Only took three days to fix. There is no reason for the situation to happen again. I guess I finally got to the right person!
I’m get pretty tired of having to keep asking Park Ridge Park District Management to upload Park Board Meeting videos and minutes to its website in a timely manner. It’s not unusual to wait up to 90 days.
The problem regarding timely uploads has been going on for some time. As a matter of fact, I have had to write Gayle Mountcastle several times on this subject since October 2011.
Problem is, I think I have been writing to the wrong person!
PRPD’s Board is known for its tendency toward micromanagement. I should have written Ms. Wynn-Ryan or Mr. Biagi or maybe Mr. Hunst.
I’m sure they would have solved this dilemma pronto!
To see the complete document full-screen, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Video and Meeting Minutes Email - Nov. 9 - Oct. 25 and Oct.24 2011
To see the complete document full-screen, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Video and Meeting Minutes Email - Jan 30 2012
To see the complete document full-screen, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
Video and Meeting Minutes Email - Aug. 20 and Aug. 28
So, now that President Biagi is aware of the on-going problem, maybe we’ll finely see the implementation of a long term solution.
Of course, he could just shanghai some kid from Maine South, put him/her on the payroll and get the job done – on time!
It’s just my opinion.
11 comments:
Maybe it would be easier to come to the meetings and take your own videos, then you wouldn't have to worry about copyright or the Park District's lack of timeliness in posting them. Then you could also superimpose a nice Venetian Gondolier's hat on Biagi and Devil Horns on Wynn-Ryan.
Anon: September 11, 2012 3:36 PM,
Did I hit a nerve?
Park Ridge Park District has a responsibility to the taxpayer to upload those videos and meeting minutes within a reasonable timeframe. 90 days is not a reasonable timeframe! As you can plainly see, I've had this conversation three time in one year. Ms. Mountcastle is the Executive Director, who just got an $8,500 pay raise, and answers to Board President Biagi; and he answers to you and me. He’s got the bragging rights so he gets the nudge!
Perhaps staff is too busy complying with you and your confederates' endless FOIA requests.
Anon: September 12, 2012 11:41 AM,
Perhaps there would have been no FOIA requests had certain Park Board Commissioners not told unsubstantiated stories of Senior Center toilet abuse. Maybe there would have been no FOIA requests had Commissioners not signed on to the “Resolution” or the “Guidelines” or the non-agreed-to “agreement”, etc. Each action generated questions only a FOIA request could answer. Maybe there would have been no FOIA requests had the Board not given the impression it was over-using Board Attorney services.
Look, I don’t make the FOIA rules I just use them as needed; and in the case of this Park District, sparingly. Are my FOIA submissions endless? Of course not! However, so long as PRPD creates situations or makes statements requiring FOIA confirmation or research, I suspect the possibility of additional FOIA requests will be with us.
Let us pray this affliction we are all suffering leaves us soon!
It's not about praying. It's about listening. But that would remove the reason you get up in the morning. You and your crew are not using the FOIA rules "sparingly" and you know it. But then, since you have nothing else to do all day, you figure the folks the taxpayers are paying must have a lot of empty time on their hands, too.
And BTW, the two board members whose family members were refused use of the public washrooms in the Senior Center stand by their statements. Pottygate is not going away because it is emblematic of the "it's our private clubhouse, you just pay the bills" mentality that set this whole mess off in the first place. And as you spend every waking minute perusing old minutes, take note of the times during the l980s and l990s when some board member or staff member mentioned the deficits. This was not an issue created by the last board in 2010. It was just an issue whose time had come.
Ken:
Thanks for raising this issue - I wasn't aware of it.
Meeting videos should be available on the District's website the next day, or the second day at the latest. If that's not occurring, then the District is seriously dropping the ball because transparency delayed is transparency denied.
And if it's being delayed 46 days, then somebody isn't even trying.
Guess I have to thank you for giving me a new PublicWatchdog topic. I guess that makes us even for the e-mail content you "stole" from me.
Robert,
"Stole" from you? I think not. However, it does make us even.
Cheers!
Anon 9/12 6:09 p.m.
I submitted a FOIA requesting all invoices submitted to SSI over the years by the District. The hope was that Maryann or Gayle might look at one or two of the documents and see that SSI reimbursed the District as required in the Agreements. Either might have said, "In all fairness, the invoices show we billed them for utilities, salaries, benefits over a determined amount. They paid all invoices." Why so silent?
Gayle should have known that the Agreements were only negotiated for 4-5 years as the District wished to review SSI financial records to determine the amount of the subsidy or program expense, whichever term they chose.
Such honesty likely never occurred as some still feel the district has paid thousands in financial support and the Seniors paid little or nothing. Thanks for the honesty?
Perhaps in the new Senior Center we can wall paper the washrooms with the invoices. When we let outsiders use the bathrooms they''ll probably be interested. Or, maybe not.
I have yet to see a document that verifies even one year's expenses paid by District to be thousands. Perhaps 2011 actual budget will show such as SSI was not involved in making quarterly payments...that would be at least a $100,000 shortfall. Why did no representative attend an SSI board meeting over the years to address the issue. None attended out of any interest, though invited frequently. Bylaws even suggest it.
Certainly no longer an issue. My only money issue with the District is that they do not distribute the 4% property tax revenue equitably among residents by age groups. Perhaps a positive outcome of this might be that board will review its expenditures and require each activity be viewed as a cost center. All real costs of each activity would be charged back to that activity. . They do it for the Senior Center, likely because there was a payback to be determined.
Why are not all activities viewed as cost centers?
Addition to Sandee Main's comment: Also, please remember that the Senior Center was the only group charged for salaries. While reviewing those expenditures, let's level that playing field a bit.
Anon 9/11 2:36 PM - Please explain to me why the citizens of Park Ridge should waste their time going to the Park Board meetings, because the Park Board has failed to meet it's responsibilities to the citizens and post their meeting minutes in a timely fashion? That has got to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
All programs ARE viewed as cost centers, Sandee -- only the Nature Center, a relatively new area and working hard to get up to speed, operates at a modest deficit -- under $65K a year -- AND of course, the Sacred Cow Senior Center, which operates under close to $200K a year in deficits. Why? Because its users are special and don't have to live by the same requirements as other taxpayers.
Anon 9/15 6:58 p.m.
I would appreciate your directing me to where in approved 2012 budget presented online which delineates such detail. Thanks in advance. I could find dollars expensed to the Nature Center and the batting cages, but not to the major expense areas as
pre-schools, baseball, soccer, administration, etc. I only see totals for Recreation, etc. I do see contract expenses which I think is to reimburse the city for police property surveillance. It appears to be a total expense not charged back to user parks or buildings.
If your statement is true, it will be so easy for the Finance Department to assign expenses by age categories to present to the board as a useful tool when budgeting for 2013. I am delighted.
Post a Comment