying, writing and doing only what I believe is right - and also attempting to make amends to both the seniors and all the PRRPD's other taxpayers for whatever my contribution to these problems may have been, however inadvertantly or negligently, during my 8 years on the Park Board.
Plus, I most certainly do not need the calories.
Bob,
In your comment on 9/11 at 11:49, you indicated that in the "best interest of Park Ridge that the $330,000 bequeathed to the Senior Center..."
Actually, this bequest has nothing to do with the best interest of anyone but Betty Kemnitz, not Park Ridge and their tax payers.
Sandee, then perhaps it's the best interest of the city and community to refuse Betty's $$$... Was Betty thinking of a small, private group of people or Park Ridge's ever expanding Senior Citizen population.
Sandee:
Unless you want to recruit Whoopee Goldberg to resurrect her "Oda Mae Brown" character from "Ghost" to channel Betty, all we've got to go on is the language of her bequest to the "Park Ridge Senior Center" - the only physical manifestation of which is the Park District's building where Park District employees under Park District management using mostly Park District money provided Betty with the environment she apparently cherished during those later/last years of her life.
The Park District has repeatedly offered to commit that whole $330,000 bequest to the Senior Center, and to continue to provide senior services until at least the "clawback" money is fully amortized.
THAT is the quintessential "win/win" result that should have ended the matter months ago, notwithstanding how much the Park District may have screwed up in getting to that point, and notwithstanding how SSI's leadership has been able to match the Park District's screw ups with their own greed, stubborn-ness and control-freakiness over a facility that belongs to ALL the District's taxpayers - including the vast majority of Park Ridge seniors who have never set foot in that semi-private clubhouse.
By rejecting the Park District's economically-sound settlement offer, SSI continues to demonstrate that despite its insistance that this dispute is about principal and not money, it's really and truly just about the money. And maybe also the power.
It's time for the hatchet to be buried, SSI (and Grodsky) to make the gracious offer, and the Park District to graciously accept it - even if all that graciousness is done through gritted teeth.
So entertaining are the continuing messages from Bob and anions that the District ought be financially supported with any past or future Senior private money. You must know that the programs for Seniors operating out of the 100 S. Western building are operating under the name Park Ridge PARK DISTRICT Senior Center. Check their newsletter and stationery.
When it was proposed on at least two occasions that District maintain Senior Center building, their contracted responsibilities met with Board deaf ears.
When it was requested by District board member Roy Sues in August 2003 that a sign be installed on Western Avenue to market the Center and aid paramedics who had already bypassed the site once, the board was not responsive. Therefore, in September, the SSI board authorized the purchase. It will look perfect on the lawn of the relocated new Park Ridge Senior Center.
In January 2003, the District board advised Teresa the automatic doors proposed for installation had been removed from the Park District's budget of Capital expenditures. Again, SSI discuss the funding.
So much for the District intense involvement in managing and operating any senior program in Park Ridge. They were not attentive to even managing the building for safety in these ways, less any programming.
But then, the Agreements 11 years ago meant nothing either in more ways than just the promise of recovery of capital building expenditures means today.
Bob, you are not so old to understand that litigation nor settlements are to be settled here. I will not tip my hand to my preference. There are appropriate bodies in process. Supposedly, you're not involved and will need to wait the outcome unless you and the District's attorney discuss the lawsuit.
Anon: September 9, 2012 4:35 PM & September 10, 2012 12:39 PM,
Part 1 of 2
Thank you for throwing me “the bone”. I thought you, like so many other “Anonymous” commenters making broad unsupported statements, would just go away without rising to my challenge for specificity. Your decision to do so has [No BS], gained my respect and I would hope the respect of other readers who might not agree with you.
Now, let’s discuss your points one at a time. I will be combining your original comment with your “bone”.
You said: “Right, what this discussion really needs is more name calling and vitriol”. “All from your email to RB. Name Calling: "you keep thinking and acting like a second-rate attorney." Vitriol: “F… strong letter to follow!”
My response: Mr. Biagi, in my opinion, has been acting like a “second rate attorney” rather than a “creative, thoughtful leader” - “on this issue”. You obviously missed that part. You also miss that I never called HIM a “second rate attorney” but referred only to actions limited to the Senior Center debacle. You suggested my direct and unambiguous response: “F… strong letter to follow!” vitriolic. I disagree. I only said in writing what I would have said at the “Coffee Shop”. Obviously, you consider clear, direct, honest straight-talk; something sorely lacking in this situation, unacceptable. Quite frankly, I am not ashamed to having said it! As to “vitriol” [“ bitter criticism: extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing”], I think you’re confusing my blogging with PublicWatchdog’s, where you can find real examples of “vitriol”.
You said: “Ken, if you actually believe that, then you are delusional.” “Delusional: ‘I can only blame myself for holding back.’"
My response: You’re right! I have been acting under a false belief. I believed PRPD would eventually settle this issue equitably and justly if only I’d limit my writing to subjects on the periphery; writings designed to sting but not wound. The underlying principle supporting that fantasy lay in my belief that PRPD Commissioners could or would corral their misguided leaders and demand a solution or resignation. That did not happen. I was wrong!
Anon: September 9, 2012 4:35 PM & September 10, 2012 12:39 PM,
Part 2 of 2
You said: “How about everyone act like grown ups?” “Non Grown-Up: The concept that an offer is disingenuous because it has a time constraint, then railing that the problem has gone on too long.”
My response: I have no idea what being a “grown-up” means to you. That said; the Board’s offer was in my opinion, disingenuous. Let’s look at the four points:
“1. The District waives any claim to the Kemnitz Trust bequest, without admission of any kind;”
No brainer. That is a good clause I think!
“2.) All items listed on Attachment A hereto shall be removed from Park District premises by SSI at its sole, risk, cost and expense, not later than 5:00 p.m. on October 15, 2012; and any and all such items as are not so removed by that time shall thereupon and without further action of the parties be conclusively deemed to be owned by the District and subject to its unfettered control, free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances;”
Deal Breaker! Seniors own their stuff and Board has no right to them under any circumstances. Further, Board has, since January 1, 2011, been using SSI property for revenue generating purposes above and beyond Senior Center related activities – for free!
“3.) SSI, “Senior Center” and Teresa Grodsky on the one hand, and the District on the other, shall mutually and reciprocally release each other from any and all claims, both known and unknown, which they respectively may have and/or claim to have, through and including the date of such release(s); and”
Deal Breaker! No competent attorney would let his client sign such a release with so little to be gained; and even then, I’m not sure.
“4.) The above-captioned lawsuit, as well as the pending lawsuit entitled Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, a municipal corporation v. Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc., an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, No 12 CH 32655, shall be dismissed with prejudice within 14 days after the release referred to in par. 3 above have been executed and delivered.”
Deal Breaker! Question begging resolution in that case, is whether or not PRPD violated its contractual obligation (terminated the 2005-2010 “agreement”) by refusing to publicly discuss and vote UP or DOWN the new negotiated agreement in open Board Meeting Session as promised; instead, replacing the negotiated agreement with non-negotiated “Resolution”. The Boards strategy was to “let it [contract] die” so PRPD could renege on paying $300,000 in previously negotiated reparations as specified in the contract. Larceny; even by legal action or inaction, is in my opinion, is still theft. Obviously, I believe the seniors see it the same way.
Finally, I believe PRPD wishes to end this debacle. However, ego’s and pre-debacle prejudices by some members of the Board are making it difficult. Those members see the old Senior Center as a “private club”, and the anger that drove them to hurtful storytelling has not gone away. Seniors were ready to cut a deal a couple months ago and within 24 hours of its offer, the Board reneged. Anger and fear kept the board from success that day. Talk about a non-grown-up behavior!
Sandee:
Frankly, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - other than you seem to be again claiming that the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest is "Senior private money."
Although I have never discussed the litigation with Tom Hoffman, I don't know why you and the SSI folks don't want the Kemnitz money to go to maintain and improve the Senior Center, like Ms. Kemnitz clearly intended - other than it would screw up SSI's plan to use that cash to set up its own senior center, something the language of the bequest suggests Ms. Kemnitz never intended and something I suspect SSI realizes Judge Flynn is unlikely to allow.
Which would explain why you and the SSI folks are all lobbying so hard for a settlement that lets SSI pocket the Kemnitz cash, rather than run the risk that Judge Flynn will rule for the Park District.
I was on the Park Board in 2003 and, to the best of my recollection, a majority of the Board - people actually elected by the voters of the community (unlike the little clique that runs SSI) to serve as stewards of the Park District's money and property - determined that the sign was not a priority. Those same Board members, however, approved the installation of the automatic doors.
Bob,
Yes, I do believe it was the District who EVENTUALLY installed the doors. I simply said that SSI discussed the installation of the doors with the intention that it might be necessary to fund such ourselves as they had been removed from the capital budget.
Indeed the purchase of the sign was an option the board was authorized to purchase or ignore. We would not be allowed or want to take the doors with us anyway, but the sign will be helpful as they can get pricey.
The District always cut the grass and shoveled the snow so those were wonderful accomplishments as identified by the agreement. I am not being facetious and on many occasions Teresa would comment that the cooperation regarding the building maintenance and upkeep was good and helpful.
Bob,
I know you are not so naive to think that when I refer to 'private' money I am not referring to how that money may be allocated. Too obviously, when we discuss private or public money we are referring to the source of the money.
PRRPD obviously operates on public money whereas SSI operates primarily on private funds. ALL please notice the word 'primarily' before you launch into your chorus of thousands $$ spent on Senior Center. DO PAUSE and ecall public money is to be spent on the public.(maybe not so heavy on the attorney side)
I do not think it is inaccurate to say that private funds are much more precious than public funds. I never heard anyone delight in money they must give for property taxes. I have seen people delight in giving funds to what they believe are worthy causes.or important to them.
They generally have confidence when giving in knowing that the designated leaders will allocate their funds as appropriate and as they would or may have in the past.
But suggesting such to you is unnecessary as you probably have written many trust documents and clearly understand the motivation of the giver of his private funds.
Post a Comment