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
17 comments:
The absence of comments is very telling.
I expect when one puts the 'tale' on the donkey, one can say little, but not hooray. It might suggest there have been many tales placed on the donkey previously.
When this election is over (and your candidates have lost) will you promise to peddle your nonsense and lies somewhere else?
Pick another town. Please.
Mr. Rooney: Have you lost your mind or didn't you see the actual billing records from the Park District attorney. Biagi was lying through his teeth to a large group of seniors at a meeting he called to try and make himself look good. He failed miserably. I was there and heard him say exactly what has been reported on this blog.
This just defies description. What a lying piece of garbage. And he's out there on his Facebook page telling the world what an honorable person he is. The whole Park Board has done nothing but say they didn't start this litigation and there it is in black and white. They all lie through their teeth. Disgusting!!!
Joan (Bende) - didn't your mother teach you to keep your mouth shut if you don't have something nice to say?
It does seem as if the bottom three candidates are all about what they don't want and what they hate. Not much of a platform.
Anon: April 4, 2013 3:31 PM;
Where did you see Bende's name? But since you've remained anonmous, if I were Bende I wouldn't take the comment seriously!
Anon: April 4, 2013 4:12 PM;
Seems to me treating people right (that includes the 800 pre-2011 Senior Center Seniors)is a pretty good platform. Of course, that's just me! Spending tax dollars of bogus lawsuits, not so much!
Anonymous 4/4, 4:12 PM
The last three candidates are all about representing "all" of the people. You obviously haven't been to the debates or read anything about their platform.
The top three are about telling lies, as demonstrated in this blog post, or didn't you read that either.
Oh, my dear 4:12. Let's SO not go there when it comes to who is lying. Biagi did not lie; your lack of understanding of how attorneys make decisions on behalf of their clients is simply lacking. And his not counter-attacking was due to his awareness that the lawsuits have all been settled and it's time to move on, not try to re-explain this Byzantine mess to someone who refuses to listen anyway. Please try to keep in mind that even the saintly Teresa Grodsky attested several times and in writing that the Park District and the Senior Center are one and the same. Yet you persist...I just hope you are expending half this leisure time ( comforting shut-ins, delivering Meals on Wheels, staffing fundraisers for Center of Concern, holding hands at Rainbow Hospice, etc. etc. You got your $330,000+ donated to "the Park Ridge Senior Center." Now you can start a club where you don't have to share or be accountable to the public. Go in peace.
Telling lies? Representing all taxpayers?
I think you have your candidates mixed up. The bottom three are the ones who are carrying the water for one group....SSI. Anytime that happens (candidates serving one special interest) the public loses.
I will be thrilled when the bottom three are sent packing (at least two of them), and this entire mess can be put behind Park Ridge, and I can go back to enjoying my parks, pool, and Senior Center.
Thank you, Wayne. You are a very courageous citizen to defy the Furies!
Anon: April 5, 6:40 AM;
You are sadly mistaken if you think I don't know how attorneys make decisions on behalf of their clients. I was the United States Government Compliance Officer for Citigroup. It was my responsibility to ensure that all of Citibank's written instruments, i.e. cashiers checks, money orders, certified checks, gift certificates, etc. were sold in compliance with all the laws in all 50 states. I hired attorneys and also lobbyists frequently. I also wrote position papers for lobbyists to testify before congressional leaders. Attorneys simply don't make decisions of this nature, without first consulting with the person who hired them. This is evidenced by Mr. Hoffman's billing records, which state he did indeed discuss the matter with "client". The "client" in this case was the Park Ridge Park District, therefore, Mr. Biagi wasn't telling the truth when he stated, "We didn't know Tom Hoffman was contacting the trust attorney to file suit." If an attorney took such action without my direction, I would have fired him in a New York minute. Doesn't the Park Ridge Park District hold their outside counsel to the same minimal standards as corporate America? If not, we have very poor Park Ridge Park Board commissioners representing us.
Also, why hasn't Mr. Biagi answered my post on this blog. It's not because the lawsuits have been settled and it's time to move on.
The answer is, because he can't. He knows his attorney's billing records have proved that he wasn't being truthful to the seniors at the meeting. The Park Board has been denying forever, that they were behind the filing of the lawsuit, and now it's out in plain site on this blog, that they knew exactly what their attorney was doing and even discussed whether the trust attorney or the Park District should file the lawsuit. The fact that he has not answered my blog post, speaks volumes.
Do we want to retain Biagi, Hunst and Brandt as our Park District Board commissioners, when they knew full well that they were behind the filing of the Kemnitz bequest lawsuit and told the world that they weren't?
Further, I have volunteered as a member of the ball committee for several years for the Center of Concern; I am a member of the Fine Arts Society Board; I have been a member of the Senior Center Senate for several years; supported Rainbow Hospice and various other endeavors. What have you done? Or do you want to continue to hide behind your anonymous postings.
Yes, Senior Services has it's $330,000 and the thing that is never mentioned is that Senior Services agreed not to pursue the Park District for the $300,000 owed to them, from the close to $1,000,000 that they invested in the Park District building. The settlement was a quid pro quo. Each litigant gave up something. It wasn't all one sided, as the Park District continues to pat themselves on the back to the media, as the only party who gave up anything.
These facts speak for themselves.
Of course, it's just my opinion.
Helen, you are an excellent writer and an even better example of the "standards" of truthfulness and concern for all citizens we have come to know all too well from corporate America, their lobbyists and lawyers. But since we're asking odd questions, here's one: Why did your candidates just send out a postcard attacking the current Board for "spending millions on a waterpark" when at the Park Ridge Republican Women's Forum they handed out a brochure that said, "Some Park District projects we support: Centennial Pool: The current pools are old, leak and (sic) not what today's pool users want. This replacement pool (open 2014) is long overdue."
So which is it? Were they for the Centennial Pool redo before they were against it?
In the same brochure your candidates stated they are in favor of the Youth Campus referendum. Are "our" seniors in favor?
And Mr. Phillips has made public speeches in favor of putting a Teen Center at the Senior Center. If a current board member had said that, you'd have the tar and feathers out. Are "our" seniors in favor of Mr. Phillips' idea?
We can do this all day.
General Comment;
Butterly on Senior Issues (BoSI) continues to be a place where all parties can express their thoughts on Senior related issues; with few restrictions.
The blog has always been available for Park Ridge Park District Administrators and Commissioners to state whatever they believed to be true. To date, PRPD Officials have made minimal use of the offer.
The blog has also been available for local concerned citizens to express their take on Senior Center related issues; including this Park Board election.
It’s a shame Park Board Officials have not taken advantage of the opportunity to talk directly to their constituents and their opponents. So much of today’s animosity could have been prevented had they had the courage to do so in the past.
Even as I write this comment, Park Board Commissioners refuse to talk to many of the people they purport to represent. This issue has been compounded by Park Board’s decision to make Senior Services, Inc. (SSI) and Senior Center Senate persona non grata. It’s hard to communicate your good will and intentions to people you don’t consider worthy of your words; another Wynn-Ryan / Biagi decision Park Ridge voters can be proud of.
Mr. Biagi’s Facebook page is another good example of the Biagi communication style. There, he continues to fret over comments made on this site and elsewhere questioning his Park Board related activities and decisions. There, he continues to blame everyone else for his Administrations expensive failures. Ricks Facebook page is where he whines about “those people” over on BoSI. If you’ve yet to go there, go down to: “Look at you Rick! All Grown Up – Writing For Yourself On Facebook! – Part#1”. You can go to Rick Biagi’s Facebook page from there!
In the meantime, readers at Butterly on Senior Issues will be here waiting to read comments from him or any other Board member.
Just don’t hold your breath!
I know I’m not!
Anon, April 5, 3:14 PM
Thank you for your compliment on my writing ability and I’ll just dismiss you’re slur on my truthfulness as the tripe that it is. You have absolutely no idea what my job entailed, nor would you understand it.
I believe I’m having a discourse with a member of the Park Board. Who else would be so familiar with the candidates, or even care.
You can try and deflect the topic under discussion from the fact that Rick Biagi and the entire Park Board have repeatedly stated that they did not initiate the Betty Kemnitz lawsuit. It is quite clear beyond the shadow of a doubt, as evidenced on this blog, that they did, with malice of forethought, contact the trust attorney and tell him to file suit. They also discussed whether the Park District, or the trust attorney, should file the suit. They have been lying about this in front of God and anyone who would listen. And you have the audacity to question my truthfulness.
If you would like to continue discussion on this topic, I would be happy to oblige. But don’t try the old, let’s switch the topic and draw attention away from my egregious conduct. I “will not” take the bait and” will not” respond.
Anon, 4/5 3:14 p.m.
I did not interpret the statement on the card I received as an ‘attack’ on the already Board approved Centennial Pool project or as a statement of 'in or not in favors' as you suggest. I see it as a statement consistent with others on the card which question Board fiscal irresponsibility. You edited the part of the statement which refers to the particulars of spending the money at Centennial as previously had “been rejected twice by citizens…” (I now hear 3 defeated referendums beginning in 1995.) The statement does not reflect candidates’ opinions of liking or disliking the park project. The statement emphasizes that peoples’ preferences will be overridden. Moreover, I was shocked to see on the property tax bill the PD has underfunded PD employee pensions in excess of $2 million.
Whether our PD board which now operates solely on public money, includes members who ‘are in favor or not in favor.’ Is irrelevant. Board members oversee implementation of projects on behalf of their constiuency as cost effectively as they are able. If Board members cannot be trusted minimally to tell the truth to the people, as described in this particular posting reviewed, that is a huge civic issue. Effective board members must operate on behalf of their constituency. They must be trustworthy.
Mr. Biagi‘s denied actions cost the residents $50-$100,000 in addition to the large expenditure paid on behalf of the local charity. Why would anyone support dishonesty? Every penny is precious.
Anon, I hope you are not a sitting board member, though I suspect you are. This writer started out changing the subject at hand by suggesting Helen was the culprit for disseminating facts which confirmed Rick Biagi was not honest in a public meeting attended by senior residents. You negatively discounted life experiences Helen has had and charge her with the tale telling and dishonesty. That is the kind of maneuvering behavior and negative speech of planting blame on others and changing subject which has been consistent with actions of some on the current board for 2 years since i have observed. Obviously that is disappointing to me. I wish I had no more similar stories to tell.
FYI, Anon: I received a bright yellow mailer mid-March supporting the "bottom 3" with the following at the top of the page:
Do not miss the April 9 Park Ridge election to:
• Vote for a change of Commissioners…
• Vote for or against the Park District proposed referendum to purchase and develop the Youth Campus property...
Post a Comment