A few weeks ago, I offered Park Ridge Park District President Rick Biagi an opportunity to engage in an open “Coffee Shop” discussion of various relevant Senior Center and Park District topics. The exchange can be found among the comments associated with: Biagi-Ryan Board Vote 5-1 for Preemptive Strike –Update: 08/31/2012. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an acceptable format.
I don’t blame Rick. It would have been odd and difficult indeed for this sitting Park Board President to so publicly engage serious constituent questions without a safety-net. However, the questions remain.
So I thought, why not air the questions anyway? Even if he can’t round these square pegs, maybe someone else can make some sense of them.
Background
I’m sure many of you recall the bruhaha created by Mr. Biagi’s Grodsky/Vile data dump. For those new to this blog, click on yellow title to see Butterly on Senior Issues, green title to see Bob Trizna’s Watchdog blogs for background.
Before that eruption, bloggers, former bloggers and readers were weighing in on the impending Grodsky “forced” retirement.
See:
| Watchdog’s Trizna calls this kettle black! | The end is nigh! |
| Grodsky’s Statements Debunk Conspiracy Theories | Cult Of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues. |
A month or two ago, I received several PDF files covering multiple years of Attorney/Client Billing activity. The information was originally received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). My interest in the files mainly concerned ongoing allegations of “Board micromanagement”; a subject for a future blog post.
While perusing the first quarter 2012 documents I came upon this 2011 invoice and its informative entries.
Note: Enjoy the full report or you can pass it by, should this much detail bore you.
To see the complete, full-screen December 2011 Attorney Invoice, click the box on the lower right side of the document window. To move UP or DOWN use the SLIDER on the right.
December 2011 Attorney/Client Invoice
Close-up - first 3 billing entries on page 3 of 5.
Line one states:
| “…Receive word that SSI plans to open different Sr. Center using $ from BK; suggest to DS to file suit immediately…” |
Note: Here’s a short conversion table to assist your reading.
| Code | Description |
| SSI | Senior Services, Inc. |
| BK | Betty Kemnitz Trust |
| DS | Donald A. Smith, Trustee Attorney |
Well, that answers the question of who caused the suit to be filed & when!
By the way, I accurately reported on the Boards first moves back in January 18, 2012’s post: Is this PRPD’s next “Senior Centered” idea? I said:
| “To date, as I understand it, the Boards attorney has been in contact with the Kemnitz Trust attorney, and has verbally advised the Trust of the District’s claim of ownership, effectively freezing the dollars until a judgment is rendered. Now I know, what I’m about to say will anger some of my Senior readers, but fair is fair. I might not like the outcome, but in all fairness, if in fact what I understood to have happened actually happened, I must give Mr. Hoffman kudos for a very slick strategic move. One call – no paper trail – full deniability!” |
Now, look at lines five through nine. Specifically, the last six words of detail billing line nine:
Note: Here’s a short conversion table to assist your reading.
| Code | Description |
| DS | Donald A. Smith, Trustee Attorney |
| trustees | Trustee - Betty Kemnitz Trust |
| BK | Trustee - Betty Kemnitz Trust |
| p.d. | Park District |
| client | Park District |
| AG | Attorney General |
| public watchdog | Bob Trizna’s Blog |
The last six words again!
| “…check out public watchdog for communicating…” |
Well, excuuuuuuuuse me!
What’s the date on that? December 12, 2011? Gee, what did Bob communicate that day?
Click on: PublicWatchdog - Cult Of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues.
Question
So, do you think PRPD President, Rick Biagi or Vice President, Mary Wynn-Ryan can help us understand why that entry would appear on PRPD Attorney’s billing record; on their watch; and my friends, what kind of communicating do you think he’s reminding Park Ridge Park District Officials of?
Of course, this new fact certainly puts a bright-light on Trizna’s negative Grodsky related postings and comments. Of course, Butterly on Senior Issues is mentioned more than once within those same rants!
Bob, commenting on my December 20, 2011 blog post: Watchdog’s Trizna calls this kettle black; denied shilling (“A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.”) for his Park Ridge Park District friends.
Finally, based upon the above, it’s starting to become clearer to this writer (and others I might add), why PRPD Board Leaders might therefore view themselves or the District at risk and thus find themselves reluctant to sign any deal without a general release.
Something else for all of us to ponder and discuss over the next few days - between NFL and NCAA football games.
What do you think?
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
60 comments:
Ken:
Thanks for some more free publicity for PublicWatchdog.org. There's a new post today on City government for any of your readers whose interest in good government extends beyond the Senior Center.
While I always stand ready to answer accusations about my tenure on the Park Board or what we publish on Watchdog, could you please be a little clearer on the conspiracy or whatever other sort of nefarious conduct you have inferred from the time entry on Atty. Hoffman's bill because I'm not sure I understand your point.
As for the "general release" to which you refer, that's pretty much standard anytime litigation is settled between/among parties who are aware of other potential disputes whose resolution is considered by one or both parties as an essential condition of the settlement.
With the issue about the Senior Center "claw-back" provision having been raised by SSI but not yet resolved, the Park District would be crazy to settle the Kemnitz Trust dispute without also settling the claw-back issue. Doing so would appear to be the governmental version of malpractice by the Park Board, and perhaps actual malpractice by the Park District's attorney - although it would be a real coup for SSI because it would eliminate the possiblity of the Kemnitz money being used by the Park District as a set-off against any liability it might have on the claw-back funds, or vice versa.
C'mon, Ken, why not advise your SSI friends to just have Judge Flynn hear the whole mess and let the chips fall where they may?
Because then Ken would have to find some other obsession to occupy his hours.
Robert Trina
I think it's pretty clear what Mr. Hoffman was referring to in his billing. "Check out Public Watchdog for communicating." To me that would indicate that either he or his client, the Park District, should contact Bob Trinza and tell him to get the word out. As you can see, that is exactly what appeared on the Public Watchdog that very day. The very fact that the Public Watchdog is mentioned in the billable hours is glaring. Perhaps Bob Trinza has another explanation of what this entry means.
Also, Bob Trinza's comment, "Why not let Judge Flynn hear the whole mess....". I guess your pipeline neglected to tell you that when the Park District filed the clawback law suit, it didn't end up in Judge Flynn's court.
Also, what a sad commentary that the Park District attorney was instructing Donald Smith, the trustee attorney, how to perform his job. He actually told him to file suit and when. But the Park District wants us to believe that Mr. Smith acted on his own volition, with no influence from them.
One question not addressed here was how was the Park District attorney made aware that SSI had plans to open a new senior center using the Betty Kemnitz bequest dollars?
Anonymous October 8, 2012 9:18 PM:
I usually don't attempt to explain other attorneys' billing entries - I've got enough of my own. But since PublicWatchdog publishes only what it wants when it wants, my guess is that somebody at the PRRPD told Atty. Hoffman about that day's post and his billing entry arose from that.
As for the claw-back being assigned to another judge, that is just a function of the random assignment of new filings. The customary procedure when this happens is a motion to consolidate the cases before the judge with the lower-numbered case (i.e., Judge Flynn).
Having done enough trust litigation to know how it works, Ms. Grodsky and the Trust's attorney should have anticipated that a $330,000 bequest to the "Park Ridge Senior Center" - rather than to "Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc." or to the "Park Ridge Recreation and Park District" or to the "Senior Center Association" - would result in a dispute; and they should have filed this case before dime one of the bequest was distributed.
But if it can be shown that the PRRPD (other than Grodsky, of course) knew about the bequest well before the suit was filed and didn't make a claim to it, then those PRRPD folks who were asleep at the wheel deserve a round of dope slaps for stupidity, negligence, and/or aggravated mopery with intent to gawk.
Anon: October 8, 2012 2:58 PM,
You’ve got it wrong Sport!
It’s not an “obsession” but a passion for truth, the full story that occupies some of my hours. For two years I’ve been collecting documents under the Freedom of Information Act giving me insight into the inner-workings of this Park District, at least as it’s related to the PRPD/Senior Center and Grodsky affairs.
These documented facts make for fascinating reading; and now that I’m able to reconstitute the PDF files into text and integrate them into a relational database manager, I finally have the ability to view the facts in date-time order. The real story is now coming together.
W0w. Be sure to color-code each and every vowel and consonant, won't you? And when you get to the part where a well-paid and utterly indulged employee in a position of financial public trust helped the SSI tell the Park District that the SSI couldn't afford to kick in any more bucks despite the ever-growing deficit, and she was knowing all the while that the SSI was sitting on over three hundred thousand dollars that was given for the purpose of improving the Senior Center, let your little pals know, OK?
Anon:October 9, 2012 1:44 PM,
Come on now, tell me what's really bugging you?
You're among friends!
Anon: October 9, 2012 1:44 PM,
Part One.
Let’s take your comments one concept at a time.
You wrote: “Well-paid… “employee”.
You were referring to Ms. Grodsky. Ms. Grodsky’s salary fell somewhere in the 70k range; about average for a nationally recognized, multiple award-winning professional, with 35-years of experience in her field. According to public records, she receives $48,761 per year in retirement pay.
Now let’s put things in perspective.
Ms. Grodsky was responsible for managing and leading a Senior Center with over 800 members, plus multiple subordinates. At one time, she managed the same center with over 1,600 members.
Based on in Park Ridge Community Consolidated School District 64 (PRCCSD#64) supplied data, the average teacher salary in PRCCSD#64 is: Pre-school $28,332; Kindergarten $47,537; Elementary $60,711; Middle School $62,322 and High School $69,718.
Responsibility to responsibility; Ms. Grodsky’s salary doesn’t seem so bad now, does it?
But she’s got a cushy retirement at $48,761 per year!
Well let’s put that in perspective. From public records I retrieved PRCCSD#64 Teacher Pensions for 2011 that are greater than that paid last year to Ms. Grodsky. Let’s take a look:
The information presented shows (Name), (Pension) Amount and (Years) of Service.
Example: Pryor, Sally A $178,036 (33).
Name Pension Years
Pryor, Sally A $178,036 (33); Schroeder, Fred C $165,994 (35); Feinberg, Marvin W $141,798 (35); Maki, Thomas A $137,595 (34); Mogil, Victoria L $133,751 (36); Fletcher, John W $132,046 (38); Nelson, Kathleen A $130,201 (40); Blouch, James E $122,659 (35); Roche, Sheri K $119,116 (34); Djurisic, Lois R $118,648 (35); Creely, Kathleen M $118,206 (32); Kroeschell, Zephyrine B $113,397 (34); Carroll, Kenneth C $108,888 (37); Carruthers, Robert W $106,218 (37); Marvin, Thomas $104,654 (37); Hoerner, Robert G $101,344 (34); Sorensen, Larry W $97,150 (28); Carpenter, Dennis $94,870 (35); Rawicki, Janet T $93,964 (49); Steele, Roger $88,008 (35); Botchie, Margaret A $86,068 (35); Carlson, Carolyn $83,818 (34); Harstick, John W $82,153 (37); McCormick, Michael D $81,455 (36); Carter, Karen E $80,897 (37); Macewicz, Diane L $79,017 (38); Thomsen, James M $79,003 (34); Volk, Barbara D $78,613 (36); Godlewski, Charles J $78,540 (35); Merchant, Daryl L $77,962 (35); Wittmus, Judith E $77,626 (35); Wallace, Heather $77,440 (34); Domeny, Rose Marie $77,098 (33); Shotke, Linda S $76,574 (34); Heins, Mary $76,558 (34); McIver, Carolyn R $76,456 (38); Larson, Janis A $76,428 (34); Czyz, Richard $76,385 (34); Hoffstetter, Michael $75,970 (34); Szady, Mary A $75,660 (36); Rowan, Marilyn K $75,532 (34); McGovern, Patricia R $75,433 (38); Habel, Pamela W $75,156 (33); Bauch, Gloria J $75,110 (38); Dynneson, Norman H $74,848 (39); Kikutani, Reta $74,642 (37); Rosen, David $74,626 (30); Schneider, Nancy Lee $74,506 (33); Serio, Regina F $74,320 (36); Fox, Luanne C $74,025 (41); Caspers, Sandra L $73,436 (34); Viscuso, Terry J $73,324 (36); Kiersch, Ronald L $73,323 (34); Mollenkamp, Carol $73,292 (35); Nowak, Marian L $73,107 (31); Bruns, Shirley $73,104 (35); Farmer, Lynne E $72,888 (19); Frye, Jeanette M $72,845 (33); Merel, Lynn K $72,310 (35); Johnson, Karen $72,266 (33); Roth, Margaret M $72,159 (36); Hebel, Thomas M $71,785 (31); Burke, Diane $71,364 (38); Parmet, Cheryl A $71,319 (35); Burke, Barry N $71,273 (32); Redman, Norvil $70,752 (38); Bartuce, Donna M $70,610 (37); Petrie, Georgia $70,044 (39).
To write that Ms. Grodsky was somehow over paid was at best, a comment you had not thought out or worst, hypocritical.
One last thing on that subject. The people responsible for public employee pay at school and park districts are “THE BOARD”.
If you and other highly paid Park Ridge residents (Estimated median family income:$87,795), really have a public employee payroll problem, I suggest you take it up directly with them!
You also wrote: “utterly indulged employee”. Indulged by whom?
Part two later!
Part Two.
You wrote: “…employee in a position of financial public trust…”
“Financial public trust”; can you be more specific?
You wrote: “…helped the SSI tell the Park District that the SSI couldn't afford to kick in any more bucks despite the ever-growing deficit, and she was knowing all the while that the SSI was sitting on over three hundred thousand dollars that was given for the purpose of improving the Senior Center…”
First of all, I’ve reviewed not only Mr. Biagi’s Grodsky/Vile data dump, but also hundreds of communications between Ms. Grodsky and her superiors, between Grodsky and Senior Center members, between Grodsky and PRPD Board Members, between Park Board supervisors and their subordinates, etc.
There are no communications that support your allegation that Ms. Grodsky “…helped the SSI tell the Park District that the SSI couldn't afford to kick in any more bucks”. Further, based on records I’ve received from SSI, they had no problem explaining their financial situation to PRPD management or anyone else who wanted to listen. If you have documents supporting you claim, email to me and I will acknowledge whatever!
Second, “…despite the ever-growing deficit…” was not SSI’s problem.
Park Ridge Park District is a tax levying body. If it needed more revenue to operate its over-stressed tax-subsidized service portfolio, Board members only needed to explain the need to their constituents and raise taxes.
Of course, taxes couldn’t be raised in Ms. Wynn-Ryan or Mr. O’Brien’s reelection year. Park Ridge taxpayers were even then, already overtaxed!
Instead, PRPD leadership went after the only part of their portfolio that didn’t effect; THEM, THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR FRIENDS, MOST PR TAXPAYING VOTERS. They went after an EASY TARGET, the only District activity of size where they could actually determine costs, the independent “Park Ridge Senior Center” or as some current Board members still call it, the “clubhouse”.
You wrote: “…she was knowing all the while that the SSI was sitting on over three hundred thousand dollars that was given for the purpose of improving the Senior Center…”
First of all, the Senior Centers is not buildings. Senior Centers are people! Senior centered activities can take place anywhere!
As I’ve discussed on this site, Board and PRPD management had discussed possible building name changes in 2010. Some of the names for the current “Senior Center” were: “Centennial Recreation Center”, “Park Center” and “Centennial Park Center”. You don’t see “Senior” in any of those building names do you?
Further, Park Ridge Park District leaders have already signed on to the concept that senior centered activities need not be placed in one building.
Might I suggest you review Board Meeting videos on this subject?
If you’re too pooped to sit through hours of non-senior-centered drivel, you might look over the “Cooperative Agreement” of August 2011, which stated:
“It shall be the sole responsibility of the District to:
• Provide leisure, recreational and social opportunities for seniors at 100 S. Western Avenue, Park Ridge, Illinois or at any other location(s) which the District deems appropriate to offer and/or facilitate such senior opportunities.”
As to the 300k, might I suggest to you that PRPD management was made aware of that Kemnitz Trust money long before this brouhaha.
Whether you believe that statement or not, I don’t really care!
Finally, the Kemnitz Trust money was never designed to be used to maintain a building. It was to be used to improve the Senior Center organization she was a part of and as they saw fit!
While we’re at it, how many of you out there knew that PRPD has close to seven million of your tax dollars invested but not yet used? It’s hard for me to get all worked up when that kind of money is sitting around doing little-to-nothing!
Of course, it’s only my opinion.
You jump around like a flea on a griddle; it would take way too long to address each of your erroneous conclusions but one thing you say is true: You don't care if you're believable or not. There's something so liberating about that, isn't there?
Ken:
I'm not defending Anon 10/9/12, but I do feel the need to call you on a few of your statements...just for the fun of it.
You report that poor Ms. Grodsky receives only $48,761 per year in retirement pay (a/k/a, money received for NOT working), which you "put...in perspective" by comparing it to the $47,537 the average D-64 kindergarten teacher makes FOR ACTUALLY WORKING (albeit for only 8-9 months/year); and to the Park Ridge "estimated median family income: $87,795" - what an ENTIRE FAMILY earns...presumably FROM WORKING!
And I just love your idea of the Park District raising taxes on all Park Ridge Park District taxpayers just so that the 800 Senior Center members can continue their $45 dues for their annual "clubhouse" memberships. Not sure whether that qualifies as Obama-style socialism or Romney-style plutocracy, but it's still some solid special-interest pandering that one or both of them would appreciate.
I haven't seen or heard anything about the Kemnitz Trust bequest to the "Park Ridge Senior Center" that suggests Betty specifically earmarked that money for the "Senior Center organization" rather than to maintain the building. Are you going to be an expert witness for SSI at the trial before Judge Flynn and channel Betty's spirit in the style of "Oda Mae Brown" in "Ghost"?
But my favorite part of your lecture to Anon was: "First of all, the Senior Centers is not buildings. Senior Centers are people!" Just like corporations are people?
I think it's time for another coffee session, although you may need to switch to decaf.
Bob Trinza, 10/8 9:18 PM
Your explanation of Atty Hoffman's billing entry, "Someone at the PRPD told him about the post" is so far fetched I can't believe it. Are you trying to say that a simple comment from someone at the Park District regarding something posted on your blog, would warrant an entry in a billing statement? As you stated you have plenty of billing entries of your own, I'm sure you are aware that off handed comments in a telephone conversation don't end up on attorney's billing entries. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a better explanation than that.
Anon: October 10, 2012 2:51 PM,
I fail to see how I jumped around “like, a flee on a griddle”. I addressed each component of your awkwardly written comment. I am sorry I didn’t perform that task to your satisfaction; however, you received a time-consuming, well-researched answer that I stand by.
Finally, my comment to you was: “Whether you believe that statement or not, I don’t really care!” Let me repeat, I DON”T CARE; and why should I? You’ve responded to none of my questions. Your pathetic “…it would take way too long to address each of your erroneous conclusions…” was the best you could do.
Like a flee on a griddle? I don't think so!
Once again; it's "flea" not "flee," although that's what a normal human is tempted to do. Your answer was "time-consuming" without a doubt, but the research was a totally inept analogy cloaked in a long list that merely required a lot of typing. So, ok; nice typing. As usual, so much heat, so little light. I'll take Mr. Watchdog's paragraph about the 800 club members vs. the rest of the taxpayers as the cogent comparison du jour if that's alright with you.
Anon: October 11, 2012 7:07 PM,
Thank you for finding the error. Spellcheckers don't catch those kinds of mistakes.
You’re welcome to your opinion regarding my analogy. I don't agree!
Since this is still America, you are also welcome to think what you wish regarding anything Robert Trizna has to say. I even think he says something right, sometimes! Unfortunately, Senior Center and Teresa Grodsky related issues are not among them!
Have a good day!
General comment…
I received a phone call this morning from a friend complaining that I was being too nice to an anonymous commenter. Of course, I can understand the frustration.
Clearly, the commenter intended to waste my time.
I indulged him/her by providing examples of other Park Ridge public employee payroll facts to demonstrate the reasonableness of Ms. Grodsky’s pay. I did the same for retirement dollars. This commenter continued to be illogical and offensive, and offered no facts to back up his/her assertions. I’m used to that from PRPD’s side of the aisle. I had to make a choice; squander more time or cut the cord. I chose to end it!
Now, the issue being discussed on this post is not me, or my beliefs, or Grodsky’s pay. The issue being discussed is Attorney Hoffman’s December 12, 2011 billing entry: “…check out public watchdog for communicating…”
My anonymous friend did not address that issue.
In an earlier comment, Robert Trizna who edits PublicWatchdog; the man who wrote “Cult of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues”, the post sighted by Attorney Hoffman’s “communication” billing record entry; had this to say about that official entry: “…my guess is that somebody at the PRRPD told Atty. Hoffman about that day's post and his billing entry arose from that.”
Well I don’t know anything about Attorney Trizna’s detail billing records, but I’ll tell you this about Attorney Hoffman’s. Thomas Hoffman is a pro with decades of experience! He doesn’t place meaningless, frivolous, imprecise or unrelated information into his terse detail billing notes.
Bob Trizna seems to think otherwise!
So here’s where we stand.
On December 12, 2011, Bob Trizna’s, PublicWatchdog, published “Cult of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues”. December 12, 2011 is the date of Attorney Hoffman’s entry: “…check out public watchdog for communicating…”
Bob Trizna, Rick Biagi and Tom Hoffman all know each other.
Attorney Hoffman served under former PRPD Board President, Robert Trizna. On December 12, 2011, Mr. Hoffman served under then VP PRPD Board of Commissioners, Rick Biagi; and everybody, who’s anybody in this small town, knows Trizna and Biagi are friends.
I don’t believe in coincidence.
Someone talked to Boards Attorney. Board’s attorney thought enough of whatever happened to make a billing-reminder note; and I’m still waiting for a plausible answer from someone in authority!
In the meantime; Park Ridge Park District leaders remain silent.
Of course, it's just my opinion.
Ken:
So far you've done a great job of keeping this particular red herring alive - although barely. But try as I might, I can't seem to figure out what point you're trying to make in linking Atty. Hoffman, Commissioner Biagi and me/Public Watchdog.
There's nothing difficult or magical about attorneys billing time. You don't need to be "a pro with decades of experience" to bill time accurately and ethically in response to some legitimate legal service rendered. So unless you are suggesting that Atty. Hoffman engaged in fraudulent billing in that regard - which I categorically reject - what exactly is your obsession with this particular time entry?
Bob Trinza, 10/13, 10:10 AM
I assure you that I have hired many, many attorneys and received their billable hours for payment. I would never have approved Tom Hoffman's invoices for payment, nor would our Accounts Payable Department accepted them for payment.
#1 - I've never in my life seen such sloppy invoicing.
#2 - I've also never seen an attorney use abbreviations to indicate to whom he was speaking. Upper and lower case no less to indicate different individuals. Does the bill come with a decoder ring in a Cracker Jack box?
#3 - Half sentences describing matters covered.
#4 - Last but far from least; cursory comments made during a telephone conversation certainly wouldn't warrant inclusion in a billable hour statement.
If you scrutinize the invoice, you will notice that absolutely everything is abbreviated far beyond belief. Why then would Tom Hoffman, whose brevity of comment is well known, include a comment somebody at PRPD told him about the day's post? You have failed miserably to explain this to us.
You have said you can't understand what point Mr. Butterly is trying to make. You suggest Mr. Butterly might be stating that Atty Hoffman engaged in fraudulent billing practices. You asked, what exactly is Mr. Butterly's obsession with this particular time entry? You're very adept at deflecting attention from the matter at hand. You have questions, questions, questions but no statement on your part explaining why an attorney who hardly includes a full sentence of description with respect to legal services rendered would include the statement, "Check out Public Watchdog for Communicating". I think we all know why Atty Hoffman included the statement as a legal service rendered. It's not a fraudulent billing but his advice to the Park District on contacting you, at the Public Watchdog, to promulgate the Park District's message to the citizens of Park Ridge. And you did just that on that very day. As Abraham Lincoln said, or was it P. T. Barnum, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time". You certainly give it the old college try though.
Anonymous October 14, 2012 4:01 PM:
You must not read PublicWatchdog much, or else you must not understand most of what we write about - otherwise you would know that we don't shill for any public body or its officials, nor do we take any marching orders from them, or do any favors for them.
Our mission is to keep an eye on, prompt and prod these various local governmental bodies and their officials into doing what's best for the long-term benefit of the community as a whole - not to be prompted and prodded by those governmental bodies or their officials, including Atty. Hoffman.
Consequently, every position we take is our own, based on the merits of the situation as we see them.
Frankly, we think that the PRRPD has botched the management of the Senior Center, the Senior Center contract issue, the Kemnitz Trust bequest issue and the litigation, and Grodsky's termination/resignation. But despite all those foul ups, we still believe the PRRPD is right - and SSI and Grodsky wrong - on each of the issues in dispute between it and SSI.
And that's why we write what we write.
Bob Trizna 10/14
You state, "Either you don't read the Public Watchdog or you must not understand most of what we write". How condescending can you get? Obviously, you think your brilliant writing far exceeds my ability to understand it. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I think a sixth grader could comprehend your missives.
But once again, you have deflected the attention away from the original question. When you can't answer a question, that is the game you play. Turn the attention away from the subject at hand.
Once again:
Why would an attorney who hardly includes a full sentence of description with respect to his legal services rendered, include the statement, "Contact Public Watchdog for Communicating"? Your explanation of this being a comment made my someone during a telephone conversation and then included in a billing statement is laughable. He doesn't even include sufficient descriptive information of services to warrant payment of the invoice. Atty Hoffman included this as a billable item, therefore, it must have been legal advice given to his client, the Park District.
Bob, 10'15 8:30 a.m.
Your comment that your collective "we" think the PRRPD botched the management of the Senior Center" is a very basic fallacy. Do you not recall the management of the Senior Center was never the responsibility of the District. I thought you understood the role of the PRRPD and the Senior Center. I was not involved those 30 years ago, but the relationship has always been so obvious beginning with the situation that the district had a storage building identified by a Mayor and other responsible leaders as a potential site for a gathering spot for seniors. The management structure was identified and documented in those early days.
I do know an individual who solicited and received a large donation from the then Citizen's Bank, who states the presenting banker wanted assurance the money was for the Senior Center and not the District.
The management was never the Districts to botch, so give them a break.
Anonymous October 17, 2012 8:10 PM:
If dropping below PublicWatchdog's standard 6th grade comprehension level for your benefit is "condescending," okay.
Now, how condescending do YOU need to be to claim that Atty. Hoffman's services and his billing are something other than what he lists them as being?
Sandee:
The "very basic fallacy" is that SSI and everybody else associated with the Senior Center are entitled to have the PRRPD (a/k/a, all its taxpayers) spend millions of dollars over the years on that one facility for such a small fraction of taxpayers - and, even worse, just a small fraction of the 12,000+ SENIOR taxpayers (55 and older) identified in the 2010 Census.
According to the last contract between the PRRPD and SSI (12.31.05), the Senior Center building belongs to the District and the members of the Senior Center staff are Disrict employees "under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District." That does, indeed, make the PRRPD responsible for the management of the Senior Center, and responsible for botching that management.
What any "Mayor and other responsible leaders" may have done 30 years ago is totally irrelevant today, as the PRRPD is an independent legal entity over which no "Mayor" ever has had any legal authority. There also have been numerous intervening contracts which delineate the legal relationships between the parties, totally unrelated to the City of Park Ridge and any of its officials.
Similarly, what any "individual who solicited and received a large donation from the then Citizen's Bank" may have wanted for that donation is irrelevant to the Kemnitz bequest.
If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we're doomed to repeat them. That's why I'm glad the PRRPD is finally dealing with 30 years of Senior Center management mistakes - and why I personally owe the taxpayers of the District an apology for not dealing with these mistakes during my 8 years on the Board.
Bob, 10/19 9:06 a.m.
"You doth protest too much" and you doth make up intentions of others:
"Similarly, what any "individual who solicited and received a large donation from the then Citizen's Bank" may have wanted for that donation is irrelevant to the Kemnitz bequest." your comment.
I was not referencing the Citizen's Bank donation to the Kemnitz bequest. Rather, I included the comment because it emphasized the comment I was making that the Park District was not viewed by many to be the "manager" of the Senior Center which was and continues to be an independent self-governing entity. Are you able to track that message as more clearly stated now? The Senior Center from the PRRPD view was a building on property assigned to a Park District, but owned by the people.
I admire the comments made by Anon on 10/13 directed to you, Bob, which critiqued the quality of Hoffman invoice details. It brought to mind for me a reference he made in early January 2012 to an individual as "arrogant". I was surprised such an opinion would be included on an attorney's billing detail. Now I know it was most inappropriate to include such adjectives in a billing document. You evidently thought such was appropriate when you reviewed statements from this attorney and approved them for payment. (But then I would be interjecting an inappropriate supposition.) However, he did not alter his billing format from the time you were responsible to the current period referenced above for all to see. You wish to learn from the past?
I do think you and your collective "we" have a right to your opinions, but perhaps you might once be incorrect? Or is that impossible? I certainly hold an opinion...I have been right and I have been wrong.
Bob Trinza, Oct 18th, 7:25 PM
Here we go again. You changing the subject, so you won't have to answer the question I have posed to you. You're a master at not answering questions and deflecting attention from the matter at hand by interjecting unrelated matter.
FOR THE THIRD TIME, I AM ASKING YOU:
Why would an attorney who hardly includes a full sentence of description with respect to his legal services rendered, include the statement, "Contact Public Watchdog for Communicating" as a billable item? I'll answer that for you. Because it was a billable item. Advice given to a client, which is definitely billable.
Sandee:
The “Senior Center” does not exist as anything other than a building owned by the PRRPD and operated until December 31, 2010 according to the terms of a contract between the PRRPD and SSI – the language of which renders any claim of “an independent” or a “self-governing” entity factually and legally mistaken, at best; and, at worst, intentionally misleading.
Anonymous 10/19/12 8:07 PM:
I can’t even figure out what you’re accusing me of avoiding, despite your misquoting of Atty. Hoffman’s billing entry by changing “check out” to “contact.” As I wrote on October 13 in response to a Ken Butterly comment, unless you want to accuse Atty. Hoffman of fraudulent billing, the simple explanation is that he apparently “checked out” that day’s PublicWatchdog post and engaged in some form of “communicating” with somebody at the PRRPD about it. So your point is what, exactly?
Bob,
First; Board Attorney Hoffman has never to my knowledge, billed this or any other client for work not performed. If the billing comment read: “…check out public watchdog for communicating…” it was because someone with authority to communicate with PRPD’s attorney communicated to him on the subject of the Public Watchdog blog post. His billing comment merely, and I must assume accurately, reflected that communication.
Second; Ms. Mountcastle, PRPD Executive Director, reviewed and paid this legitimate bill.
I just want to know why someone in authority discussed your blog-site and that specific blog post: “Cult of Personality Obscures Senior Center Issues” with Board’s Attorney; and why Board’s Attorney considered the subject of that discussion significant enough, to bill the Park District for his time!
Third; Bob, don’t you find it interesting, the only person explaining the Park District Attorney’s billing entry is you; the subject of that very same entry?
I know I do!
Bob, Your remarks on 10/20, 3:30 p.m. directed to me are incorrect. I thought you studied all documents relative to the Senior Center, SSI, the Senior Senate.
You would not have had to delve deeply into the management structure of SSI, which is governed on the highest level by its bylaws. The Park District is only referred to as a "cooperative partner. ". Page 1, Article II references the Senior Center organization.
The office of the Attorney General, state of Illinois, verified Park Ridge Senior Services as a charitable 501 c3 organization on October 14, 1981. That suggests to me the state has identified SSI as a legal entity. It is my understanding and seems appropriate that the state would review the purpose of an organization before giving approval of any status to anyone.
You may need to dig deeper to identify the second level of governance of SSI, its policies, which further delineate governance by its board of directors. These were discussed previously on this blog relative to how bequests may be distributed.
This may further confuse you? Or, do you believe the attorney general's office just rubber stamps everything it receives?
Ken:
Unlike some of your other commentators, I have not challenged the legitmacy of Atty. Hoffman's billing, even if - as a PRRPD taxpayer - I would prefer that his checking out PublicWatchdog be non-billable time.
And I have no idea why you find my comments about Atty. Hoffman's billing so "interesting," unless you've become bored with studying those grainy photographs of that grassy knoll in Dallas from 11/22/63
Sandee:
I never studied the SSI by-laws or policies because they are internal to SSI and not legally binding on the PRRPD. They are irrelevant, therefore, to the relationship between SSI (acting through the "Senior Senate"?) and the PRRPD, as memorialized in the various Senior Center contracts, the last of which expired on 12/31/10.
I've never disputed that SSI is a legal entity: the Illinois Sec'y of State granted it corporate status on 12/19/80. But for your information, if you file the proper paperwork and pay the required fee, the Sec'y of State would probably incorporate a ham sandwich.
Finally, I believe 501(c)(3) status is conferred by the IRS, not the Ill. Atty. Gen.
Bob,
Perhaps the IRS used the stationery from the Attorney General Trust division when communicating with SSI. I am certain you could not make an incorrect statement.
Yours may be the last word. All this is just repetitive. The Hoffman invoices are interesting and very telling.
“Frankly, we think that the PRRPD has botched the management of the Senior Center, the Senior Center contract issue, the Kemnitz Trust bequest issue and the litigation, and Grodsky's termination/resignation. But despite all those foul ups, we still believe the PRRPD is right - and SSI and Grodsky wrong - on each of the issues in dispute between it and SSI.”
Robert J. Trizna: October 15, 2012 8:30 AM
In other words…
Trizna, is implying PRPD is inept and bungled the screwing of the seniors but he still supports the continued screwing of those seniors.
Finally where does Bob get off using the pronoun “we”, when in fact, he is the only blogger on his site and therefore should be using the pronoun “I”. The use of “we” implies a group (PRPD Board?) and me thinks its just a silly ploy to represent Park Ridge public opinion.
8:11 a.m.:
The "we" in my 10/15/12 @ 8:30 a.m. comment was in the name of PublicWatchdog and its "reporters" who contribute information and opinion, either to the posts or the Editor's Notes about these Senior Center issues.
As for the "screwing of the seniors," are you referring to the 11,000+ Park Ridge seniors who don't belong to the Senior Center but whose taxes keep subsiziding the "clubhouse" for its 800 or so members?
Of course Mr. Trizna has legions "reporters" all in lock step with his view. Man, this is really lame! Come on Bob, man up and actually use the profound "I" instead of hiding behind group "we" skirts.
Unbelievable. There are big philosophical issues and big operational misunderstandings here, but you are focusing on whether billings are neat or sloppy and whether a blogger uses "I" or "we?"
For the record, all you non-reader/non-writer types, "The editorial 'we'" is an accepted and longstanding locution. There is no commie plot behind its usage.
Anon: October 23, 2012 3:10 PM,
It may be true that "we" can be used instead of "I"; on the other hand, Trizna would serve the public-good better if he just refrained from trying to snowball us by enlisting his phantom legion. Of course, I guess we could overlook this current incident since it’s so close to Halloween.
While he’s at it, he might wish to consider his take on Park District’s senior center leadership choices. Thanks to Mr. Butterly, I’ve read every word he has written on the senior center screw-up, including comments on his and this blog, and for most of his ongoing screed he’s championed the incompetent choices made by the Park District Commissioners. I cannot understand how he can tell us that he NOW considers their handling of the senior center, SSI and Grodsky issues “botched” without having first said those things consistently all along. Or was his comment of October 15, 2012 8:30 AM just more bull?
By the way, please urge Robert to grow up and use the pronoun “I”. Groups do not think. Only individuals think and must express themselves in the singular “I”.
Hey, folks, PublicWatchdog doesn’t have “legions of reporters all in lock step” with my views; and it has never made such a claim.
It does, however, get much of its information, and some of its perspectives and opinions, from a variety of people – such as elected and appointed public officials, public employees, and local business people – who have an assortment of reasons for wanting to contribute without attribution. And it’s those kinds of sources which enable me to run PW without also running a cottage FOIA industry.
Just because the PRRPD botched the handling of this situation doesn’t mean the PRRPD’s position is wrong on the basic issues. Actually, given the correctness of the PRRPD’s positions on those basic issues, the botches are even more infuriating. So I stand by my comments, including the one on 10/15.
Unlike most of the commentators on this blog (and on PW), "I" sign "my" name to "my" comments. So if anybody nees to "man" (or "woman") up, it's "Anonymous 10/23/12 @ 7:16" and all you other "anons" out there.
I'm only 60 and not nearly as mature as most of you for whom wresting control of the Senior Center from the PRRPD seems to have become such an obsession. But I can’t and won’t “grow up” – if that means turning into a greedy geezer who expects the taxpayers – of all ages – to subsidize his/her social life and semi-private clubhouse rather than pay the fair value of that facility and those services.
$45 a year as "dues"? C'mon!
Robert, Robert, Robert…..you are still lame. I know you can do it. Come on now….say “I’.
See it wasn’t so hard. Right at the onset of your comment, you say “PublicWatchdog doesn’t have legions of reports all in lock step”. Robert, just reflect a moment. You are PublicWatchdog and everything written in your blog stems from your individual brain. Why didn’t you open up with “I don’t have legions of reporters, etc”? You just have to dump the “we”. Otherwise, how is one to tell what you think instead of some kind of porridge from a “variety of people - such as elected and appointed public officials, public employees, and local business people.” PAALEASE! Surely these individuals can express themselves with an anonymous post…..unfiltered by you . And surely, there must be some in your “variety of people” who have contrary opinions. No? If not, then your sources are truly in lock step with your views. Any why, pray tell, do they “enable” you to run PW. After all, there are many sources of information besides your obviously select “variety of people”. Most importantly, you can refer to the facts of the issue and reach a reasoned conclusion with out reference to a body of amorphous public officials and buddies.
Then, to top it off, you end your sentence with “….enable me to run PW without also running a cottage FOIA industry. Now, Robert, if that isn’t a non sequitur, I don’t know what is. Additionally, you employ the comment as an attempt to ridicule…..the last refuge of the inept. It’s just another example of your lameness. I can’t believe that with your education and erudition you can’t do better than this feeble attempt to refute a contrary view.
Your reference to those who employ anonymous posts is fatuous at best. At least the “anons” are individuals and do not want or permit a blending of their views and then presented as an august pronouncement of the almighty “we”………I mean you.
Come on now, Robert, man up a let everyone know that it is your individual “I” thinking and giving opinions.
As to your last paragraph, you have sunk to a new low. You again attempt to employ ridicule which no reasonable person can or should respond to. Ridicule is not a tool of reason, but a lame attempt to emotionally blindside your opponents. You can do better, Robert.
Robert,
The 800 seniors you are continuously disrespecting, are Park District TAXPAYERS like you. Your attempt to diminish them by repeatedly throwing out your non sequitur (“a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise”); that only 800 members use the Senior Center out of a potential 11,000 Park Ridge seniors, may seem like a good argument to you but unfortunately my friend, others with real-world knowledge and experience, not just home-grown opinion, don’t agree.
I took the time yesterday to call National Institute of Senior Centers in Washington, DC. I asked their opinion; if the ratio of senior center members (800) out of a potential senior population of (11,000) was better-than-average, less-than-average or about average based on their nationally-based experience.
Answer? About average!
I also talked to the Association of Illinois Senior Centers and asked the same question.
Answer? A little better-than-average!
Now Bob, these answers are from experienced, recognized, professional organizations. You on the other hand have no professional experience in Senior Center Management. So who’s, opinion should I take? Should it be from someone with a predisposed bias against Pre-2011 Senior Center “clubhouse” Members; someone with a personal opinion on just about everything Park Ridge, or that of knowledgeable, unbiased professionals?
Next, you consistently harp on the fact that the Pre-2011 Senior Center “club”, received support; including taxpayer subsidies, for its civic service. That is true. However, most Park Ridge residents I’ve talked to over these last two years, sans under informed skinflints like yourself and some members of the PRPD Board; seem to have no problem with that, once they know Senior Centers normally don’t contribute $120,000 annually to any public body as the Pre-2011 Senior Center did prior to the hostile takeover. Of course, had YOU done your homework, YOU too would have known that!
I challenge you Bob, tell me the name of any other Senior Center in Illinois that does that! I’ll purchase one Starbucks Venti-Sized per day for a week if you can.
Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous…
...what causes you to obsess about me so? Is it my relative youth? My semi-baldness? That extra weight I carry in all the wrong places? Or is it that you really are just appalled at my writing style?
And before you even ask: No, I won’t play “Misty” for you.
Let me know when you’re ready to discuss real public policy issues – like 800 geezers sucking up $160,000 of taxpayer dollars each year so that they can continue to pay a measly $45 in annual dues for their semi-private social club – and we can spend some quality time together. I’ll be counting the minutes.
Ken:
I didn’t say that those 800 seniors aren’t “TAXPAYERS.” It’s just that they’re also freeloaders who expect all the other "TAXPAYERS" – including 10,000+ of their fellow “seniors” – to subsidize their card games, their variety shows, and many other aspects of their social lives.
I don’t know how much “real-world knowledge” anybody needs to have a valid opinion about the economics of the Park Ridge Senior Center, but I can understand how you would much prefer getting your “senior center” opinions from those "unbiased professionals” at the $62 million annual budget National Institute of Senior Centers in Washington, DC. Did you get that opinion from its parent organization’s “unbiased” $300,000/yr. CEO or from its lowest paid (but till “unbiased”?) $160,000/yr. vice president?
I couldn't find the Association of Illinois Senior Centers, unless it's that office in Joliet that Google turns up - so I couldn't tell whether it, too, is another one of those not-for-profit propaganda mills with overpaid employees trying to create an appearance of legitimacy.
You won't accept my $1 Senior Center litigation bet, so I won't accept your bet on general principles. For the record, however, you still OWE me one Starbucks: but like taxpayer-subsidized social activities, I don't really “need” it. (If you require a definition of “need” - or "want" so that you can contrast them - let me know).
I’m sure, however, that I CAN'T find any other senior center in Illinois that “contributes” $120,000 annually to any public body because: (a) no other community was foolish enough to adopt such a ridiculously-flawed, neither-fish-nor-fowl senior center model; and (b) all those other communities, and this state itself, probably have even stupider, more profligate arrangements for their senior centers. That's why the people and businesses of this state are over-taxed while the state itself is going broke; and why most of our individual communities are limping along on some form or other of state-aided life support.
Senior centers, like teen centers, evolved from settlement houses and served a viable purpose when, pre-Social Security and Medicare (that stuff the one percent think needs to go) rendered most seniors impoverished, unable to hang out with Bob at Starbuck's for a vente-priced beverage. In Park Ridge, few seniors are impoverished; far fewer than in, say, Niles or DesPlaines, where many are still relatively poor and don't have nice warm or cool houses to entertain their friends in. These poorer seniors also live in towns that have shopping centers, factories and other sources of revenue besides residential taxes. Park Ridge doesn't. So $45 may be high dues to in those towns and the centers truly needed by those seniors, but here, not so much. And why only the Park District is being demonized for trying to be fiscally savvy with its resources -- and no body is blaming the City of Park Ridge or other government bodies for not helping AT ALL -- is anyone's guess. Care to take a whack at it, Ken? Or will you, as someone here accused Trizna, retreat into your usual hyperbolic ridicule of elected officials and staff to avoid facing the issues?
Anon: October 26, 2012 2:14 PM,
Thank you for your comment.
I would love to take a "wack at it", however, it would be easier for me if you were more specific as to what you wanted me to "wack" at.
Ken
Anon 10/26 2:14 p.m.
I believe you do not know why Senior Centers were established nationwide. Senior Centers evolved to enhance lives of individuals in their later years. They evolved because families are more transient these days. Formerly and in my own growing up, our grandmother iived with is. Families were more intact; grandma and grandpa may have lived on the third level of the same apartment building housing the younger generation on the second level
Today, the aging population is intelligent has been well educated, perhaps has extensively travelled, is savy and wishes to maintain a healthy lifestyle by staying active by enjoying socialization. They wish to maintain a healthy lifestyle doing what they wish with whom they wish.
If you are over 50, It is likely in your own family, grandparents lived with or near your parents and daily activities included the larger family. Times are different now and the younger generation more commonly moves distances away. Seniors seek relationships with peers to replace that family gap. Senior Centers meet the needs healthy people pursue. Perhaps the trend of neglect by this younger generation verifies why more public funds should be used to support needed activities. That statement is as appropriate as yours are. (Was that actually yours?)
Senior Centers have not a thing to do with financial standings of people. I think you really are just baiting me and others to suggest your theory of development of social centers for any age groups as based on financial need.
You have been misled by those commenting that the Seniors are subsidized to the hilt. I cannot believe you think that the dues payment gets the Senior all he or she chooses to participate in at the Senior Center in Park Ridge.
If a senior wishes to participate in a book review followed by a luncheon, the senior pays a fee covering the cost of the presenter as well as for the luncheon. Those of you who continue to omit what it really costs the active senior to plan his day should quit omitting the fact that activities selected for participation carry a fee. Some of the Seniors used to go on day trips or week trips, which they paid for, not you. It seems you suggest that all this was subsidized and must be part of the $45.00 membership fee. I have no idea what the average Senior pays to be an active member.The seniors get to use the tables, chairs, cards, kiln, kitchen trays, library furniture, books, pool and ping pong tables without feeding the meter. All equipment, furnishings used by the Seniors in the Senior Center were most commonly purchased by SSI or gifted to the non profit entity, SSI, by community agencies or groups. I cannot identify one piece of equipment or item used by the Seniors purchased by the District. I would be happy to stand corrected. Whoops, they use the front door and the District paid for that, but that was a contractual responsibility to maintain the building. They continue to ignore other contract responsibilities. Perhaps you have a theory about that also.
On a re-read of your comment, I can interpret it as being what you think is cute in emphasizing with tongue in cheek about the poverty of our Senior population, tee her. Must you be reminded that these seniors are people who have been CEO's of companies, teachers, nurses.
Just yesterday, a long time friend and I discussed the attitudes of some Park Ridge people as being 'wanting' and far from how Park Ridge people interacted 30 years ago when we chose this as our community. Thirty-fourty years ago, when I was one of those younger people raising a family and working, I admired my elders and did not feel cheated and angry when the seniors sought a central gathering spot. But, then, it is difficult to be perfect.
Anon: October 26, 2012 2:14PM,
Well, I wasn’t sure how to respond to your comment since it was all over the place. Quite frankly, I’ve read more cogent writing from Jr. College freshmen. That’s why I requested addition clarity from you yesterday. Apparently, your initial comment is what I’ll have to work with. So!
You wrote: “Senior centers, like teen centers, evolved from settlement houses and served a viable purpose when, pre-Social Security and Medicare (that stuff the one percent think needs to go) rendered most seniors impoverished, unable to hang out with Bob at Starbuck's for a vente-priced beverage. In Park Ridge, few seniors are impoverished; far fewer than in, say, Niles or DesPlaines, where many are still relatively poor and don't have nice warm or cool houses to entertain their friends in. These poorer seniors also live in towns that have shopping centers, factories and other sources of revenue besides residential taxes. Park Ridge doesn't.”
My response: Heffer dung! Trash! Had that THING you wrote rose to the level of “BS” I might have given it some serious thought and a decent retort.
You wrote: “So $45 may be high dues to in those towns and the centers truly needed by those seniors, but here, not so much.”
My response: 45 bucks was not the point and never will be the point. PRSC is an independent entity, a “private” or “semi-private” club as you guys like to call it, and as such, can charge whatever cover charge (dues) it wants or whatever it thinks the market will bear. You and I have nothing to say when it comes to the inner working of a “private” club, even when that “private” club rents a public building – period!
You wrote: “And why only the Park District is being demonized for trying to be fiscally savvy with its resources…”
My response: Park District is not being demonized (“to turn into a demon or make demon-like”) by me. I just consider PRPD’s Park Board politically stupid and some of its Commissioners, inept!
My job is to call them as I see them!
Did I give it a good enough “wack” for you?
Yep. You express the major misconception that the Park District is no more than a Holiday Inn meeting room rented by this "independent" but somehow "not private" club of people. However,unless it's a government-managed entity, it is by process of elimination private. Sorry you can't have the "independence" of deciding who can use the premises when, and at what cost, without the burden of paying for staffing, maintenance, etc.
To one of Mrs. Main's points, there are many organizations, public and private, that naturally attract more seniors than others. But many seniors are offended at the notion that they can or should be segregated simply because they're older. These seniors believe, as Emily Dickinson said, "the soul selects her own society" and they make friends due to shared hobbies, skills, experiences, values. They congregate at churches, our wonderful program-filled Library (unambiguously publically funded, by the way), the Garden Club and many other organizations in town. Some even entertain friends at home. This is not to say that a senior center is not useful, just that its benefits are widely available in the general community without age segregation. On the other hand, outreach programs and routine visits for seniors who are shut-ins and those who cannot get to outside social venues but whose families are not nearby DO need and deserve active support from the community, including, in my view, tax dollars. What, if anything, are you doing about those neighbors, you who understand better than most what they need?
Anon: October 27, 2012 3:13PM; October 26, 2012 2:14PM; Anon: October 26, 2012 2:14 PM,
I did not “express the major misconception that the Park District is no more than a Holiday Inn meeting room rented by this ‘independent’ but somehow ‘not private’ club of people.”
I said PRPD, you or I have nothing to say about the inner workings of a private entity, including a “private club” called the Pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center, not to be confused with the Post-2010 Park Ridge Park District Senior Center, which is not a “private club”. If PRPD wishes to charge $45, $55, $65 or whatever, for membership into its Senior Center, so be it. It is their choice. People will buy or not.
As to staffing and maintenance; those costs were covered under the prior contracts and were paid in part from monies paid by senior center members and Senior Services, Inc. The old relationship was a collaborative effort, a private-public partnership if you will.
Now, I can see how the prior relationship no longer benefited PRPD, based on its current and I might say, misguided and unworkable management and operations philosophy: that all amusements must pay their own way in order to exist.
Senior Centers don’t make money, something the current PRPD leaders are starting to realize.
Since that is true, maybe PRPD should just keep its commitment by paying SSI/Seniors their “clawback” money, stop squandering the Kemnitz Trust funds and let the “old codgers” go to start their own Center, getting PRPD out of the senior center business altogether. That would be a good business decision by eliminating two or three employee salaries and opening the 100 S. Western Building up for other, more “profitable” uses, a decision some voters in Park Ridge might well appreciate!
Finally, I don’t think PRPD should be in the tax-subsidized Senior Center Business.
I also think PRPD should not be in the tax-subsidized Fitness Center Business either.
Most of all, I think PRPD Commissioners should not receive tax-subsidized free use of any and all PRPD facilities, a perk worth close to $500 per year per Commissioner.
These seven guys aren’t poor and can afford to pay their own way!
GO FIGURE.
First the District didn't went them. Now they won't let them go. It would give the District all the space they THINK they need to provide more dance classes, preschools and to continue to compete with the private sector. Indeed, the District could continue to subsidize many types of kid activities undercutting private businesses. There are now senior centers somewhat in the area which are privately managed very successfully by Evanston's Mather Foundation called Mather Cafes which a number of former PRSenior Center members visit and enjoy. PR Senior Center was intended as a private enterprise and hopes to return to such status.
PRRPD could stop pursuing Youth Campus property and cease to work on encouraging residents to allow more of their dollars to be extracted for Recreation purposes at more sites. Although the PRRPF sites "open space" as the reason to seek additional property, I ask why the lovely open space of the Country Club and the acres of the golf course are not dismissed as open space. If one looks to the east and to the west of the current desired property, one finds acres of open space . Likely, because PRRPD does not control CC space, they presume it is not there in trying to sell their "open space" concept.
I much prefer for the District to invest money they currently carry on their books to improve present open spaces. The trend of the District to supply port-a-potties city wide and claim those as appropriate needed facilities is visually poor use of our existing open space. Are there no alternatives? Perhaps a review of Rest Stops placed along major highways could guide the Board in upgrading current open spaces. I would rather pay additional staff to travel the city and clean the personal needs equipment rather than additional staff to care for additional space. When we look at our current open space at NE Park, the turquoise port-a-potty draws my attention even before the flag pole does. I mention this because I also prefer the District to minimize its annual expenses as they free the Seniors and let them go and eliminate staff which is always the greatest expense of any business. This would ultimately end the persecution of the senior segment of the population that continues in a segment of the city, much expressed here.
Sorry for the digression. Perhaps that can be a blog post if ever the District can cooperate in making a settlement decision. Somehow, the Senior issue continues to lead to toilets. Go figure.
Your description of the suggestion PRRPD cut all ties, was one of the acceptable options suggested by SSI and the Senate, but the board would not act positively on that settlement DIRECTION. All would get what each wants. Party over. Just in time to prepare the 2013 PRRPD budget. No PRRPD responsibility for a Senior Center on their property. Dismissal of that opportunity should be questioned. None of PRRPD staff needed. Delete that expense as wailed on for about for years.
10/27 3:13
You presume incorrectly that the Seniors who enjoy the Senior Center limit their activities to the Senior Center and are dependent ONLY that facility. Where did you get that? Many are active participants in other community organizations and volunteer their time and talents with other organizations and agencies. Your limiting verbal observations of seniors exemplifies for me how small minded you appear to be. Do you know any aging people? I know you had parents.
You should research why the Senior Center was established in Park Ridge. It may have been discussed on this blog previously.
Are you aware of the number of residents over 90 who now stay home because the Senior Center they knew no longer exists? This is a pity of the situation created by the PRRPD inserting itself into the structure of the Senior Center management.
With the exception of a new on-site manager and a new level of cleanliness, the only other changes that might make them feel their senior center "no longer exists" would be the nonstop kvetching, conspiring, doomsday-predicting, agitating and negative brainwashing being done by a handful of "leaders" who don't care about the older members' wellbeing, only their own egos. It's sad, really.
Ken:
Those contracts you FOIAed from the PRRPD disclose that the “independent” SSI didn’t “rent” the Senior Center building. It merely licensed it from the PRRPD for limited usage under limited circumstances through 12/31/10. So while SSI can charge “its” members whatever it wants, the PRRPD can charge SSI whatever it wants for that license; or can choose not to license the Senior Center to SSI at all.
What particular economic principle(s) mandate that “amusements” like Senior Centers “don’t make money”…or can’t make money? Or at least cover their costs? Have such "amusements become entitlements the taxpayers are compelled to provide to those who demand to be amused?
As for letting SSI walk away with the Kemnitz money to which it is not entitled (at least not until the Court say it is) and the “clawback” money, both of those pots of money are funds the PRRPD should be able to use to keep operating the Senior Center and/or use for other “senior” programming to serve the approx. 10,000+ seniors that SSI hasn’t been serving all these years it has controlled the "clubhouse." Or are you suggesting the 800 Senior Center members are the only seniors who actually count?
For what it’s worth, however, we do agree on something, Ken: that PRRPD Commissioners should not receive tax-subsidized use of any PRRPD facilities or programs. I tried my best to get rid of those perks while I was on the board, but a majority of the Board back then wouldn’t agree; and apparently that mindset has continued. And for what it’s worth, I never took any of those freebies during my 8 years on the Board.
Robert,
You wrote: “Those contracts you FOIAed from the PRRPD disclose that the “independent” SSI didn’t “rent” the Senior Center building. It merely licensed it from the PRRPD for limited usage under limited circumstances through 12/31/10”.
My response: So what? This is hairsplitting in the overall scheme of things! SSI and PRPD had a contract to provide a space and support services in return for money. SSI provided the money as agreed. For the most part, PRPD provided the services as agreed.
The underlying issue is not about a “renter” or “licenser/licensee” relationship. The underlying issue is not about an 800 senior center membership to the potential 10,000 over 55’s in Park Ridge. The underlying issue is not about $45 membership fees. The underlying issue is not about seniors paying “full-up” costs of the senior center facility, including staff. The underlying issue is not about the smarmy incompetence displayed by Park Ridge Park Board Commissioners.
The underlying issue is about Park Ridge Park District not keeping its contractual commitments!
Think about this for a moment. If this public body can renege on a thirty-year relationship with its own senior taxpayers because it no longer saw fit to honor a financial payment as specified within the agreement, the $353,000 “clawback” or “reparation payback”, who in their right mind would enter into a contractual arrangement with PRPD in the future?
TERMINATION CLAUSE
“15 Termination. Upon a determination by District that the needs of 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, that corporation shall be entitled to be reimbursed for its share of the cost of the initial addition (including all amounts raised by it and used to pay for the initial addition to 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 completed. 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 Corporation's written certification of the date of completion.”
Now Robert, I suspect, before this is over, venders and other potential partners will know Park Ridge Park District cannot be trusted for significant contractual obligations!
Ken:
To paraphrase the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, you're so off-base that: "You're not even wrong!"
The "underlying issue" most certainly IS about the difference between a license and a lease - which I can only assume is why you keep on calling it a "lease" despite those FOIAed contracts expressly stating that they "shall not be construed to constitute a lease...."
The "underlying issue" also most certainly IS about a Senior Center of only 800 members out of Park Ridge's 10,000+ seniors, as well as about that ridiculously paltry $45 "membership fee" that has contributed substantially to the $160,000+ annual deficit the Senior Center has been running and the taxpayers have been subsidizing.
And, yes, the "underlying issue" most certainly IS about the "smarmy incompetence displayed by Park Ridge Park Board Commissioners" and PRRPD staff, who have botched the handling of virtually everything related to the Senior Center, Grodsky, and the Kemnitz Trust funds.
But one thing the "underlying issue" most certainly is NOT is the PRRPD's "keeping its contractual commitments" - which it did even at the expense of huge annual deficits totaling over $1 million in just the last 6 years alone.
What you now conveniently label a "thirty-year relationship" between SSI and the PRRPD was, in reality, just a series of much shorter contractual relationships, each of which could have been the last – starting with the first one that ran only from 1980 through 1983. Those contracts were so poorly drafted that none of them even specifies what happens to the "clawback" money in the event any of them simply expired rather than were "cancelled" or "modified" by the PRRPD.
One crisp new dollar bill says Judge Flynn will find the PRRPD, by continuing to run the Senior Center as a senior center, continues to amortize the "clawback" money whether or not it has a contract with SSI. And in case you're wondering, that bet is in addition to the other bet you're afraid to take: that the Park District ultimately will be awarded the Kemnitz bequest, too.
The Historical Society Leadership has been so warned not by me) that promises made by Park District via written contract have been proven to be not a legal document at the will of the Board of Commissioners, its attorney, Executive staff.
Anon, 10/28 7:09 p.m. Actually you are sad, really.
Old hat.
Bob,
I did not personally know Betty Kemnitz. I know that people who did feel she would be terribly embarrassed that the District and some residents are making such an issue of her good intentions meant to thank those who welcomed her to the Senior Center and helped make her days enjoyable.
Perhaps some of her friends are supporting the new District entity.
I believe those seniors in Park Ridge, whether it be 10,00 or 20,000, who chose to not participate at the 100 building made a personal decision to do other things, like perhaps play cards at the Country Club. Some probably even go to a bar to play pool. What we know is that seniors who do other things at other places are not whining that Betty's bequest is not being used to support their activities or paint a wall. SSI has not been serving the other 10,000 seniors as they chose not to participate. That was a stupid comment regarding SSI'S not serving ALL Park Ridge seniors. The opportunity was there. Amore sensible "serving" comment might be that a younger generation is also served by SSI as parents have stayed healthier and involved with no assistance required by their children. Specifically, I worried much less when knowing it was card day for my mother at her Senior Center at an old Safeway store in Great Falls, Montana. Their greatest partner is the United Way. Many structures for Senior Centers everywhere. Some partners are more cooperative than others.
Your reasoning also suggests that the District is errant because it does not give swimming lessons to all Park Ridge children. Certainly the opportunity is there. Who would sensibly say the District is not serving every child because the kid does not take swimming lessons or do any activity offered by the PRRPD. What does the District do for that child?
Please do not suggest that preschool is available to seniors and they could receive use of PRRPD revenue there. I know you would not counter with that.
Bob, why do you object to tax money being used for senior activities? Taxes are generated from various age-grouped sources. Other than shared benefits received by all the age groups for city or park services. Most tax revenues are used to sponsor youth-oriented activities in education, recreation. A small percent of total tax revenue has been used for senior activities. That cycle has existed for centuries. When seniors were younger, they depended on other more senior residents to pay for schools, parks and recreation.
Because the Senior Center may have required the expenditure of a maximum of less than 5% of the total District budget, perhaps priorities of the District ought be refocused to caring about the other 95%.
Improve what is truly their responsibility and ignore entities not their responsibility. YES, the 100 building belongs to the residents, and is the responsibility of the PRRPD. They have needed to paint the walls and plug the dripping ceiling. Quality and participation in programs is also wanting, I hear.
Well Robert,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. You look at this problem through a very different lens.
As to the crisp dollar bill wager; I’ll pass as I always do. However, I still owe you that Starbucks or MickyD’s, should you wish to slum it!
Sandee:
Only the language of Betty's bequest can legally speak for her now that she's dead. And only because the SSI folks and Teresa Grodsky aren't "embarrassed" by arguing that the “Park Ridge Senior Center” means something other than the facility owned by the Park District do we have this litigation.
The fact that this Senior Center serves only 800 out of 11,000+ Park Ridge seniors suggests that there is something seriously wrong either with the "Senior Center" concept or its execution by SSI and the PRRPD. The same thing might be true with kids’ swimming lessons, if such a small fraction of kids used that program.
But I’m not aware of kids’ swimming lessons costing the taxpayers $160,000 a year, year after year. If they did, however, I'd be every bit in favor of raising their costs as I am in favor of raising the Senior Center dues.
Sandee, I object to taxpayer money being used for most things that directly benefit a particular class or group of individual users, especially when it isn’t a necessity, and when the beneficiary isn't required to prove some sort of exonomic need for taxpayer assistance. That’s why, when I was on the Park Board, I pushed for increased charges for kids’ sports programs to better cover the District’s costs, even though all four of my boys were in those programs and it would cost me more money - because kids' sports, just like a Senior Center, aren't a necessity; and I could not justify the taxpayers' subsidizing either amenity.
I never thought “pay your own way” and "help the needy, not the greedy" were such novel concepts; but I continue to learn otherwise.
Ken:
My “lens” has always been focused on “pay your own way” and “help the needy, not the greedy.” What's yours?
Anytime you can arrange another entry visa from Niles into Park Ridge, I'll meet you at either place you're buying.
Robert……
You just don’t get it do you? You must stop trying to get your message across by always using scurrilous epithets as a method of ridicule. Remember, ridicule is the last refuge of those who are intellectually cornered and blank out when trapped with no rational response. Your use of “tax subsidized greedy old geezers and their private card playing club” epithet is not only lame but is also getting really stale. But you know all about lameness, don’t you? So, there are no surprises here since you can‘t help yourself.
Now, the fact of the matter is that you are committed to a collectivist position relative to politics in general and the PRPD in particular. The collectivist position always demands the subordination of individual or minority group’s rights for the collectivist “greater good”. The seniors and their needs, in your view, do not serve your idea of the “greater good” and therefore they must be sacrificed to the collectivist will (as determined by you). As a tax payer, you clearly believe your individual rights (prudent use of tax dollars) along with others is being abused and sacrificed to the “greedy old tax subsidized geezers”.
Another example is in reference to those individuals and families who, because of religious or other preferences, want to educate their children in parochial or private schools. In dong so, however, they are still forced to continue to pay taxes in support of government education which they perceive as deficient in one way or another. There individual rights are being sacrificed to the collectivist “greater good” concerning government education which, in this case, uses the force of government to compel individuals to pay large sums of tax dollars to support government education they don’t need or approve of. So, in a collectivist environment we have an unsolvable dichotomy of determining whose rights are going to be sacrificed to whom and who gets to decide and by what standards? Clearly, you think you and your ilk should decide. This leads to the formation of a political and economic “power elite” which increasingly tramples individual and minority rights because they think they are “right” on all issues and they want the power of government to force their solutions on everyone else. This phenomenon is called fascism and it is destroying the civilized world today.
There is a solution, however, and that is to disband and liquidate the assets of all government collectivist entities and privatize them. What is needed is a private park services entity which individuals can choose to purchase services without forcing others to sacrifice their wealth for their preferences. You should be advocating for a privatization solution since you think your individual interests are being sacrificed to “greedy old tax subsidized geezers”. This individual rights are not violated and everyone is free to choose whatever at no expense to others. Neat, huh?
And so, Robert, it appears you are an aspiring dictator who wants to determine the “public good” on all PRPD matters. But I have news for you. “You’re a fake, you’re fake and you don’t know the territory“ as professor Hill says in the Music Man. And please, don’t flatter yourself and expect a request to play Misty for me. You are so intellectually bankrupt that no one with a half a brain would obsess about you personally. Get a life!
Ah, Anonymous - you've returned, and obsessed as ever.
But ouch! Are you sure that really was milk on your Cheerios yesterday morning?
Per Merriam-Webster on-line, the definitions of “epithet” are:
a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing; and
b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase.
I can’t recall whether I actually used the phrase “tax subsidized greedy old geezers and their private card playing club,” but I don’t mind the attribution. I will gladly claim it as BOTH “a characterizing…phrase” and a “disparaging…phrase.” And you’re right: I can’t help myself when it comes to criticizing people who expect the taxpayers to subsidize their wants and whims.
Care to explain exactly how the Senior Center, a recreational facility and clubhouse, has become one of “[t]he seniors…needs”?
As for your pseudo-socio/economic “liquidate the assets of all government collectivist entities” argument, that’s just plain silly. So either you’re joking, or you’re wacky. Furthermore, “collectivism” is basically a junk term because over the years it has been used by various factions to describe, or attack, communism, socialism, fascism, democracy, and even monasticism. But if you want to use “collectivism” as the alternative to “individualism,” I’m going with “individualism” every time.
“Aspiring dictator”? I have a number of aspirations, but "dictator" isn’t one of them.
Thanks for the encouragement, but I’ve already got a life. Sparring with folks like you is just a hobby.
Ken, your last diatribe is straight from the anals (sp intentional) of hate radio. Yes, let's get rid of public education, the one thing that instills in all a sense of citizenship, in favor of the Flat Earth Society brand of science taught in Texas. If you think the U.S. is in trouble competitively now, just wait. What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?
Anon: November, 4, 2012 7:51 AM,
Excuse me?
What diatribe?
And “hate ratio” too?
Anon, where did I say anything here about getting rid of public education?
Maybe you have me confused with someone else.
Too bad our underperforming “public education system” failed you by not teaching you to think critically. On the other hand, you can’t blame them completely, considering the material they had to work with!
My, how amusing. Clueless, but amusing. I guess everybody has something to offer.
Anon: November 5, 2012 5:23 PM,
You said: “How amusing. Clueless, but amusing”.
My response: How elitist! How condescending! How arrogant!
Tell me Anon, what did you find amusing? I’m sure those readers who took their valuable time and thought to contribute to this post’s comments, might find your additional information valuable. So, who in your mind is “clueless” and what are they/we clueless about?
Please, set us straight!
This enquiring unamused mind would like to know!
In reviewing many of the comments directed by those who feel so economically deprived because the dues at the Senior Center are a pittance, I suggest that the District grab the bull by its horns and implement its new fee structure. SSI and the Senate are no longer viable due to PRRPD action. Thus, the PRRPD should get going in improving the resource.
Time to close the financial gap? Raise the dues for Senior Center Membership and issue solved. If the annual loss is $160,000, it appears each of the now 600 members would be required to submit $266.00 annually. How much fun will that be? Because SSI no longer financially supports PRRPD, I would expect the $160,00 loss will be much greater. Those freshly painted walls are the gift of the PRRPD? If the membership total rose to 700 or 800 when I looked the other way, the new management can so adjust their "friendly" dues fee. What is taking so long? We are approaching 2 years of the "sounder" management of the facility. Time is Money.
Post a Comment