It was Rick Biagi all along!

Appalled, Hoodwinked & Relieved!

Friends, I’m appalled at how easily I’d been hoodwinked into believing Park Board Presidents Jim O’Brien, Mary Wynn-Ryan and Rick Biagi were all responsible for the Senior Center Fiasco, the Kemnitz Trust Disaster and Vile/Grodsky Data-Dump Farce.

Now, based on Bob Trizna’s recent post: ELECTION 2013- Endorsements for Park Ridge Recreation & Park District Board; we’ve finally learned the truth.

It was Rick Biagi all along!

I’ve got to tell you, I’m relieved.  Now I can finally ignore former Board Presidents Jim O’Brien and Mary Wynn-Ryan; who, if you believe Bob, were merely ineffective and insignificant puppets

I am however, disappointed that Bob Trizna waited this long to fill us in. 

Of course, in the end, the jokes on us!

In another show of Trizna mirth, Bob goes on to describe Ricks leadership involvement in the expensive and destructive Senior Center and Kemnitz Affairs, yet in the end, endorses his good friend Biagi none the less!

You just can’t make this up folks! 

As many of you know, Bob Trizna is a former Park Ridge Park District Commissioner; and like his good friend Rick Biagi, Bob also served as Board’s President.  So if anyone knows PRPD Board behind-the-curtain ins-and-outs; Bob’s the guy to pay attention to! 

Bob Trizna says Rick’s responsible! 

“Biagi has been the leader of the Park Board for much of the past four years, irrespective of where around the Board table he has sat. That means, however, that the “buck” stops at his chair when it comes to the two gaffes we discussed above; and we hold him accountable for them.”

Say it isn’t so!

Based on Trizna’s keen analysis and insider information and the fact that it’s been close to 48 hours and Mr. Biagi has not denied his friends allegations, it now appears safe for us to believe the following about Rick Biagi’s tenure as Park Ridge Park District Commissioner. 

According to Bob, Rick Biagi was:

	the power behind the thrown of both the O’Brien and Wynn-Ryan Board Presidencies – which would make O’Brien and Wynn-Ryan puppets
	the power behind “Toilet-gate” story of alleged pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial
	the idea-man behind Board’s decision to renege on 2005 PRPD/SSI reparation clause
	the power behind the O’Brien Board decision to withhold a public debate and vote UP or DOWN on a negotiated contract renewal; a decision that cost the taxpayers $10,000+
	the brains behind the whole Senior Center mess and the tens-of-thousands of taxpayer dollars in Attorneys fees alone I’m not even discussing the lost staff productivity, the loss of a highly trained award winning Senior Center Director, the confidence of Park Ridge senior community and 30 years of hard won good will and prestige.
	the brains behind the Boards decision to seize the Kemnitz Trust monies.

All those things, according to Biagi’s good friend Bob; all that lack of good judgment, all that lost money, all the good will and wasted time; are the result of four years of Biagi power-lust!

Yet, Bob Trizna, in spite of everything presented above, still believes Park Ridge citizens should reelect his friend Rick and his two running-mates. 

My question for you is:

Should Biagi, Hunst and Brandt be reelected?

 

Helen Roppel Guest Comments

As most of you know, I’ve made it a policy to allow members of Park Ridge Senior Center, Senior Services, Inc. and Park District to express themselves: on this site.  Ms. Helen Roppel attended a meeting at the Senior Center yesterday and wished to respond to information presented by PRPD Board President Rick Biagi.

Ken Butterly

Ms. Roppel’s Comment:

I attended a meeting at the Senior Center today.  The reason for the meeting was to explain the Settlement Agreement between the Park District and SSI and to answer member questions.

During the course of the meeting, I asked Mr. Biagi a two point question. 

Point #1 – If all former bequests over the last 30 years to the Senior Center were given to Senior Services Inc., why did the Park District suddenly think that the Betty Kemnitz bequest should be awarded to them? 

He was unable to answer. 

Point #2 – Why did you direct the Park District Attorney, Tom Hoffman, to place a call to the trust attorney instructing him to file a law suit to determine to whom the monies should be awarded? 

Mr. Biagi, responded that the we did not direct Tom Hoffman to contact the trust attorney. 

Later today, I was reviewing Park District Attorney, Tom Hoffman’s, billing records that had been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.  To my surprise, I found the following, which completely contradicts the answer given to me by Mr. Biagi this morning.

From 2011 Attorney Billing Records

 

For clarification, DS as referenced above, is Don Smith, the Betty Kemnitz trust attorney.  Clearly on November 27th, Tom Hoffman states that he shared his drafted letter to Don Smith with client with suggestion to file suit for direction on the Kemnitz matter.

The December 12th entry sheds light on the response to the first point of my question, which Mr. Biagi didn’t answer.  In the billing records, it is stated that after the Park District learned that SSI had plans to open another senior center using the funds from the Betty Kemnitz bequest, Don Smith was directed to file suit immediately.  It appears, the Park District didn’t really believe they deserved the money.  Apparently, their sole purpose was to stop SSI from opening another senior center with the funds.

Further, on the December 12th billing records, there was discussion to determine whether the Park District or the trust attorney, Don Smith, would file suit; and this was discussed with client.

I rest my case.

Helen Roppel

 

 

Look at you Rick! All Grown Up – Writing For Yourself On Facebook! – Part #2

In Look at you Rick! All Grown Up – Writing For Yourself On Facebook! – Part #1, I gave my opinion on the various Board Commissioner candidates and their decision to go negative again, returning to telling their unsubstantiated and discredited story of pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial.  I also presented statements written by Board President, Commissioner Rick Biagi; both on his new Facebook page as well as Biagi comments on my Blog site.

This post will continue to lay out their stories as told to me by them, via email.

Biagi Responds (Repeated)

In response to my first publishing this information on September 15, 2011 in Restroom-gate continued – Park Ridge Park District says NO lists of formal complaints of complainers exist, Mr. Bisgi wrote the following:

“Mr. Butterly:

I read some of your recent blog posts asking me to provide specificity to my accusations of personal attacks on myself and my family. You also insisted in one of your posts that you did not engage in any such activity. I beg to differ with you as your September 15, 2011 post shows that you question my (and by implication my wife’s) truthfulness: ‘Gee Ms. Wynn-Ryan! Gee Mr. Biagi! Where’s the proof to your story? Don’t even tell us it was a family member, as someone near the Board recently suggested. Have you no shame? My research went back as far as 01/01/2005. Surely, an issue this important, and one used repeatedly as a reason for your current actions, would have generated one official report or the name of one citizen offended!’ I fail to see how the existence of a report to the Executive Director or Superintendent of Recreation is dispositive of the fact that my wife was turned away twice by people in the Senior Center when attempting to use the bathroom for one of my five young children. Moreover, the fact that I was told of identical stories by a number of PR parents at various sporting events also has no bearing whatsoever on whether a report was filed. In point of fact, each of these people, including my wife, knew that they were informing an elected official of the Park District and fully anticipated that I would bring such issue to the attention of staff…no written report is needed. If you circle back to some video transcripts from prior Board meetings I am almost certain that I mentioned the issue in public session before the entire Board. You, however, are not the only person that referred to me as a liar or questioned the veracity of my statements. In fact, Barb Ignolia referred to me and Mary Wynn-Ryan as “liars” and that “we should be ashamed of ourselves” at a recent Board meeting. I also believe that Helen Roppel and Millie O’Brien engaged in similar discourse in their various posts to your blog, PRU and to the local papers. If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, I would be happy to talk with you by phone or in person. In fact, it might be worthwhile for you to appear at a Board meeting where you can address the Board en banc. However, I will not engage in further discussion of this topic on your blog where “anonymous” posters can continue to disparage my credibility and character and/or that of my family under the shroud of anonymity.”

The email string that follows represents the remainder of the communication at that time.

Summary

My Response “As you can see, I received your email. There, you suggested your "wife was turned away twice by people in the Senior Center when attempting to use the bathroom for one of my five young children." I have no idea when these alleged incidents occurred. Can you tell me what season and year you're talking about?” Rick Biagi Response “The two incidents my wife referred to took place somewhere in the summer of either 2007 or 2008. In both instances, she was at the playground adjacent to the Senior Center with my kids. The incidents involving parents with kids in the sports programs were reported to me in the spring/summers of 2010 and 2011. I am not sure when each of the various incidents occurred.” At this point it should be noted that then Board President Mary Wynn-Ryan entered the picture.  Mr Biagi had copied her, and this is what she had to say in response: Mary Wynn-Ryan Response to Rick – Copy to me. “Thank you, Rick. People don't have to agree about priorities but they cross the line when they outright, and repeatedly, call others liars because they don't like how reports make them look. As you know, my daughter was a gradeschool-aged Girl Scout when, after her troop sang Christmas carols to the members of the Senior Center, they were told by their leader she'd been advised they could not use the bathroom at the Senior Center but had to wait until they got to the Community Center. My daughter has offered to come and state as much in public, but given the hateful and outrageous behavior and statements we've experienced, there's no way I'd let her. ‘Shame’ belongs a lot of places, but not on our families.” My Response to Mary Wynn-Ryan “Thank you for informing me (through your email to Rick Biagi) of your daughters experience at the Senior Center. Unfortunately, your emailed account did not specify when this alleged incident occurred. Can you tell me what year you're talking about?” Mary Wynn-Ryan Response “I'm estimating about 12 years ago or so; exactly when doesn't stand out because the unwritten rule was well entrenched by then; this only caught my attention because it seemed especially churlish to refuse children in uniform who had just performed in the spirit of giving.” My Response to Rick Biagi & Mary Wynn-Ryan “A couple days ago I received emails from each of you describing your family member(s) experiences relating to the Park Ridge Senior Center bathrooms prior to PRPD’s takeover of the “Center” on 01/01/2011. Your comments, like similar comments already expressed by other community members who wished to challenge or clarify previously stated information or facts (from within or outside the blogisphere), should have been issued by you directly on Butterly on Senior Issues as “comments”. Both of you however, chose to express your sentiments to me via email, and therein, lies the problem. I am of the belief that you both fully intended for me to publish your emails as a part of my postings. That cannot be. I can however, publish them (in their entirety) as comments under your names and intend to do so shortly unless I am advised otherwise. Do you have a problem with this plan and if so, what do you advise?” Rick Biagi Response “I have no problem with you posting my comments on your blog. However, as I stated in my earlier message, I will not engage in a back-and-forth dialogue on your blog where people are able to launch baseless and often false allegations against me or others under the cloak of anonymity.” Mary Wynn-Ryan Response “I have no problem with your publishing my comment under my name, but I do have a question: Why? You would do your friends a favor in the court of public opinion by not continuing to highlight this issue. Numerous Park Ridge residents know what VP Biagi and I said is true, based on their own and their families' experiences over the years -- and the people at the Senior Center who don't like us won't believe us anyway. Your earlier idea is more constructive. Let's move on. Let folks decide to give the new approach and staff a chance or not, as they prefer. Life's too short! I echo VP Biagi's decision: No back-and-forth in a name-calling environment from me. I hope you are ready to do as you planned and move on, but regardless, I am.”

After these communications I considered the matter closed and moved on, since I believed further discussion on the part of all parties would be unnecessarily hurtful.

But!

Just when I thought I could call the game over, Mr. Biagi swore by his tattoo!

Obviously Rick, in my opinion, didn’t seem to get that an attempt  to destroy the reputations of one formally highly valued long-term employee, Ms. Teresa Grodaky and current Commissioner Steven Vile, might generate some serious blowback. 

On  January 3, 2012 and again on January 5, 2012 Rick sent out an email explaining his actions and motives.  January 3, 2012 – no data file attached.  January 5, 2012 – data file attached.

Out of curiosity, I made a side-by-side comparison showing identical email text.  As there was no variation, I guess Rick just got a little trigger-happy!

Text of January 5, 2012 email Titled Senior Center/Grodsky!

“From: Rick Biagi Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:04 PM To: Rick Biagi Subject: Senior Center/Grodsky My name is Rick Biagi and I currently serve as the Vice President of the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, Board of Commissioners. I was elected by the taxpayers of Park Ridge to serve as a Commissioner in 2009. My current term ends in 2013. I am speaking in my capacity as one elected Commissioner and in no way represent or warrant that my statements are those of the entire Board of Commissioners. For the better part of the last eighteen months, I have witnessed a situation involving the Park Ridge Senior Center spiral completely out of control, for reasons that have totally evaded me up until November of 2011. I have been subjected to personal attacks by members of the Park Ridge Senior Center as has my wife. My character and credibility has been brought into question by these same people, as has the character and credibility of some of my fellow elected Commissioners and certain members of the staff. I have seen false accusations hurled at elected officials and staff of the Park District by members of the Senior Center and the Board of Senior Services, Inc. and I have seen vicious rumors and lies promulgated by these same individuals. In recent days, I have been informed of a vicious verbal assault on a member of the Park District management as well, in which a police report was apparently filed. In good conscience, I can no longer stand by quietly and allow these rumors, lies and ad hominem attacks continue, without setting the record straight, once and for all. In the following, I will attempt to address a number of the false accusations, rumors and/or outright lies that were promulgated, with facts that I can personally attest to in my capacity as an elected official. Moreover, I intend to discuss the substance of this communication with the entire Board at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on Thursday, January 5, 2012. Q. Was Teresa Grodsky fired? A. No, she tendered her resignation to Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle Q. Did the Executive Director induce Teresa Grodsky to retire? A. Yes, to the extent that Ms. Grodsky was made aware of certain issues relating to her performance and was strongly encouraged to retire in light of the alleged transgressions. Q. Was a formal termination of Ms. Grodsky being considered by the Executive Director? A. Yes Q. Why was formal termination of Ms. Grodsky being considered? A. In the autumn of 2011, it came to the attention of the Executive Director and the District’s Attorney that confidential communications between and among members of the Park Board, its Executive Director and/or its Legal Counsel were being given by Commissioner Steven Vile to Teresa Grodsky and other members of the Senior Services Inc. (SSI) Board. Some of those communications were covered by the attorney-client privilege. All of the communications dealt with internal policy discussions and/or legal strategy as it related to the ongoing operation of the Senior Center and/or the negotiations between the Board, the PRRPD and SSI. The emails also revealed that Ms. Grodsky, Commissioner Vile and certain members of the SSI Board and at least one of their legal counsel were actively sharing and commenting on the privileged and confidential communications from the Board/PRRPD and/or the Park District attorney. It is my understanding that Ms. Grodsky was questioned in detail by the Executive Director regarding her participation in these actions and that, following the advice of the District's Legal Counsel as well as the counsel for the District’s insurer (PDRMA), the Executive Director would seek Ms. Grodsky’s agreement to retire. At no time during these initial investigations or consultations with Legal Counsel was the Board, en banc, apprised of the situation. It was not until the November Board meeting that the Board was consulted in closed session, with Counsel for the District and PDRMA present. Copies of all relevant emails are being forwarded to the Park Ridge Herald Advocate and the Park Ridge Journal-Topics newspapers. Q. Prior to October/November 2011, was there any indication that the Executive Director or other staff wanted to terminate Ms. Grodsky for cause or for any other reason. A. No. Q. Was Ms. Grodsky given compensation in return for her agreement to retire/resign. A. It was agreed that she would be able to continue to be employed by the PRRPD until January 1, 2012, in order to achieve certain employment time periods related to pension calculations. When Ms. Grodsky signed the Supplemental Severance Agreement on 1/2/2012, she was entitled to get 4 weeks vacation time and 4 personal days, which will take her through 2/6/12 and from then until 3/30/2012 she will receive $11,065.40 in pay; she has acknowledged that this is more money, compensation and benefits than she would be entitled to receive from the Park District otherwise. As of 1/2/2012, she has been placed on personal leave and will perform no further work for the District. Q. Was there a concerted effort by the Board to have Ms. Grodsky induced to retire? A. No. There were several individual Commissioners who did not oppose losing her as an employee. However, the hiring/firing of employees other than the Executive Director is generally not a Board matter. It would, in my opinion, take the action of the entire Board in open session to vote affirmatively to direct the Executive Director to terminate the employment of a particular employee; however, such a direction is not necessary, as the Executive Director has the power and authority to hire, fire, or otherwise negotiate (within certain limits) the termination or departure from employment of any subordinate employee when warranted. During my tenure the Board has never instructed the Executive Director to terminate an employee. Q. Was the Board briefed in closed session on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Grodsky’s departure? A. Yes. Q. Did the Board take any action related to Ms. Grodsky following those closed session discussions? A. No. Q. At any time did the Board instruct the Executive Director or any other staff member to close the Senior Center? A. No. Q. Did the issue of the Betty Kemnitz trust/bequest have anything at all to do with Ms. Grodsky’s departure? A. No. Q. Is the Board and/or the PRRPD District involved in any legal action regarding the Betty Kemnitz trust/bequest? A. The Park District Attorney has been informed by the attorney for the trustee of the Kemnitz Trust that he will be filing such a lawsuit imminently for the purpose of having a court determination made as to the rightful recipient of the approximately $335,000 bequest to the Senior Center. It is anticipated that the Illinois Attorney General's office will be a party to the lawsuit, as overseer of charitable foundations and the like. Q. Did Commissioner Vile have the authority to share attorney-client privileged documents with the SSI Board and/or Ms. Grodsky? A. No, and by doing so, Commissioner Vile not only arguably waived the privilege, without authorization, belonging to the Board and the Park District but he also waived the privilege belonging to 38,000 taxpayers. Q. Is the Park District and the Board committed to maintaining vibrant programming and socializing activities for seniors at 100 S. Western? A. Yes. Rick Biagi”

The same night, Rich publicly regurgitated the email and presented it and the data-file as part of the official Park Ridge Park District meeting minutes.  From the Board Minutes – January 5, 2012:

The fact that you’ve read Parts 1 & 2 means you’re somewhat interested where this line of thought is going. 

Well, you’ll just have to wait until Part #3 to find out!

End part #2

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

 

Senior Center Seniors – Carla Needs Our Help!

 

Senior Center Seniors! Our mutual friend, Carla Owen is running for Maine Township High School District #207 Board Membership! You know who she is! You know her as an intelligent and honorable woman!  You’ve experienced her steadfastness and integrity! Carla has given her all to Senior Center Seniors.  For the last few months she’s served as interim Board Member and now she wants to “officially” share her time and talents on behalf of District #207 students and taxpayers. We need people of this caliber on that Board; and she can represent the District in a way that will make all of us proud! I am a District #207 taxpayer, and I’m urging all you to vote for our friend!

Look at you Rick! All Grown Up – Writing For Yourself On Facebook! – Part #1

I guess Rick Biagi’s finally grown up and wants to share his fantasy's with his friends on the internet; and on Facebook no less! 

Here: Link to Rick’s Facebook site!

It’s a hoot!

Here’s a guy who’s gone from leader to whiner in only four years!

Now, this transformation didn’t come on to him suddenly.  One could see the metamorphous happening for over the last two years.  First with the Senior Center; later with the Grodsky/Vile Data-dump matter.

Unfortunately for Park Ridge Senior Center members, the change didn’t happen to him alone. 

Based upon recently received campaign literature, Mr. Hunst and Mr. Brandt have also been infected.

To go from potential strong civic leader to pathetic little  politician in such a short time, is to my mind, astounding. 

Rick’s Facebook Page

I went to Rick’s Facebook page and was sorely disappointed.

Where’s the Rick I expected; a man who touts his “accomplishment’s”, first as three-year Vice President Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners and then as it’s latest President?  That Rick wasn’t there, or at least not much of him. 

Of course, in order to tout ones accomplishments, one first has to have real accomplishment's to tout.

Instead of focusing on the positive, Rick, like his two election teammates, has chosen to go negative; has chosen to return to telling a unsubstantiated and discredited story of pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial.  One brave senior two years ago called it a lie, if recall!

Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me!

I’ve always found that statement to be true, especially for those who are confident of who they are, and what they’re about.

Park Board incumbent candidate (politician) Biagi has a problem with upset citizens referring to him (and Ms. Wynn-Ryan)as: “delusional”, “spineless” and an “intellectual cripple”.

I would like to add five additional words to describe Board President Biagi:

FORTY-TWO-YEAR-OLD WHINER!

And Rick should know, no one likes a whiner; especially whining local politicians who use their families as pawns to tell unsubstantiated stories about alleged toilet-denial by old people.

What does Mr Biagi now have to say about those seniors and their supporters?

From Rick Biagi’s Facebook Page 

Mr. Biagi writes:

“My colleagues and I on the Park Board (as well as our family members) have been subject to some rather vicious attacks over the past two years by members of the special interest group behind the Senior Center litigation. I’ve personally been called “delusional”, “spineless” and an “intellectual cripple” by these very people. My wife Sue and I were called liars at an open Board meeting because we... dared to share a story about being refused entrance to the Senior Center when one of our small children needed to use the bathroom while playing in the adjacent playground. But my favorite was when I was told, to my face, that my actions as a Commissioner involving the Senior Center caused a number of seniors to become so depressed that they were contemplating suicide. Click ‘Like’ if you want to bring civility back to the Senior Center and the Park District.”

Rick went on to write:

“It's really wonderful to have to explain to my five young children why people are saying that their Daddy is doing things that make people want to kill themselves. That's a conversation every parent loves to have.” And: “Thanks Ben - it is just amazing to me that neighbors in our town can spout such hatred and venom.”

For the record, I have asked Mr. Biagi twice to come to this forum to discuss those Park Board actions under Biagi/Wynn-Ryan  leadership. 

To date he’s refused!

Since Mr. Biagi, Mr. Brandt and Mr. Hunst chose to regurgitate their sordid tale, I now find myself reluctantly having to discuss this trash in detail; and of course, I’ll display the documented facts as I’ve found them as I have in the past. 

One last thing: the local politicians I’ve known over the years would never knowing place their wives and children in a position of ridicule or potential embarrassment for political gain. 

Why Rick and his friends continue to do so is beyond my understanding!

Mr. Biagi brought his family into this mess by telling and repeating his allegation, and I suggest, he alone bears all responsibility for any negativity experienced by his wife and/or his children.

No documents exist.

Mr. Biagi, Mr. Hunst, Mr. Brandt as well as VP & former President Mary Wynn-Ryan and their minions, continue to insist that pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial occurred; and base their story on their allegations of mothers of children with “wet pants”, and that these same allegers were denied free and unfettered access to the 100 S. Western building.

Folks, PRPD Board says no records of toilet denial exist!  Would Maryanne Lucarz break the law and lie? Not on your life!

FOIA 110909-001

Email Summary

Freedom of Information Request Requested Information “Please provide copies of all citizen generated formal complaint documents associated with the use of Park Ridge Senior Center bathrooms between 01/01/2005 through 09/01/2011.” Maryanne Lucarz Response “The citizen complaints in regards to the Senior Center bathrooms were oral complaints, there are no written copies to provide.” My Response “Is there a written list containing the names of those citizens who issued "oral complaints" relative to this issue? If so, I will be glad to FOIA that list should you wish.” Maryanne Lucarz Response “There is no list of names.”

Biagi Responds

In response to my first publishing this information on September 15, 2011 in Restroom-gate continued – Park Ridge Park District says NO lists of formal complaints of complainers exist, Mr. Bisgi wrote the following:

“Mr. Butterly:

I read some of your recent blog posts asking me to provide specificity to my accusations of personal attacks on myself and my family. You also insisted in one of your posts that you did not engage in any such activity. I beg to differ with you as your September 15, 2011 post shows that you question my (and by implication my wife’s) truthfulness: ‘Gee Ms. Wynn-Ryan! Gee Mr. Biagi! Where’s the proof to your story? Don’t even tell us it was a family member, as someone near the Board recently suggested. Have you no shame? My research went back as far as 01/01/2005. Surely, an issue this important, and one used repeatedly as a reason for your current actions, would have generated one official report or the name of one citizen offended!’ I fail to see how the existence of a report to the Executive Director or Superintendent of Recreation is dispositive of the fact that my wife was turned away twice by people in the Senior Center when attempting to use the bathroom for one of my five young children. Moreover, the fact that I was told of identical stories by a number of PR parents at various sporting events also has no bearing whatsoever on whether a report was filed. In point of fact, each of these people, including my wife, knew that they were informing an elected official of the Park District and fully anticipated that I would bring such issue to the attention of staff…no written report is needed. If you circle back to some video transcripts from prior Board meetings I am almost certain that I mentioned the issue in public session before the entire Board. You, however, are not the only person that referred to me as a liar or questioned the veracity of my statements. In fact, Barb Ignolia referred to me and Mary Wynn-Ryan as “liars” and that “we should be ashamed of ourselves” at a recent Board meeting. I also believe that Helen Roppel and Millie O’Brien engaged in similar discourse in their various posts to your blog, PRU and to the local papers. If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, I would be happy to talk with you by phone or in person. In fact, it might be worthwhile for you to appear at a Board meeting where you can address the Board en banc. However, I will not engage in further discussion of this topic on your blog where “anonymous” posters can continue to disparage my credibility and character and/or that of my family under the shroud of anonymity.”

End part #1

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

The whole document was 49 pages long - the misinformation in question was on page six.

or: to FREELOAD or not to FREELOAD, that is the question!

Park Ridge Park Board and some of their supporters have portrayed those who disagree with them over Senior Center and Centennial Park pool issues, as special interest groups and/or freeloaders. 

Lately, Park Board members, some running for reelection, have gone back to retelling their unsubstantiated and discredited “Restroom-gate” tripe.  These shameless smalltime politicians have also fallen back to denigrating the 30-year PRPD/SSI Senior Center public/private partnership, by calling the pre-2011 Senior Center a  “clubhouse” and belittling some of those who worked there; not to mention the good work of prior Park District Commissioners.  

Decenters to Board actions (that appears to include me), are now being referred to by some paranoid PRPD supporters, as a cabal: “a small group of secret plotters; a group, a gang, a ring, a plot, a scheme, a conspiracy, a collusion.”

Recent Examples

Completely flummoxed PRPD Board members and their groupies now mantra:

	those who disagree with “the Board” are only interested in themselves and their own personal gain
	those who disagree with “the Board” don’t have the publics or taxpayers best interest at heart; and that only “the Board”, are the one’s that do
	those who disagree with the wishes of “the Board” are “special interests” operating out of anger and for personal gain.

But what about the Board’s personal gain?

Warning: This is going to be a long post!

September 20, 2012

Most Park Ridge Park District voters don’t attend Park Board meetings.  Most don’t read Board Meeting Minutes; and definitely most don’t watch Board Meeting Videos; and because they don’t, they miss opportunities to observe first hand the actions of their elected officials.

The main topics for discussion that night, based on the Official Park Board Meeting Minutes For Sept. 20, 2012, were the:

	Land Acquisition Committee Report
	Historical Society Proposal
	Kemnitz Litigation – Update.

Two other seemingly unimportant Commissioners Internal Policies and Bylaws Manual policy amendments were also on the agenda.

	Policy 3.02 - Opportunities for Development
	Policy 3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

These changes were scheduled to be voted on late in the meeting.

I didn’t know about the proposed changes until the “Board Packet” was uploaded to PRPD’s website weeks later.  Since then, I’ve started paying more attention to the “Board Packet”.

What is the “Board Packet”?  The “Board Packet” is a file that normally includes all the background information required to support the meetings agenda.

Included in the October 25, 2012 “Board Packet” were Mel’s minutes of prior meetings, including, the then unaccepted but eventually approved meeting minutes for the September 20, 2012 Regular Meeting.

The Board Secretary, who’s job it is to oversee the accurate chronicling of Board Meeting activities, released the following Board Meeting Minute entries:

#1: 3.02 Policy – Opportunities for Development

#2: 3.03 Policy – Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

Based upon the entry for “3.02 Policy” above, it’s unclear if Board members Brandt, Hunst, Ryan, Thillens and Biagi approved:

	Policy 3.02 - Opportunities for Development
	Policy 3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities.

So what did they approve?

3.02 - Opportunities for Development

Policy before change.

Proposed change.

Note: Sorry the text is so hard to read.

Simply put, the policy change would now require PRPD to pay full Per Deim costs associated with Commissioners attending PRPD required functions instead of one-half the cost.

I am sure you’ll agree with me, that Commissioners should not have to pay out-of-pocket to attend Park Board required conferences or training sessions. 

The motion passed with limited discussion!

From my video viewing notes:

Mary Wynn-Ryan proposed to amend 3.02 Opportunities for Development policy. Click here: video #5 of 5 @ 23:36 minutes into the video.

3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

Note: The original policy and proposed changes presented below are very long and somewhat difficult to read. For your convenience I have presented: “Proposed 3.03 Policy Changes – Full Version -Side-by-Side” further on. To get to the heart of the matter skip on to: “AT THAT POINT…”.

Copy Policy 3.03 from Policy Manual before proposed change.

Copy proposed changes from 09-20-12 “Board Packet”.

Proposed 3.03 Policy Changes – Full Version -Side-by-Side:

Original

Proposed Change

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities The Board of Commissioners is charged by law with the responsibility of managing all the offices and properties of the Park District and with planning, establishing and maintaining recreational programs and facilities. Pursuant to these directives, the Board oversees the facilities, grounds, programs and employees of the Park District. In order to facilitate the Board in the performance of its duties it is important that the individual Park Commissioners not be deterred in their use of the grounds, facilities and programs of the Park District so that they can directly inspect, evaluation, observe and assess same. Commissioners availing themselves of this opportunity are encouraged to periodically report their experience in writing to the Director of Parks and Recreation if they so choose. It is therefore declared to be the official policy of the Park District that the incumbent Park Commissioners shall be entitled to the free use of the facilities and grounds of the Park District and to free participation in all programs of the Park District where there is sufficient enrollment to cover program costs of the Park District (program supplies, etc.) shall be paid by the Park Commissioner. In revenue-producing facilities and programs where costs are computed on hourly rates, a Park Commissioner shall pay the hourly rate charged, or the direct costs, whichever is less. In cases where a particular program is not being filled on a regular basis no charge shall be assessed. Regarding the status of Commissioners occupying positions of paid employees or acting as a contractor for the District, the Illinois Compiled Statute clearly states that no Commissioner can be directly or indirectly involved as an employee or contractor, except to the extent permitted under the Fraudulent and Corrupt Practices Act. Individual members of the Board shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending meetings or in making trips on official business for the Park District when so authorized by the Board. If Board members are elected or selected for Park and Recreation Association involvement, the District will pay expenses if the Association does not. Commissioners will serve as such without compensation.

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities The Board of Commissioners is charged by law with the responsibility of managing all the offices and properties of the Park District and with planning, establishing and maintaining recreational programs and facilities. Pursuant to these directives, the Board oversees the facilities, grounds, programs and employees of the Park District. In order to facilitate the Board in the performance of its duties it is important that the individual Park Commissioners not be deterred in their use of the grounds, facilities and programs of the Park District so that they can directly inspect, evaluation, observe and assess same. Commissioners availing themselves of this opportunity are encouraged to periodically report their experience in writing to the Executive Director, if they so choose. It is therefore declared to be the official policy of the Park District that the incumbent Park Commissioners and Commissioner's Immediate family members' shall be eligible for complimentary family memberships in District facilities and programs which include season passes. Participation limited to immediate family members. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall mean the Commissioner's spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner and dependent children residing with the Commissioner. All incidental program expenses such as supplies, equipment and food shall be paid by the Commissioner. Regarding the status of Commissioners occupying positions of paid employees or acting as a contractor for the District, the Illinois Compiled Statute clearly states that no Commissioner can be directly or indirectly involved as an employee or contractor, except to the extent permitted under the Fraudulent and Corrupt Practices Act. Individual members of the Board shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending meetings or in making trips on official business for the Park District when so authorized by the Board. If Board members are elected or selected for Park and Recreation Association involvement, the District will pay expenses if the Association does not. Commissioners will serve as such without compensation.

From my video viewing notes:

Mary Wynn-Ryan proposed to amend 3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities policy. Click here: video #5 of 5 @ 40:36 minutes into the meeting.

At that point, Board’s Attorney chimed in:

“I would ask not to have a second yet. um - I have a problem with this; and I hadn’t reviewed it until this evening. Always feel like a skunk at a birthday party when I have comment on this {unintelligable} ah we had {or have} a little discussion – can you defer this…”

So, what got Board’s Attorney’s attention? Well,I can’t say for sure, but let me tell you what caught my eye!

Original

Proposed Change

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities “…incumbent Park Commissioners shall be entitled to the free use of the facilities and grounds of the Park District…”

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities “…the incumbent Park Commissioners and Commissioner's Immediate family members' shall be eligible for complimentary family memberships in District facilities and programs which include season passes. Participation limited to immediate family members. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall mean the Commissioner's spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner and dependent children residing with the Commissioner.”

Can you imagine the potential political fallout for this politically-brain-dead Park Board, had this change become public; that in the midst of this deep recession, while:

• they were planning to spend $7,000,000 in Bonds for Centennial Pool replacement and upgrade,
• they were proposing a NEW $13,200,000 land acquisition Bond Referendum,
• some of their over-taxed neighbors were having to cut back on family expenses?

Park Ridge Park Board Members almost voted themselves and their families; up to thirteen family members in the case of two Commissioners alone, FREE MEMBERSHIP to the Community [fitness] Center activities, golf range and more, when ordinary Park Ridge taxpayers have to pay the going rate.

Now that’s chutzpah!

Had Board’s Attorney not intervened, had he not felt “like a skunk at a birthday party”, had he not put a stop to Board’s insensitive goofiness, Park Ridge taxpayers would now be paying for an even bigger and unnecessary FREEBEE than they already are.

Now we know why they need the attorney present at every Board meeting!

Get ready for the excuses guys! 

Get ready to hear:

“we never read it” or “we didn’t vote for it” or “we tabled it like we tabled the 2010 Senior Center Contract proposal”;

or of course, the ever-popular “everybody else does it”!

Whatever they say, they can’t cheat their video.  It happened; and had it not been for Board’s Attorney’s common sense, I have no doubt the amended policy would have passed! 

Had it not been for Mel not catching the mistake; had it not been for his fellow Commissioners not reading the material presented on page 6 of 49, the mistake would not have been published; I would not have seen it and you would not now know about the FREEBEE!

Trizna says he never took the FREEBEE!

When I first learned of the current FREEBEE provision within Policy 3.03, I decided to ask my fellow blogger, Park Ridge’s very own Public Watchdog, Bob Trizna what he knew. Bob was once a Commissioner and President of the Park Board.

Bob told me, during his eight years on “the Board”, he refused on principle, to take advantage of the FREEBEE; and of his unsuccessful attempts to persuade fellow Commissioners to change their policy.

Sometime in the future…

Now, with this possible Policy change or something like it lurking out there in the future should the same Commissioners be reelected; will Mr. Trizna finally come out publicly, on his blog or mine, against the continuance of this unnecessary, unconscionable; and I must say, un-neighborly FREEBEE?

Could it be any wonder these guys might want stay on this Board?

Well, something needs to change folks!

It’s time to bring the openness the public deserves to the Board Meeting process.  Commissioners Internal Policies and Manual Bylaws changes need to be:

publicly announced, formally read and publicly displayed well ahead of Board’s official proposal, discussion and vote properly presented within Park Board Meeting Minutes, so the public would know the content of what was voted on and the rules under which Board members operate.

Commissioners Internal Policies and Manual Bylaw changes need to be presented in a way that facilitates, at least the image, of genuine openness!

Other Park & School Boards do it; PRPD’s Board should do it also!

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

Always thinking of Park Ridge taxpayers first!

Seems like Park Ridge Park District Commissioner Mel Thillens and his “Parks Legacy” friends would rather take their Parks Legacy Election Rally business out of town!

What is it Mel?

Houlihans isn’t Irish enough for ya?

A word of advice Sport.

If you want to make friends and influence voters in your own town, spend your donated campaign money where your bread is buttered - in Park Ridge!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

Don Corleone couldn’t have said it better!

“Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!”

That’s how I felt when I received an email from this man last Saturday.

Board Commissioner Steven Hunst

MBA, MS, CPA, CMA, CEBS

The Email.

Mr. Hunst is part of this team of Park Ridge Park District  incumbent candidates!

As you can see, between them, these three claim to be  experienced consensus building experts; and based upon the Hunst email, Senior Center constituent bashers and tellers of tall tales! 

What points did experienced consensus building expert Hunst make?

First Point

“There's a very real threat to all of our Park District initiatives from a handful of candidates who are proud to say they are a special interest who believe the most urgent need at the Park District is putting the Park Ridge Senior Center entirely in the control of a private group.”

Surely experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt know Park Ridge Park District Senior Center has been under the complete control of the Park Ridge Park District since January 1, 2011; and that the “private group”, Senior Services, Inc. are currently negotiating to open their own NEW SENIOR CENTER as we speak.

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – Bullshit!

Mr. Hunst went on to write:

“For decades that group, under the umbrella of "fundraising," was allowed to: Control prior staff at the facility Run up an annual deficit of over $160,000 per year Refuse access to families, even for use of the washrooms, in a public facility paid for by all the taxpayers.”

Second Point

“That group…”

“That group”, Senior Services, Inc., is a 501 (c3) charity, the purpose of which is:

Those words come from the Senior Center Newsletter dated: March 1984.  The newsletter goes on to say:

Since that newsletter was written, Senior Services, Inc. went on to fund-raise over $1 million to upgrade the 100 S. Western building in support of Park Ridge’s unique public/private partnership.  A good portion of those dollars were donated by Senior Center members, themselves.

The working documents that controlled the relationship were contracts.  These contracts were clearly not one-sided affairs and gave no side a free ride.

Third Point

Who controlled “prior staff at the facility”?

Copy of PRPD/SSI Senior Center Contracts

As you noticed, the contracts specified the relationship of the partners.  The Park District provided the building and ancillary support services (including a Senior Center Coordinator, a Custodian, a Program Assistant and a Registrar and Part-Time Staff) and SSI/Senior Center Senior Senate did the rest.

Just for the record, the contracts specify that “all ‘full-time’ and ‘part-time’ employees of the Senior Center shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District and shall be subject of the provisions of the Personnel Policy Manual of the District.”

Experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, as well as the other sitting Park Commissioners, clearly know what the dynamics of the relationship were and that the Park District alone, controlled the activities of their staff prior to January 1, 2011 takeover of the Senior Center.

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – BS!

Are we starting to see a trend?

Fourth Point

Mr. Hunst went on to say, the “group” ran: “up an annual deficit of over $160,000 per year”.

Experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, know that the $160,000 “deficit” was a projection made in 2010 by the Ochromowicz staff to be used as a negotiating lever during the contract negotiating process.  As a matter of fact, no other analysis of this type was performed that year; not even for the alleged revenue-loosing Community Center.

A budget projection is not a fact!

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – BS!

Fifth Point

Next, those experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, believe the “group” refused: “access to families, even for use of the washrooms, in a public facility paid for by all the taxpayers.”

More BS!

Why, why, why?

Why would Mr. Hunst, MBA, MS, CPA, CMA, CEBS, twice Board Member and part of the experienced consensus building experts Team Biari, Brandt & Hunst, stupidly bring up this already discredited accusation again? 

Makes no sense to me!

However, his doing so, now demands further “Toilet-Gate” discussion.

Sixth Point

Mr. Hunst wrote:

“Since professional management and responsible Park Board returned the facility to taxpayer control over two years ago, the place is clean, attractive, cared for and welcoming, both to seniors on a daily basis and to other residents as needed.”

Need I remind Mr. Hunst and his two associates that his/their Park District administrations were always in control of the buildings; by contract.  The Park District was always responsible for maintenance and cleanliness; and whatever level of attractiveness the prior Park District Administrations and Boards imposed on their partners were the responsibility of the Park District.

Contract Page #1:

“District shall be responsible for all reasonable repairs to the buildings and surrounding grounds, not required by reason of Corporation’s acts of omissions.”

So, if Mr. Hunst, Mr. Biagi or Mr. Brandt still have a problem with the maintenance and cleanliness of 100 S. Western building prior to their acquiring control of the Senior Center organization on January 1, 2011, might I suggest they have a heart-to-heart talk with their friends and prior Commissioners.

Futher, as you will clearly see in line #4:

“District retains the right to utilize such facilities for other uses when Senior Center activities are not scheduled.”

Doesn’t look to me like the Senior’s had “exclusive use” as some Board officials like to say!

Seventh Point

“It's essential that we keep the Senior Center in taxpayer hands, not a private club's, and keep the Park Board's focus on all of the other projects and renovations the Park District needs to provide what you and your family want in the future.”

The Park Ridge Park District Senior Center is now and will, so long as PRPD wishes to have one, be in the complete control of the Park District.

There is not now and there never was, a “private club” known as the Park Ridge Senior Center!

There once was however, a public/private partnership under that name; one that lasted 30 years; an arrangement that will never be again!

For additional background read:

	I swear by my tattoo – Part One
	I swear by my tattoo – Part Two
	A funny thing happened on the way to writing: I swear by my tattoo – Part Three!

Finally

Current Commissioners Biagi, Brandt and Hunst are running as a team; in part, because they are like-minded, wrong-headed and in my opinion, delusional on this subject; and apparently they’ve chosen to share their mutually-held positions about the Senior Center and their former partners with all of us, primarily, because I believe, these three have no record of unblemished accomplishment to point to.

And just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.