“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:
|
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:
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.
21 comments:
Ninth point (or is it 8th??):
Mr. Hunst was wasting his time going after your vote. You do not live in PR and therefore cannot vote in the upcoming election for the Park Board.
Congratulations! All of your e-mails to board members has landed you on a broadcast e-mail list!! Bet that makes ya feel special!
Anon: March 12, 2013 1:52PM;
Yes, I too was thinking Mr. Hunst was wasting his time sending me this email. Except of course, he was sending it to the “opinion leader here in town”; and being the helpful kind of guy I am, I thought it time he understood the consequences of telling unsubstantiated tall tales for political gain, as he and Ms. Wynn-Ryan did during the 2011 election cycle.
And yes Anon, it is true; I have no vote. However, I do have a dog in the hunt. You see, I was a paid-up member of that pre-2011 Senior Center he was referring to; and therefore, consider it my right to speak on that subject.
You wrote: “Congratulations! All of your e-mails to board members has landed you on a broadcast e-mail list!!”
Well, if that’s true, my luck must be changing and I need to get me a LOTTO ticket; since I directed only one or two emails to the Board over the last two years.
Finally, you’ll notice I didn’t endorse anyone. It’s up to Park Ridge Park District voters to determine the kind of representation they deserve. If pointing out the commonly-held position of Mr. Hunst, Mr. Biagi and Mr. Brand; and their use of unsubstantiated tall-tales to garner votes upsets you; I guess you’ll just have to get over it!
"I didn't endorse anyone." I just trash those with an excellent track record of serving ALL Park Ridge residents, including a vast majority of seniors. There are thousands of seniors in town who don't use the place and hundreds who do but who are relieved the cabal that was allowed to run rampant in a public facility are no longer allowed to do so. For decades its so-called manager took a paycheck from the public and kept the place, starting with her own office, dirty, dishevelled unaccountable. You can blame the poor floor mopper but the "manager" was there the whole time. Just this week more anecdotes are surfacing about people with NO connection to the current Park Board whose young children were forbidden to use the Senior Center washrooms in the past decade. Spend your energies helping the cabal set up, staff, and fund and maintain THEIR own club and leave the rest of the seniors to enjoy the better-than-ever Park Ridge Park District Senior Center.
Anon: March 13, 2013 12:50PM;
Part 1 of 2
You wrote: “’I didn't endorse anyone.’ I just trash those with an excellent track record of serving ALL Park Ridge residents, including those with an excellent track record of serving ALL Park Ridge residents, including a vast majority of seniors.”
My response: Thank you for getting my quote right. I didn’t endorse anyone. What about you? Is it true you’re endorsing the Phillips – Bende - Vile ticket?
I didn’t “trash those with an excellent track record of serving ALL Park Ridge residents, including a vast majority of seniors”. I set the record straight – displaying facts derived from public records. Having to deal with factual responses to Park Board fantasy is hard for some on the Board or apparently, people like you, to deal with. So I can understand you’re being tightly wrapped up into a ball over this.
As to the “vast majority of seniors”, I don’t think the “vast majority of seniors” gives a hoot about what goes on at the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center, let alone the Park District. So, proving that “vast majority of seniors” statement of yours is going to be difficult.
You wrote: There are thousands of seniors in town who don't use the place and hundreds who do but who are relieved the cabal that was allowed to run rampant in a public facility are no longer allowed to do so.”
My response: As to the “thousands of seniors in town who don’t use the place”, it is a shame this Park Board cannot persuade them to join their merry band. Yes, there are “hundreds who do” but that’s because, up to January 1, 2011, they were part of the old Senior Center; and as of this moment, they have nowhere else to go. Of course, that problem will be resolved soon!
There are however, hundreds less calling themselves Park Ridge Park District Senior Center members, than there were under the old name only two years ago; and to date, there appears to be no clear plan by Park Board or Staff to remedy that.
Anon: you forgot to complain about the downturn in participation rates for activities that used to be filled prior to January 1, 2011, or the continuing lack of volunteerism once the pride of the old Park Ridge Senior Center.
As to the alleged “cabal”, there is none; unless you are referring to the no-longer-acknowledged Senior Services, Inc (SSI) or Park Ridge Senior Center Senate. These entities still represent more than three-quarters of the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center membership.
Is that the “cabal” you’re referring to?
Anon: March 13, 2013 12:50PM;
Part 2 of 2
You wrote: “For decades its [Senior Center] so-called manager took a paycheck from the public and kept the place, starting with her own office, dirty, dishevelled unaccountable”
My response: You used the derogatory “so-called” when referring to Ms. Teresa Grodsky. That’s not nice!
The award-winning Senior Center Manager, Ms Grodsky, if you’ll recall, was an employee of up to thirty separate Park Ridge Park Board Leaders and their Executive Directors. As an employee of the Park Ridge Park District, just like the current Executive Director – Gayle Mountcastle; Superintendent of Recreation – April Armer; Senior Center Manager – Jennifer Elliott or Recreation Supervisor – Marissa Moravec; Ms. Grodsky received appropriate payment for services rendered. Since you appear not to approve of her being remunerated for her services, maybe you’d like the action for her less-experienced successors, who can’t seem to replicate what Ms. Grodsky did.
Anon, you went on to point out that Ms. Grodsky’s office, in your opinion, was “dirty” and “disheveled”.
I’d been in her office on multiple occasions and although I found the small office full and less than perfectly tidy, she seemed to function effectively in it, finding the information I was researching within short order.
My standard for an effective manager is not the neatness of the office but the effectiveness of the individual. Over the years I have been in immaculate offices where the residing manager couldn’t tie his/her shoe (managerially speaking), without requiring additional support from others. So we will have to agree to disagree!
As to being “unaccountable”, I suggest you take that issue up with her former Superintendents of Recreation: the last one, if I recall, being April Armer. If your assessment is accurate, Ms. Armer is the one responsible for subordinate Grodsky’s failure and, using your standard, probably should be fired.
You wrote: “You can blame the poor floor mopper but the "manager" was there the whole time.”
My response: I don’t “blame the poor floor mopper” at all. The responsibility in this case lay with the Superintendent of Recreation and Executive Director, whose job it was to provide cleaning service to the Center as per 2005 PRPD/SSI contract. I know for a fact, based on documents provided to me under the Freedom of Information Act, and through personal observation, that adequate cleaning services were requested, but upper management failed to provide those services (cut cleaning staff time at Center) for budgetary reasons.
You wrote: “Just this week more anecdotes are surfacing about people with NO connection to the current Park Board whose young children were forbidden to use the Senior Center washrooms in the past decade.”
My response: Just this week? Just this very week you say: really? It took you over two years to secure additional unsupported anecdotal allegations of Senior Center washroom denial? How quaint!
Where were these people when Ms. Wynn-Ryan and Mr. Biagi needed them to support their unsubstantiated tales of Senior Center toilet-abuse? I hope your new allegations have more substance than theirs. In a way it would be nice to find out that you’re new and improved assertions were more than just Wynn-Ryan/ Biagi-like fantasies!
You wrote: “Spend your energies helping the cabal set up, staff, and fund and maintain THEIR own club and leave the rest of the seniors to enjoy the better-than-ever Park Ridge Park District Senior Center.”
My response: In fact Anon, I have been spending time doing just that. It’s going to be a wonderful Senior Center where members are not beholding to, or fearful of, an untrustworthy and capricious Park District partner.
As to the seniors who eventually choose to stay under Park District Park Board lead management, I wish each of them well!
Happy endings all around, then! Good to see.
We should remember to accept the fact 'that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue.'
Disappointing that disrespect is rampant toward an aging population. in Park Ridge. Change in the board membership must occur in the best interests of all residents.
For the 'leventy-millionth time, there is no disrespect displayed, let alone intended, toward "an aging population." Half the current board is eligible by virtue of age to belong to the Senior Center; two of the current board members are already Senior Center members. One is a fan of the cabal and Teresa; the other is a fan of the current Board efforts to clean up and properly manage the Senior Center. This pro-Board senior citizen and Park Board member is also an active volunteer on behalf of seniors, training and teaching willing seniors about modern cameras, computers and such. Of course, he's a very young-at-heart senior with a forward-thinking, youthful brain. My point is that there is no disrespect directed toward seniors by the Board. There is, however, enormous disrespect BY a few seniors toward the board members legally elected in this democratic republic of the U.S.A. And if you think "all residents" will find it "in the best interests" of all to return a public facility to the virtually exclusive use of a handful of private citizens who would rather let a child wet his pants than use "their" clubhouse, you have another think coming. Bigtime.
Anon: March 16, 2013 2:53 PM
Who are you responding to?
to the self-described "member of the cabal" at 7:48 p.m. And to you and anyone else falling for the construct that any resistance toward private club takeovers is a sign of "disrespect to elders." Easy, lazy, and untrue as a number of "elders" are already active Park Board members who not only have supported but encouraged the Board in its efforts.
Anon: March 17, 2013 11:40 AM,
You really have lost it!
Your insistence that there is a “cabal” of old farts, and your further insistence that somehow there would be a return to a “private club” that never was, leads me to believe you’re gone off your meds - again.
Anon, one has to ask; are you really the best representative this Park Boards, "Three Amigos" could muster?
Aye carumba!
It's Hay Carumba, I belive.
And "Aye, aye, sir."
Or what about an eye for an aye?
Time to have fun with the three amigos, the three blind mice (see how they run), the three fates, the three witches...and speaking of which witches, how about "when shall we three meet again? In thunder, darkeness or in rain?" (From Macbeth.)
There is peace in the valley tonight. Let's leave it that way.
Lighten up; you'll live longer.
Anon: March 18, 2013 3:46 PM,
Sorry!
I could have saved you all those words by my just writing "Holy Crap"!
As to lightening up; haven't lost one moment of sleep in the last two years and three months. But who's counting?
How about you?
that's the wonder of the digital age; we don't have to settle for "holy crap" because we don't need to use Western Union and pay by the word any more!
Around and around on these issues, which brings us right back to "sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue."
Sounds like the board just wishes they had not initiated the "takeover". The previous leaders could not be in a position to be a "take-over" group as they had been 30 year managers. How do you "take over" what you developed beginning 30 years before? Only the Park District or some other entity would be in a position to "take over".
Enjoy your responsibility and fiscal irresponsibility, friends.
Enter the Senior Center door. Breathe through your nose. Look around.
Enough said.
All seniors are welcome at the newly improved Park Ridge Senior Center, finally under leadership that is responsible -- in the best sense of the word.
Anon: March 22, 2013 1:01PM;
I have been in the renovated 100 S. Western building.
Yes there is new paint! Yes the floors are clean. Yes, the building has been gussied up.
But let’s put this story in perspective.
Park Ridge Park District, under the 2005 contract with the Seniors (SSI), had the responsibility to maintain and clean its building!
PRPD certainly could have painted the interior at its discretion. It did not!
As to the cleanliness issue: PRPD senior management was repeatedly asked by then Director Grodsky to fulfill its obligation under the contract to provide the necessary cleaning support. I was present when one of the calls was made! PRPD Managements response, was to cut the cleaning staff time at 100 S. Western in half!
Spare me!
Finally, two years into the takeover of the 100 S. Western building by the O’Brien/Wynn-Ryan/Biagi Boards, we hear Board Members and their toadies flaunt the newly enhanced physical qualities of the building paid for, by diverting the “Reparation” or “claw-back” money; $330,000, that in my opinion, is still owed to pre-2011 Senior Center Seniors.
And now Ms. Wynn-Ryan and her minions want bygones to be bygones. They want hundreds of seniors to forget who screwed them. They think a clean building with some senior centered amusements is all it takes to wipe away the stain! Right now, Seniors have nowhere else to go. That will change!
O’Brien/Wynn-Ryan/Biagi Boards may have won her “clubhouse” but they’ve still got a long way to go to win the respect of the “club”! If my review of recent Board Meeting videos is any indication of Board attitude, that isn’t going to happen any time soon!
Teresa was never even remotely disciplined or held to account until recently when Ray Ochromowicz was hired, so there is no way cleaning hours were cut by her bosses. She did whatever she wanted and got whatever she wanted from upper management. A glance in her office and any of the other rubbish-stuffed hidey-holes that were intended for offices shows that she could have been a contender on the TV show Hoarders. All of the Park District facilities needed a strong hand and a strong vision to make them clean, safe and inviting. If that doesn't earn the respect of the "club" members, the Board will have to make do with the respect of the rest of the taxpaying public, including all the other seniors.
Seniors have many other places to go, from the Library to Panera to church programs and civic clubs all over town. And go there they do. But competition is good for everyone and those few genuinely unhappy with the upgrades at the Park Ridge Senior Center are wished the best, in all sincerity, in creating a place that suits them better.
Anon: March 22, 2013 7:20PM;
You wrote: “Teresa was never even remotely disciplined or held to account until recently when Ray Ochromowicz was hired, so there is no way cleaning hours were cut by her bosses.”
My response: What was Teresa “never even remotely disciplined or held to account” for? And if not, who’s responsible? Was she not evaluated? Didn’t her Superintendent of Recreation go to the Senior Center? What about the Executive Director? What about the seven Board Members?
Let’s see, 7 (Members) X 30 (Years) = 210 Board Member Opportunities were missed assuming Board Members went on the 100 S. Western property once a year;
365 (Days) X 30 (Years) = 10,950 missed by the Superintendent of Recreation;
And 365 (Days) X 30 (Years) = 10,950 missed by the Executive Director.
As to Ray; I have all the written communications between Ray and Teresa. They were part of a response to a Freedom of Information Act request. At no time did Ray communicate any displeasure with Teresa over the conditions either of her office or the Senior Center as a whole. So obviously, Ray “O” had nothing to do with holding Teresa in “account”! It was not Ray who was phoned that day in 2011, but her last Superintendent of Recreation I was referring to.
You must think me a real hick!
You wrote: “She did whatever she wanted and got whatever she wanted from upper management.”
My response: Who’s fault is that? You’re blaming her for the poor performance of her superiors; which by the way, include: Ray “O”, “Lori Knouse, April Armer and Gayle Mountcastle. These four are highly paid professionals that you have accused.
You wrote: “A glance in her office and any of the other rubbish-stuffed hidey-holes that were intended for offices shows that she could have been a contender on the TV show Hoarders.”
My response: A glance at her tiny office told me showed Park District did not provide sufficient space for their Senior Center Director to stow everything she required or might need to retrieve at a future date. The design of the Park District owned and run 100 S. Western building, and its “rubbish-stuffed hidey-holes that were intended for offices”, could have been changed at any time Park District Officials wished. Since no change was implemented, one can reasonably assume Ray “O”, “Lori Knouse, April Armer and Gayle Mountcastle thought it unnecessary at that time.
As to the TV show: “Hoarders”, since I do not watch that junk I cannot comment. Maybe you should watch something else!
You wrote: “All of the Park District facilities needed a strong hand and a strong vision to make them clean, safe and inviting.”
My response: Who’s “strong hand” and “strong vision”, are you referring to; and what does that have to do with making anything “clean”, “safe” and “inviting”?
You wrote: “If that doesn't earn the respect of the "club" members, the Board will have to make do with the respect of the rest of the taxpaying public, including all the other seniors.”
My response: Two things. I’m sure the “taxpaying public” will be ecstatic to learn the final costs to the Senior Center fiasco. I’m sure they’ll be happy to learn of the significant deficit incurred at the Senior Center due to their actions. I’m sure they’ll be happy to learn of the missed opportunity for non-tax revenue originally planned by pre-2011 Senior Center members estimated to total over $1,000,000, not to mention the annual contribution from SSI of over $100,000 annually. I’m sure they’re going to love to hear that PRPD must now fork over ten-of-thousands of dollars to replace furnishings and equipment lost due to Board intransigence.
As to wooing seniors and gaining their “respect”, I suggest PRPD Commissioners start the process with a heartfelt “we’re sorry”; and here’s the money we owe you!
Anon 2/22 7:20 p.m.
You still do not "get it". Certainly there are 'other' places seniors or citizens can go. The Senior Center purpose was to provide a central meeting place for seniors in Park Ridge. Healthy aging is promoted through social interactions for Seniors as it is for pre-schoolers, soccer players, baseball players.
Your derogatory remarks about an individual who was the 2009 Park District Employee of the year as well as the 2012 National Association of Parks and Recreation Distinguished Professional Award designee is my definition of disrespect. Perhaps you should suggest a new set of standards for selecting award recipients to both the PRRPD and the National Association. Have any other employees or board members of PRRPD ever received such recognition from the National professional group? Maybe none are members, which would eliminate them. Other than non-membership, might there be any other reason PRRPD was never represented for excellence before? I expect Jim Lange would have been an appropriate awardee. I cannot imagine that the 'dynamic' board or its 'dynamic' executive director who has been employed by many-a PD, were ever passed over. That is not disrespect, but rather a statement of LACK OF EXCELLENCE IN JOB PERFORMANCE.
I can easily see why I am at odds with Ms. Mountcastle as well as most of the board and their actions. Our views of respect and excellence are miles apart. To publicly denigrate an employee or former employee is disrespect at its worst.
Because you parade as Anonymous, I cannot verify you are staff or board, but are, at least, a back pocket friend who walks in step with those who misuse the word "respect" as an attitude. Such folks are ashamed of their opinions. I would be also.
Post a Comment