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!
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:
| |
| |
| |
| |
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. | |
|
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?
65 comments:
Yes. Those three should be retained for another four years.
Thank you.
Your whole post is nonsense; nobody gets to be president who doesn't have strong views and a broad-based understanding of what's what. Mr. Biagi is likely best qualified for the same reason most successful candidates are best qualified: As an attorney, he works within and understands the construct of the law as most of us don't. If you don't think Mr. Biagi's numerous efforts to work with Carla Owen and finally forge a negotiated (not court-determined) settlement is impressive, there's no hope for you. You admire Mrs. Owen; do you think she talked to herself all that time?
Bottom line: Revenge for an imagined injury (as you can see, the Senior Center is still up and running despite your crew's LIES and scaremongering) is a lousy reason to run for office. Mr. Biagi is running for the right reasons. Can your crew say as much?
My answer is absolutely not. From what you tell us, Rich Biagi was behind all those things, and the rest of the board are just his puppets. Why would we re-elect a man who has caused all this trouble and his puppets. Wow - talk about it's time for new blood. I couldn't think of a better time.
Wayne Rooney: April 7, 2013 10:59 AM;
Wayne, why?
Anon: April 7, 2013 11:56AM,
You wrote: “Your whole post is nonsense; nobody gets to be president who doesn't have strong views and a broad-based understanding of what's what.”
My response: Wrong! Strong views have nothing to do with it. Mr. Biagi, like his predecessor Ms. Wynn-Ryan; like her predecessor Mr. O’Brien all became Board President because it was their turn! I understand, Mr. Thillens will be taking his turn at the helm starting in April.
You wrote: “Mr. Biagi is likely best qualified for the same reason most successful candidates are best qualified: As an attorney, he works within and understands the construct of the law as most of us don't.”
My response: Mr. Biagi is no more or less qualified to be on Park Ridge Park District Board than anyone else currently serving or running as candidate. His attorney credentials are redundant, since Park Board Commissioner responsibilities revolve around policy-making, leaving attorney related matters to Board’s Attorney and District Management matters to District’s Executive Director.
You wrote: “If you don't think Mr. Biagi's numerous efforts to work with Carla Owen and finally forge a negotiated (not court-determined) settlement is impressive, there's no hope for you.”
My response: I guess there is no hope for me! PRPD, under Wynn-Ryan / Biagi leadership created the problem by attempting to acquire for the Park District, monies that were clearly not theirs. The reasons were: 1.) PRPD did not want SSI to use the Kemnitz funds to open a competing Senior Center; and 2.) PRPD did not want SSI to use any of the Kemnitz Trust to sue PRPD for breach of contract due to Board’s decision to renege on the “Reparation Clause” under the 2005 PRPD/SSI Senior Center contract. Current President Biagi would not have “settled”, had he thought he a reasonable chance to succeed at garnering the $330k Kemnitz Trust and embarrass those pesky seniors in the process!
You wrote: “You admire Mrs. Owen; do you think she talked to herself all that time?”
My response: You bet you buns I do! Ms. Owen fought off two attorneys, with their unlimited, publicly funded legal budget and saved for her not-for-profit organization, the $330k startup monies for the new Senior Center. Since Mr. Hoffman is no legal slouch and Mr. Biagi is also a seasoned litigator; I consider her achievement something of an accomplishment, indeed!
You wrote: “Bottom line: Revenge for an imagined injury (as you can see, the Senior Center is still up and running despite your crew's LIES and scaremongering) is a lousy reason to run for office”.
My response: Power-lusting is an even worse reason!
It’s true, PRPD is running a “Senior Center” but it’s not the healthy, vibrant Senior Center that existed before January 1, 2011. There are 200 fewer members! Participation rates are down! Volunteerism, the heart of any thriving Senior Center no longer exists! All the result of Biagi lead Park Board activities and mistakes.
You wrote: “Mr. Biagi is running for the right reasons".
My response: I don’t read hearts and minds for a living. What are the “right reasons”? Rick’s accomplished nothing in four years! Is that the right reason? He’s pissed away thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost Park District productivity? Is continuing down that road the “right reason”? What is the “right reason”? Rick’s ego and power-lust seems, at least to me, to be his “right reason”; and I don’t know if that’s a healthy reason to run for the Park Board.
You wrote: “Can your crew say as much?”
My response: You’ve got the wrong guy! I have no crew! You’re probably looking for Trizna, he’s the “We” “We” guy!
Anon, April 7, 11:56 AM
I’m afraid I think “your” whole post is nonsense. You say the fact that Biagi worked with Carla Owen and finally forged a (not court determined) negotiated settlement is impressive. When, in fact, the only reason that the settlement was reached is because Carla Owen called Biagi and told him that SSI would give up their claim to the Clawback money. The Park District had long ago agreed to give up their claim to the Kemnitz money, because they knew they couldn’t win the lawsuit. Every bequest left to the Senior Center in 30 years went to Senior Services and all of a sudden, the Park District thinks the Kemnitz money should go to them. PLEASE. If you read the prior post on this blog, you’ll see very clearly why the lawsuit was filed and by whom. Also, that Rick Biagi lied through his teeth at a meeting at the senior center, by telling the seniors that the Park District didn’t know that their attorney wasn’t instrumental in the filing of the Kemnitz lawsuit. It’s fascinating read. Don’t miss it.
For those of you who don’t know what the Clawback is, I’ll explain it for you. The seniors put close to $1,000,000 into the Park District building. At that time, there was a contract between the Park District and the seniors. If at any time, the Park District refused to renew the contract, the Park District was obligated to reimburse the $1,000,000 to the seniors. This amount was to be depreciated by 3% per year, until such time as the contract was not renewed. The seniors agreed to give up their claim to what at this time amounted to $300,000. That is why the lawsuit was settled. Not because Biagi was some kind of magician who waived his wand and made everyone happy. The seniors are far from happy but just wanted to bring this mess, that the Park District started, to a close.
You state that as we can see the Senior Center is still up and running despite our crew’s LIES and scaremongering. I’m afraid Biagi, and the entire Park Board, are the ones who are telling the LIES. Again, see the prior post to see who is telling the LIES. Yes, I’ll admit that the Senior Center is still running but the membership has fallen from almost 1,000 members to 670. I’d say you’ve done a fantastic job of decimating a wonderful place that was warm and inviting and seniors loved to go. Now almost no one will volunteer to do anything. Before you took over, members were falling all over themselves to volunteer to do anything. It’s a demoralized, very sad membership. It wasn’t Camelot but the seniors thought it was and it’s gone and will never return to it’s glory days with you dictating everything. And when I say you, I mean you, the Park Board, because I am talking to a member of the Park Board I’m sure.
Why in the world would anyone want to vote for Biagi, Hunst and Brandt when all they’ve managed to do is destroy the Senior Center and ram a Water Park down the throats of the citizens, who voted “NO” ON THREE REFERENDUMS to build a water park. They’re also telling the citizens it won’t cost them anything. Whose going to pay the interest on the bonds you are floating for the water park? Who is going to have to pay back those bonds for the water park? THE TAXPAYERS. But you say, it’s not going to cost the taxpayers a dime. And the seniors are the ones who are telling the LIES. And let me get this straight. We should re-elect these incumbent Park Board members, because they decided they wanted a water park and didn’t care that the citizens voted NO. Now that really makes a lot of sense.
Vile, Bende and Philips have repeatedly come out in public in favor the Centennial pool.
Anon: April 7, 2013 7:11PM;
Biagi, Brandt and Hunst have endorsed the YC purchase, also!
The issue in question is not the pool or the Youth Campus, but the Board; and more specifically, whether Board's four-year history under Mr. Biagi’s apparent leadership, is the kind of leadership the community wants for the next four years.
Some here have expressed yes; others no!
I just think it a hoot that Rick’s good friend Trizna “outed” him as being the reckless, spendthrift power-luster behind the O’Brien and Wynn-Ryan; thrones.
If Trizna were a true friend to Rick, he would have advised him to not run again, in order to bring much needed peace, harmony and money back to the senior center community.
Of course as always, it's just my opinion!
Anon, April 7, 7:11 PM
I really don't care, who is in favor of what. I've got a "HUGE" problem with a Park Board that repeatedly lied to the public, as described on this blog. How can you trust these people to handle anything, when you can't believe a word out of their mouths? If they lied once, they'll do it again. Are these the type of people you want on your Park Board?
How can you trust the bottom three when they can't remember from one day to the next what words came out of their mouths?
But far more important, the IAPD Board Member Code of Ethics, handed out to all of us who attended the Candidates' Forum at the Senior Center, states that, "as a member of the board I will represent the interests of all people in my community. I will not favor any special interests...
Not use my service on this board for my own personal advantage or for the advantage of my friends or
supporters..."
Do the bottom three really want to sit there for four years, violating this code of ethics while being videotaped for the whole community to see? Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
The sitting Park Board members did not represent the senior members of their community. They violated that Code of Ethics. The bottom three have pledged to represent ALL members of the community, including the seniors.
The senior community is about 8,000 strong in Park Ridge. Senior Center's militant former leadership numbers about 50 people. Stereotyping seniors as all agreeing with this small minority of their age group is prejudiced.
Anon: April 9, 2013 11:33 AM;
Park Ridge is 37,000+ strong. Current “Militant” Park Board Members number exactly: 6.
Stereotyping 29,000+ non-seniors, as all agreeing with this elite “minority” is also “prejudiced”!
Let me enlighten you a little.
There are dozens of “minority” interests vying for taxed dollars within every Park District. We call them “special interests”! It continues to be an unhealthy practice of this Board to pit one “minority” or “special interest” against another for the purpose retaining Park Board Commissioner status and perks associated with it.
If Park Ridge want’s more of the same, it will retain Biagi, Hunst and Brandt!
Ken:
Who did you vote for???. Oh that right. I forgot. Sorry I asked....:)
There, there April 9, 2013 at 12:34, it's OK!
Since that comment was the best you could do; you're forgiven.
Go in peace!
You and your pals forget one salient detail: The Park Board was elected by the taxpayers as a whole. They are not a self-appointed SWAT team as are the SSI folks and their myriad incarnations and aliases.
Well, I guess the voters have spoken and Joan Bende got more votes than anyone and Jim Phillips came in third. If it's just a militant group of 50 people, how did that just happen. When you treat seniors like dogs, you pay the price. The one thing that you forgot is SENIORS VOTE. We also don't forget. We'll be back in 2015.
Good luck.
Women usually do get the most votes in low-level suburban elections, especially when they have no track record. As I believe you noted in your suave way to Mr. Biagi, the new folks have not yet had a chance to, as you put it, "leave their stain" (charming image: more bathroomgate?)on any Park District decisions. As I recall (actually I looked it up) Mrs. Ryan was the top vote-getter when she first ran; when she ran the second time she was the fourth. Same thing had happened to Marty Malone when he first started. It's easy to rant and rave from the sidelines but being in elected office imposes a legal, intellectual and even moral discipline that only the best-intentioned (or most self-controlled) can successfully bear. I'm sure the board will welcome Mrs. Bende and Mr. Phillips and that the latter two will put the interests of the whole 37,000 in the forefront of their priorities. When one is on the other side of the horseshoe and residents with 1/4th of the big picture and no concept of how policy shapes District-wide precedent and vice versa start calling them vile names, they'll see their former enemies as comrades-at-arms. Meanwhile, congrats to all who got their voters out. You played the game well. God bless America!
When people (I won't say seniors) act like dogs in the manger, they get their food dish removed.
Anon: April 10, 2013 12:39PM;
You wrote: “Women usually do get the most votes in low-level suburban elections, especially when they have no track record.”
My response: “I don’t know if you’ve thought your words out here. Your intent was clearly to diminish suburban women who run for the first time by suggesting they “usually get the most votes in low-level suburban elections”; and then go on to brag about Mary Wynn-Ryan; who in 2011 was the “top vote-getter”. If one extends your logic to Ms. Wynn-Ryan, you clearly must not have thought much of her substantial win either. Your idea seems rather sexist to me!
You wrote: “As I believe you noted in your suave way to Mr. Biagi, the new folks have not yet had a chance to, as you put it, "leave their stain" (charming image: more bathroomgate?) on any Park District decisions.”
My response: Being a Park Ridge Park Board member under Biagi / Wynn-Ryan leadership does not seem to require supporters with deep intellect. You took three words out of context in hopes of making some salient point. I’m sorry; what was it?
Since you chose to share my words as expressed in my email to Mr. Biagi yesterday afternoon; let me restate them in context for all to see:
“The world is replete with imperfect candidates for public office.
Ms. Bende, and Mr. Phillips are imperfect but unlike you, Brandt & Hunst, they’ve not had their chance to leave their stain on the floor of the body politic.
In fact, I seriously doubted their chances from the beginning. But they didn’t run and hide; they persevered; and win or lose, they’ve earned my respect; something you, Steven and Dick lost quite some time ago.”
You wrote: “As I recall (actually I looked it up) Mrs. Ryan was the top vote-getter when she first ran; when she ran the second time she was the fourth. Same thing had happened to Marty Malone when he first started.”
My response: As you wrote before: “Mrs. Ryan was the top vote-getter when she first ran…”; a literary device designed to repeat and strengthen your first point: “Women usually do get the most votes in low-level suburban elections, especially when they have no track record.”
Then you went on to write something odd. You wrote: “Same thing had happened to Marty Malone when he first started.” Surely, you could not be suggesting men and women “get the most votes in low-level suburban elections”. That would contradict your initial sexist argument; and surely, you’re not now telling us “Marty Malone” was really Marti Malone? Are you?
You wrote: “It's easy to rant and rave from the sidelines but being in elected office imposes a legal, intellectual and even moral discipline that only the best-intentioned (or most self-controlled) can successfully bear.”
My response: “…elected office imposes a legal, intellectual and even moral discipline that only the best-intentioned (or most self-controlled) can successfully bear. I'm sure the board will welcome Mrs. Bende and Mr. Phillips and that the latter two will put the interests of the whole 37,000 in the forefront of their priorities. When one is on the other side of the horseshoe and residents with 1/4th of the big picture and no concept of how policy shapes District-wide precedent and vice versa start calling them vile names, they'll see their former enemies as comrades-at-arms.”
Self-serving pomposity! You’ve got to be putting us on!
WHAT-ever. If they don't work and play well with others, they'll be bored silly for four years. You know this, Ken, from your own impressive experience as a local elected official, right?
Ken:
Having not visited your blog in about a week, you might imagine my surprise to find myself prominently mentioned in this post and to read the following statement:
"If Trizna were a true friend to Rick, he would have advised him to not run again, in order to bring much needed peace, harmony and money back to the senior center community."
Had I been a "true friend" of Rick's and taken your advice, and had Rick taken mine, the 4,070 voters who cast ballots for him would not have had the chance to make him the second highest vote-getter in the Park Board race. That's not too shabby for someone that you and your SSI folks made Public Enemy No. 1 in this election.
As I've said repeatedly, I hold Rick and his fellow Park Board members accountable for the District's incredibly boneheaded handling of the Senior Center/Kemnitz/Grodsky debacle and the new Centennial Pool fiasco. Or is it the Senior Center/Kemnitz/Grodsky fiasco and the new Centennial Pool debacle?
And I also hold them accountable for giving Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle free rein to mismanage these situations as she did.
But despite those blunders, the Park District folks still saved the taxpayers around $400,000 in the form of the "clawback" money that the greedy geezers running SSI demanded in addition to the Kemnitz bequest to which they weren't entitled. So the $100 grand in legal fees for the litigation still turned a $300 grand or so profit for the taxpayers.
And those same taxpayers have Rick's services on the Park Board for another four years.
Sounds like a "win/win" to me.
Robert;
You need to get your concepts and numbers straight. PRPD reneged on their obligation to repay reparations (clawback) monies. That is not profit!
Now the numbers.
The “clawback” money was estimated to be no more than $330k. But, let’s inflate the number to $350k to be fair; and you know how I like to be fair Bob.
$350k (clawback) - $100k (Attorney Fee) = $250k (net renege amt.)
$250k (net renege amt.) - $120k (potential SSI Payment Under Contract) = $130k (net renege amt.)
$130k (net renege amt.) - $12k (rounded) on Grodsky Attorney Fee for Forced Retirement (which would not have happened) = $118k (net renege amt.)
$118k (net renege amt.) - $60k (min. est. cost for court/attorney required research and FOIA requests by PRPD personnel) = $58k (net renege amt.)
$58k (net renege amt.) - $10k (Attorney Fee for 2010 PRPD/SSI Proposed Contract) = $48k (net renege amt.).
$48k (net renege amt.) doesn’t seem like a good return to me for all that trouble.
How much lost sleep, upset, distress, hard feelings and anger do you think; $48k (profit?) over 27 months is worth?
Now, had your whiz-bang Board friends accepted the contract, the $330k Kemnitz Trust monies would have been theirs for the plucking. I haven’t even talked about the estimated $1MM in potential (future) trust monies that were subsequently withdrawn based on Biagi / Wynn-Ryan / O’Brien and their Boards stupidity.
And yes, “those same taxpayers have Rick's services on the Park Board for another four years”.
Finally, looks like PRPD is going to lose another $100k this year running its Senior Center!
How about that?
Ken:
I can't begin to critique or rebut your analysis because it's loaded with so many made-up WAG numbers and suppositions that it's almost a fairy tale.
The bottom line - as it appeared in the PRRPD's audited financial statements for the past several years - is that the District's taxpayers were subsidizing the Senior Center to the tune of approx. $150,000 a year, counting whatever money SSI claims it was contributing. So even if the PRRPD does "lose another $100k this year running its Senior Center," as you claim, that will still be $50,000 less than it had been losing for each of the previous 5-6-7 years.
Chalk up another $250,000 to $350,000 for District taxpayers.
Meanwhile, the SSI folks can pack up their stuff and move it to their new clubhouse at Our Lady of Ransom, where they can run their own show any way they please. Their first order of business should be to hire Grodsky.
Via con Dios.
Robert,
What subsidies occurred prior to 01/01/2011 were not part of your original argument, or part of my analysis and is irrelevant since the timeframe involved in the discussion is 01-01-2011 through 03/01/2013.
As a favor to you I gave you $50k margin on the front end and used the lowest wage estimate I could, based on the number and type of FOIA requests, extensive amount of attorney generated documents required for court, etc. The amount of time spent by Ms. Mountcastle with Board’s Attorney covering Senior Center, SSI, Kemnitz Trust, Grodsky/Vile between is 01-01-2011 and 03/01/2013 alone, would easily cover the wage amount I used.
Also, none of the wasted wage & corresponding benefits sustained in support of the Biagi fiascos would have occurred had the Board followed the advice of Ray “O” and Board’s Attorney; and I must say, using the last several year’s financials, only assures me you lack the facts to effectively counter my comment.
Time is on my side!
Bob, I have thousands of pages of documentation. Just integrating the incomplete Attorney billing records covering less than 50% of the months involved, into the database, formatting the analysis report, analyzing and writing interpretative notes by entry and reexamining the result of the 58 page report took over 20 hours. I know you don’t have that kind of time or quality data. I doubt if the Board has either!
All the FOIA requested documents and extensive attorney requested documents, were gathered, reviewed and sometimes redacted by PRPD management and copied to PDF before being sent. That process was time consuming and expensive and the bill associated with it; is clearly the result of O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Biagi lead Board decisions. And if one is to believe your observation and statements, the majority of that blame belongs to Rick Biagi!
Bob, I’ve heard from lawyer friends that law clerks are overworked and treated like dogs, but even their time is billed!
Seems to me Bob, you’ve run out of argument!
One last thing: Senior Centers lose money – it’s the nature of the beast!
Have a good weekend!
You keep saying that the Board should have followed Ray O's recommended settlement.
Why?
At that time, Ray knew he was leaving and his last "negotiated contract" with SSI was a complete cave-in to every wish that SSI had at the time.
The Board that was seated at that time called him on it, said it was a deal that reflected none of the changes they had asked for, and told him to go back and seek change on the areas originally requested.
The clock then subsequently ran out and he moved onto St. Charles without completing that task.
The Board did not ignore his contract, it was Ray that did not do what the Board asked him to do at that time -- make progress on specific areas of the contract.
Anon: April 13, 2013 7:07AM;
Yes, I “keep saying that the Board should have followed Ray O's recommended settlement”. I say this based on the fact that Ray’s compromise contract proposal; and it was a compromise, was developed knowing he could not get Seniors to capitulate to demands made by the Biagi / O'Brien lead Board. The seniors were not going to be bullied as the Board had hoped.
PRPD documents clearly show Ray O’s efforts. The compromise he and Board Attorney Hoffman negotiated would have given the Board much of what they wanted and time for pre-2011 Senior Center leaders to move toward the new paradigm.
The main reason the contract failed, was expressed by outgoing Board Member Maloney. He said he couldn’t vote for the contract because of the reparation clause. Paraphrasing here, Marty was unsure how he was going to explain the protective clause, the reparation or “clawback” clause to his friends running the Affiliates. They of course, had no such protection in their agreements; which begs the question: why would any organization fund-raise hundreds-of-thousands of dollars without demanding reasonable guarantees?
The reason the seniors had the “clawback” clause installed was to assure a long-term relationship or the means to reconstitute a new Senior Center if the relationship went south; which it did!
Had the Board accepted the 2011-2013 agreement, PRPD would not have suffered the trauma it has experiences over the last 27 months; and, it would have had an in-tact senior population prepared to support it physically, emotionally and financially. This it does not have now! The contract would have been over and the new paradigm would be operational.
Based on Mr. Trizna; you can thank Mr. Biagi for the cockup!
Ken:
Just because you have accumulated a couple hundred dots of informatino and connected a couple of the dots here and 3 there doesn't mean you've drawn the Mona Lisa.
The years leading up to 2011-2013 are crucial to understanding WHY the PRRPD didn't just mindlessly sign another contract with SSI. Those earlier years were the ones where the Senior Center was posting average operating deficits of approx. $160,000 while its members were paying annual "dues" of a measly $35.
Had PRRPD director Roy O stuck to his guns rather than roll over for SSI the moment he realized he was heading to St. Charles, Grodsky likely would have been sacked a year earlier than she was and with less severance than Mountcastle gave away; and the litigation might have been pursued more aggressively and effectively than it was. However, that's all coulda, woulda, shoulda.
But Ken, is it really necessary for you to flaunt your entitlement mentality by bragging that "Senior Centers lose money – it’s the nature of the beast"? Isn't the Senior Discount Menu at IHOP enough welfare for you, or is there a special satisfaction that certain seniors derive from taking welfare from one's fellow taxpayers?
Ken, you're the one who used the Godfather III clip in your earlier beef, but reading the last handful of your rebuts to comments made me spontaneously think of the Godfather II flashback about the overweening local capo demanding payoffs from the local grocers, tenants, etc. If the Park District elected by ALL the taxpayers had just given in and paid its usual usurous tribute to the Mafia-ette Don-ettes at the Senior Center, none of this suffering would have occured. The Park Board brought it on themselves by not bowing to the overt (not implied) blackmail threatened in virtually every live comment and blog comment. If you dohn't give in to us and keep paying us tribute, we will punish you by successfully running candidates who will roll over for us; by not giving you our estates when we pass on; by talking trash about you and intimidating our fellow Senior Center members into not renewing, etc. From the first meeting to the last, the threats have been the same. So be it. As a taxpayer I am proud of the Board that dared to touch the third rail -- i.e. resentful senior voters, as one of your commenters gleefully warned. The Board, while bloodied, remains unbowed.
Anon: April 13, 2013 11:57AM;
Your attempt to razzle-dazzle your way through this comment was intriguing. After a while, I almost forgot how much BS there was in it!
Robert,
If you want to continue believing the underlying issue for the 2011-2013 contract’s denial was “operating deficits of approx. $160,000” and “annual ‘dues’ of a measly $35”, and not the continuation of the “clawback”, you’re welcome to it!
If you need to continue to blame Roy O, you’re welcome to that too.
Problem with FACTS Bob; and you’re a lawyer and should know, is that they lead to interpretations those without those facts don’t always like. I’m sorry if PRPD generated FACTS don’t match with you belief system. I really am!
As to your apparent dislike for former Senior Center Director; Ms. Grodsky and current Executive Director; Ms. Mountcastle; I don’t know what to make of it. I’ve dealt with both within their professional capacity. Each was pleasant, and as far as I could tell, professionally competent.
So why are you coming to this story from a position of lack. Why the continuing complaint about their paycheck; more specifically, Ms. Grodsky’s paycheck? As a man, Freud’s concept of “penis envy” makes some sense, but paycheck envy? Freud never wrote about that!
As to your last comment: “But Ken, is it really necessary for you to flaunt your entitlement mentality by bragging that "Senior Centers lose money – it’s the nature of the beast"? Isn't the Senior Discount Menu at IHOP enough welfare for you, or is there a special satisfaction that certain seniors derive from taking welfare from one's fellow taxpayers”; let me say this.
Based upon this and prior writings, you:
• vehemently dislike Teresa Grodsky
• intensely dislike Gayle Mountcastle
• strongly dislike pre-2011 Senior Center Representatives
• passionately detest spending tax money on “geezers”
• sharply disagree with former Executive Director Ray “O” and Board’s Attorney Hoffman over their handling of the 2011-2013 PRPD/SSI proposed contract
• caustically attack me for daring to utilize the FACTS that cause me to believe one thing or another; and in an act of cynical cruelty, threw your good friend Biagi and his two prior Board Presidents under the bus by exposing Ricks four-year Park Board leadership history.
I think you’ve got some stuff to sort out.
As to IHOP’s Senior Menu, might I suggest “Rise & Shine”; two eggs, toast and hash browns served with your choice of two strips of crispy bacon or two pork sausage links; all for $4.99.
And Bob, IHOP makes this menu choice available because IHOP believes it’s in IHOP’s interest to do so.
Of course, it’s just my opinon!
And the Park Ridge Park District continues to solely support the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center with no help from the City (where's the outrage about that, hmmmm?) or any private, strings-attached organization. Why? Because the Park District believes it's in the interest of the public to do so. See how that works?
Anon:April 14, 2013 8:09 AM;
And?
The affiliates know that the Park Ridge Park District owns the fields/diamonds, regardless of how much money is invested into them by the affiliates themselves.
The affiliates know that their ability to provide the service they are providing can be removed at any time by the Park Board.
They invest back into the fields, diamonds, etc. because it is in the best interest of their respective activity and the people participating in them.
There has never been a need for a "clawback" provision and these organizations have functioned just fine.
Perhaps the signs of future problems were there with SSI, just went unseen for too many years.
The minute the Park Board began to ask questions and look to make changes, everything hit the fan.
This is more about the people involved in SSI and their attitudes than anything else.
Anon: April 14, 2013 9:29 AM;
No, it's always been about PRPD's reneging on its contractual agreement!
The "contract" expired. There was not agreement on a new one.
There was no "reneging." The terms of the contract were honored during the length of the contract.
Fortunately someone on the Park Board finally had the good sense to not sign onto another bad deal.
You can posture all you want Ken, this is about SSI wanting control and not appreciating having to take direction from the Park District.
I've heard it all a million times from all parties involved, but that's what it boils down to.
SSI wanted what it wanted and who the hell were 7 "commissioners" to challenge the status quo.
Anon: April 14, 2013 10:24AM;
Yes, the 2005-2010 contract expired, just like the 2000-2005 contract before it.
Do you have anything to say about the 2011-2013 Board Attorney/Executive Director $10,000+ taxpayer funded PRPD/SSI contract proposal?
Aoruk 14 @ 9:29 AM - you are absolutely correct. You'll appreciate that, when the affiliates' true donations vs. SSI's strings-attached faux-ations were compared, one of the SSI lawyers said (in a rare burst of honesty), "Well, it's not our fault the affiliate didn't take steps to protect itself!"
SSI remains astounded that anyone would deal with We, the People in the form of their elected body, without demanding blood money in addition to all the benefits the deal itself gave them. Sad. Just sad.
Play on!
Anon: April 14, 2013 2:50PM;
You wrote: “Aoruk 14 @ 9:29 AM - you are absolutely correct. You'll appreciate that, when the affiliates' true donations vs. SSI's strings-attached faux-ations were compared, one of the SSI lawyers said (in a rare burst of honesty), ‘Well, it's not our fault the affiliate didn't take steps to protect itself!’"
My response: You’re referring to SSI President Carla Owen’s response to then Commissioner Maloney’s comment made at the 02/17/2011 Board meeting, where he told the audience of his inability to vote for the 2011-2013 PRPD/SSI contract renewal. Mr. Maloney told us “(in a rare burst of [Board MEMBER] honesty)”, he couldn’t explain to his Affiliate friends why SSI had the reparations clause and their agreements did not. Ms. Owen retorted: “Well, it's not our fault the affiliate didn't take steps to protect itself!" What she meant, and what many guests got, was Affiliates were played!
Anon, you can color it any way you want in order to make yourself feel better, but the seniors had protection for their hard-won fundraising efforts and Affiliates do not. Park Board, and apparently you, consider Affiliate fundraised dollars as DONATIONS. Seniors saw it as an investment and wished to protect their efforts and long-term arrangement. I never understood why smart people could be hoodwinked into busting their butts to raise cash to DONATE to a TAXING BODY that could well afford to pay for the same things themselves. Maybe it’s just me!
You wrote: “SSI remains astounded that anyone would deal with We, the People in the form of their elected body, without demanding blood money in addition to all the benefits the deal itself gave them.”
My response: I would venture to say it is PRPD Board leaders who’ve been astounded that the old “geezers” they so loath, put up a two-year fight. Yes, Biagi’s PRPD buddies may have finally kept $330 in the coffers but it cost them more than a pretty penny and the Boards good name to do it!
Kenneth:
If Ms. Grodsky's and Ms. Mountcastle's being "pleasant" and "professionally competent" were the only factors relevant to these issues, we wouldn't be having this colloquy.
But drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers makes you responsible and accountable to ALL those taxpayers. So selling out the vast majority of those taxpayers for the benefit of any one special interests - as Grodsky did by choosing SSI over the rest of the taxpayers (including the vast majority of seniors), and as Mountcastle and the Board did in depriving the taxpayers of a referendum on Centennial Pool - is a dis-service that raises questions about their integrity.
As for my "passionately" detesting spending money on geezers, I passionately detest spending tax dollars on freeloaders of all ages who expect the taxpayers to subsidize their personal wants and amenities.
But with Biagi and Brandt getting re-elected despite their roles in the SSI dispute, it looks to me like your pet special interest isn't nearly as popular with the voters as you and your SSI folks wanted the rest of us to believe.
'
Life will be so sweet
on the sunny side of the street."
Robert Trina, April 14, 2013
You state, "But with Biagi and Brandt getting re-elected despite their roles in the SSI dispute, it looks to me like your pet special interest isn't nearly as popular with the voters as you and your SSI folks wanted the rest of us to believe." Our special interest group received 51.74% of the votes cast. That's more than one half. And all we heard was it's a militant group of perhaps 50 people. How did 50 people take over 50% of the vote? This is just another example of the board's twisting of everything from words to figures.
The affiliates were not "played."
They understand that they contribute to the fields they use because it betters the experience for their participants, and that enables them to keep providing this service.
Where is SSI now? Who got played?
I honestly don't really care about that answer as long as it is not the taxpayers.
SSI as an org is standing on the curb. The vast majority of seniors are doing something they enjoy, some of them in the friendly confines of the Park Ridge Senior Center. Thanks, Ken, for finally exposing the truth: SSI never intended the "donations" they made to be "donations," notwithstanding their 501(c)(3) non-profit status depends on their raising (not just waiting for someone to pass on) something the IRS considers "donations" and actually donating those funds to the Park District.
Reminds some of us of when Ron Witecka characterized donations to the anti-O'Hare noise organization as "investments" and Park Ridge bought it - for awhile, anyhoo. You can call it a "cheese sandwich" but that doesn't make it so. And the fact that you don't recognize the legitimacy of Maloney's concern about justifying special financial treatment for one group of taxpayers over another? What you saw there was statemanship, not lobbying. And if your newly elected confederates don't get the distinction, they'll be confused and annoyed for four long years.
Anon: April 15, 2013 11:35AM;
Are you saying Park Ridge Park District would not have provided the baseball affiliate a diamond to play on? They wouldn’t have put up lights? They wouldn’t have lined the field? There would be no benches to sit on? Of course not!
Are you saying Park Ridge Park District would not have provided the soccer affiliate a field or fields to play on? They wouldn’t have provided nets? They wouldn’t have lined the field? Of course not!
Are you saying Park Ridge Park District would not have provided the skating affiliates an ice rink to skate on? They wouldn’t have provided nets for hockey? Of course not!
Are you saying Park Ridge Park District would not have provided the football affiliate a field or goal posts to kick over or field lines? Of course not!
Would the Indian Scouts or Art League or Garden Club or Tennis Associations cease to exist without Park District affiliation?
Of course not!
These groups, these clubs, these special interests are all capable of sustaining their organizations without an affiliation with this Park District. Each entered into an agreement because each wanted more than their taxpayer status provided. Each wanted rights. Each wanted preferential treatment. Each wanted exclusive use. Each wanted the boost (in their eyes), that an association with the Park District would provide!
The same things the pre-2011 Senior Center had.
The different protection-status between the Affiliate Agreements and pre-2011 Agreements could not be tolerated. PRPD 2010/11 Board members were incapable of defending the pre-2011 Senior Center reparation “clawback” (protection) clause to their affiliate friends who signed agreements without such protection. Former Commissioner Marty Maloney stated as much at the February 17, 2011, Regular Board Meeting; and because Board members could not resolve their issue, it was left to Attorney Hoffman to come to their rescue with his unsolicited “Resolution”.
Anon, your last line was disingenuous. You wrote: “I honestly don't really care about that answer as long as it is not the taxpayers.” If you did not “really care” you would never have commented!
Ken,
It was not a question about defending the clawback provision to the affiliates.
The clawback provision was wrong and not in the best interest of the taxpayers.
The Commissioners had no interest in "defending" it to the other affiliates, that would imply they felt it was acceptable.
The choice of words that were used, was about illustrating a point that one group was being treated differently than others.
That is why a new contract was never agreed to.
And just so you know the affiliates have asked for things like "exclusive" use of fields after investing money into them and the Park District told them NO.
Look into the Emerson Field Project, where Soccer invested a lot of money, asked for exclusive use of the fields and were told no by the Park Board at that time (including Commissioners Trizna, Maloney, Grant, etc.).
So why was it right to have something in place for SSI?
The answer is that it wasn't right and it's finally gone, but SSI just could not deal with the Park District actually telling THEM (SSI) what they could or could not do, or what they should expect, or what was fair.
SSI had one view and one view only, and look where that got them.
The affiliates didn't like being told no either, but they didn't sue, they didn't walk away, and they haven't stopped investing in our Community.
SSI can't say as much.
#embarrassedforSSI
Anon: April 15, 2013 at 1:34 PM,
You wrote: “SSI as an org is standing on the curb.”
My response: Couldn’t be more wrong! SSI stepped off the curb and crossed the street last month. They’ve moved on and are in the midst of fine-tuning their plans as we speak. I on the other hand still have a lot of questions unanswered and will be around for some time.
You wrote: “The vast majority of seniors are doing something they enjoy, some of them in the friendly confines of the Park Ridge Senior Center.”
My response: I don’t know who you are, but I think it’s highly probable you don’t speak for “the vast majority of seniors” any more than I do; and yes, some seniors, a much smaller number than when SSI ran the place, do amuse themselves at 100 S. Western.
You wrote: “Thanks, Ken, for finally exposing the truth: SSI never intended the "donations" they made to be "donations," notwithstanding their 501(c)(3) non-profit status depends on their raising (not just waiting for someone to pass on) something the IRS considers "donations" and actually donating those funds to the Park District.”
My response: You seem to be very confused. People made donations to SSI or Park Ridge Senior Center, then run by SSI, not the Park District. SSI’s purpose was to use the money to support senior centered activities and services. PRPD/SSI contract required SSI to PAY not DONATE, X $$$ per year. A contracted payment is not a donation. How SSI acquired those funds (by fundraising or bequest), were not specified, nor relevant to the agreement.
You wrote: “Reminds some of us of when Ron Witecka characterized donations to the anti-O'Hare noise organization as "investments" and Park Ridge bought it - for awhile, anyhoo. You can call it a "cheese sandwich" but that doesn't make it so.”
My response: Who; is us?
You wrote: “And the fact that you don't recognize the legitimacy of Maloney's concern about justifying special financial treatment for one group of taxpayers over another?”
My response: Where did I not “recognize the legitimacy of Maloney's concern about justifying special financial treatment for one group of taxpayers over another”?
On the contrary, I acknowledged Maloney's statement of February 17, 2011 as having done just that.
You wrote: “What you saw there was statemanship, not lobbying.”
My response: What I saw was a soon to be departed Commissioner HONESTLY telling us why he couldn’t vote for a contract. Nothing more! Too bad the other Commissioner weren’t capable of doing the same!
You wrote: “And if your newly elected confederates don't get the distinction, they'll be confused and annoyed for four long years.”
My response: Can someone out there tell me what sentence means?
Anon: April 16, 2013 10:24AM;
You wrote: “It was not a question about defending the clawback provision to the affiliates. The clawback provision was wrong and not in the best interest of the taxpayers.”
My response: Are you calling Mr. Maloney a liar? He clearly discusses that issue on video #1 of 2 February 17, 2011. Might I suggest, not only to you, but all the readers of this blog, you take the time to review that video; specifically, time coordinates: 42:00 through 56:15. That video publicly tells more about the story and the underlying reasons, than any other video or Board Meeting Minutes.
As it being in the best interest of the taxpayers, might I suggest, the “clawback” provision only comes into effect is PRPD reneges! Otherwise, the clause had no effect on the district whatsoever.
You wrote: “The Commissioners had no interest in "defending" it to the other affiliates, that would imply they felt it was acceptable.
The choice of words that were used, was about illustrating a point that one group was being treated differently than others.
That is why a new contract was never agreed to.
And just so you know the affiliates have asked for things like "exclusive" use of fields after investing money into them and the Park District told them NO.
Look into the Emerson Field Project, where Soccer invested a lot of money, asked for exclusive use of the fields and were told no by the Park Board at that time (including Commissioners Trizna, Maloney, Grant, etc.).
So why was it right to have something in place for SSI?”
My response: See my last response!
You wrote: “The answer is that it wasn't right and it's finally gone, but SSI just could not deal with the Park District actually telling THEM (SSI) what they could or could not do, or what they should expect, or what was fair.”
My response: See my first response!
You wrote: ” SSI had one view and one view only, and look where that got them.
The affiliates didn't like being told no either, but they didn't sue, they didn't walk away, and they haven't stopped investing in our Community.
SSI can't say as much.”
My response: If you say so.
You wrote: “#embarrassedforSSI”
My response: I’m embarrassed for all of us; and I must say, it’s time for pre-2011 seniors who wish to move on, to do so; as some already have. Senior’s deserved a better outcome. 2010-2012 Park District taxpayers deserved a more honest and competent Board.
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
Baseball has exclusive use of the fields in PR. This is a selling point they use to get kids to try out for the travel team the Warriors. They only pay the PRPD $10 per kid per season for the exclusive right to the taxpayer maintained fields. How much has baseball put back into these fields over the years? How much does the PRPD spend to maintain the fields for the exclusive use by the PR Baseball. Has PR Baseball invested as much as SSI into the Senior Center?
PR Baseball is a special interest group so are the seniors and now so is the OPL as they got all of PR to pay for them to have a very expensive new park.
Baseball does not have exclusive use of the fields. They have priority use of the fields.
4:39am - Don’t you know by now that facts are superfluous when it comes to Mr. Butterly? Why let the facts get in the way of a good tirade.
It will be very interesting to see how Bende and Philips handle themselves once they are no longer sitting in the cheap seats slinging mud but are on the other side of the horseshoe, presented with the same facts as the elected Commissioners.
BTW – rumor has it that Vile asked for his name to be taken off of the Bende and Philips campaign materials a couple of weeks before the election because he couldn’t stand them and their BS any longer. How bout them apples?
Anon: April 17, 2013 9:12 AM;
Hay Pa , there's a new dung-slinger in town. Better watch out. They call him The Commenter With No Name!
At least you posted his comment. My post of last evening was never even posted on the board.
Oh well, you do have that right I guess.
Anon: April 17, 2013 10:09 AM;
“Oh well, you do have that right I guess” is absolutely on target.
Your comment was personally insulting, but more importantly, way off subject.
If you feel the need to express yourself that way, you can email me and I will respond. However, I won’t carry your garbage!
I see. Well, I was addressing a comment you made (and it appeared on the blog) about people moving on. The direct quote was..." it’s time for pre-2011 seniors who wish to move on, to do so. Funny how a response that directly addresses a comment you wrote on the thread is seen as off "off topic".
As to it being personally insulting, I did not intend it to be so. I was simply forcefully demonstrating the irony of you suggesting that people move on.
Funny how you have no problem saying some controversial and forceful things about the targets of your blog but seem to be taken aback when someone does the same to you. Again, again, you have the right.
Just don't pretend this is a free and open discussion. I wonder what other interesting bits of information from other posters you have censored.
4:39-PR baseball sends out at letter to prospective Warrior players that states they have exclusive use of the PRPD maintained baseball fields.
How much has PR baseball invested into the fields they have exclusive use of? Given how much money the PRPD spends to maintain the fields and the equipment the PRPD has to do the grading and mowing and spreading of dirt etc, the $10 per kid per season ($18,000-$20,000 per season) is not going to cover the field maintenance costs. So any affiliate be it the seniors or baseball or the OPL who are deriving a benefit at the expense (higher taxes or user fees or both) of others is a special interest group.
It's over, Ken. You refuse to see that the only time residents aren't welcome on a ball field is when there's a game in progress on that specific field. The same cannot be said of SSI asserting eternal squatter's rights to the Senior Center facility. The toxic vibe is gone. For good.
12:40 --
They can say whatever they want, the Park District controls the fields and I can tell you that other organizations (including Jr. Hawks) have used the fields in Park Ridge.
Baseball was not happy about it, and went out of their way to make it difficult, but it happened none the less.
2:55-what happened "none the less"? Why should PR Baseball have exclusive use of the fields over any other baseball organization composed of PR kids?
And you never answered the question-given the meager amount baseball pays the PRPD for the exclusive use of the fields-how much has PR baseball invested of their own money in the fields? In comparing the PR baseball fields with those in other towns-the PR fields rate pretty poorly. So one could conclude that PR baseball has not made a significant investment into the fields they control and the PRPD pays to maintain.
April 17, 2013 11:26 AM;
You wrote: “I see. Well, I was addressing a comment you made (and it appeared on the blog) about people moving on. The direct quote was..." it’s time for pre-2011 seniors who wish to move on, to do so. Funny how a response that directly addresses a comment you wrote on the thread is seen as off ‘off topic’".
My response: No, you were addressing something else; and it was insulting!
Anon: April 17, 2013 2:46PM;
Actually, “it’s” only partially over since people as yourself remain ignorant of the FACTS.
It’s too bad "education" does not always cure ignorance. Park Ridge Park District has been running their Senior Center since January 1, 2011. That means, SSI has not been a party to the Senior Centers running for twenty-eight (28) months.
Maybe I’m wrong about your being ignorant.
Maybe you you just can’t count beyond your toes and fingers!
A to the “toxic vibe” being gone; I'm not so sure.
You’re still here, yes?
Anon: April 17, 2013 8:04 PM & Anon: April 17, 2013 2:55 PM;
The baseball affiliate, or soccer or swimming affiliates for that matter: paying for “exclusive” or “preferential” use of a publicly funded facility, is not as important as the fact that PRPD Officials demand this additional tax for exclusivity or preferentiality from already overtaxed moms and dads, in the first place.
Either way: “exclusive” or “preferential” use of the facility, even the 100 S. Western building, means that facility is off limits to all others when the DOUBLE-TAXED affiliates come to play.
I think it ironic, PRPD Commissioners who created the Affiliate Policy have free access to all facilities and recently considered including their families onto their PRPD gravy-train.
Mr. Butterly-I completely disagree re: the affiliates getting exclusivity. PR baseball does not pay for this preferential treatment. $10 per kid per season does not nearly cover the cost to maintain the fields that can only be used by PR baseball. All the taxpayers of PR pay for the maintenance of the fields. If baseball has the monopoly then they should pay most of the cost of maintenance. What else do they do with all the money they collect from the sponsors and the participants and the sale of tshirts, sweatshirts, etc?
PR baseball-who as a 501(c)(3) organization is pretty much prohibited from giving money for political reasons-gave $1000 to the Our Parks Legacy group to push the referendum. Why? Why would they risk their tax exempt status when there will be no baseball field at the YC.
The point is that the current PRPD board does not want to treat the seniors as a special interest group. But they are doing that already with baseball and the other affiliates-giving these groups taxpayer money. Why the difference in treatment between these groups?
April 18, 2013 12:54 PM;
You have questions I can't answer.
We will have to agree to disagree on "affiliates getting exclusivity" or preferential treatment.
I don't:
• think PRPD should be in the Senior Center Business, except the way Des Plaines Park District does with Frisbee
• think they should be providing "exclusivity" or preferential treatment to any organization
• think they should be running a fitness center masquerading as a Community Center when commercial alternatives are reasonably priced and readily available
• think Commissioners should be getting FREEBEE's memberships or services valued at up to $500 per/yr.
• think they should be giving the same to their family members.
But there you are!
So what are you going to do about PR baseball except complain to me or maybe start a blog of your own?
Post a Comment