or this commenter thinks Trizna deserves our thanks!
See Update Below!
Original Text Begins Here
I intercepted this comment on 10/22/2012. It was was destined for: Da! So what’s the deal here? The reason for not allowing the comment to pass through was the comment was not about the subject at hand.
However, I decided to present the comment now, as a post, because I thought it enlightening, and that you might have fun reading this PRPD insider point of view.
The Intercepted Comment
| “Anonymous said... Thanks to Mr. Trizna for articulating the overarching fact that the Park District has always been in charge of this private club's staff and facilities. The City of Park Ridge gave 30 or 40 grand for awhile; everybody else gave lip service except for the dearly departed now and then, who gave goodly bequests. During the many years in which the Park District was laxly managed and therefore the Senior Center was staffed but essentially not managed, club members may have gotten the idea they were in charge. But a private group can say they run the Napoleonic Empire; that don't make it so. Any group depending on the largesse of all the taxpayers, any group whose membership dropped, per Mr. Butterly, from 1600 to 800 when the senior population is not only larger than in most towns but growing nationwide, is a poorly managed, unmanaged resource. That has changed since Ray Ochromowicz showed up, took one look and started making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier. So be it. Time to move on. October 22, 2012 7:46 AM” |
I’ll hold off my opinion until you’ve had your say.
Update: 11-08-2012
Anon: October 22, 7:46 AM,
You wrote: “Thanks to Mr. Trizna for articulating the overarching fact that the Park District has always been in charge of this private club's staff and facilities.”
My response: And? I fail to see how the simple facts of building ownership and park district staff responsibility prior to January 2011 seems to fascinate some on the Park Board’s side, including Mr. Trizna. All of the “Senior Center” contracts made between PRPD and SSI clearly stipulate that working relationship.
You wrote: “The City of Park Ridge gave 30 or 40 grand for awhile; everybody else gave lip service except for the dearly departed now and then, who gave goodly bequests.”
My response: And? Over those same years Park Ridge gave on behalf of its citizens, tens-of-thousands-of-dollars to support many non-profit service organizations, for the good work they did.
I don’t understand your “everybody else gave lip service” comment, since, over the years many civic-minded individuals and organizations contributed to the Senior Center.
Others, mostly individuals, gave to PRSC by supporting various fund-raising activities; and yes, still others gave bequests, something current and future Park Ridge Park District budgeters will surely miss.
| Note: Most people do not contribute to entities that are not tax exempt. For example: the bequest made by Betty Kemnitz would not have been considered a tax free gift, which is the reason some people give their estates to charity. The PRRPD is not a charitable organization, though they now like to say they are fronted by their Parks Foundation. |
You wrote: “During the many years in which the Park District was laxly managed and therefore the Senior Center was staffed but essentially not managed, club members may have gotten the idea they were in charge.”
My response: First of all, I’m not sure I agree with you fully. I think PRPD has been lead poorly in the past. I think it’s being lead poorly now! However, I’m just not sure who you’re blaming!
| So Anon, are you blaming: Angelini, Barton, Berman, Brandt, Clark, Crowe, Franklin, Gentile, Grant, Greve, or Grodsky? Or: Hahn, Herman, Hunst, Jarog, Knouse, Lang, Lauderdale, Lucarz, Majewski, Malak, Maloney, Milissis, Mountcastle or Neumann? What about: O’Brien, Ochromowicz, Raspanti, Santee, Schaeffer, Schreiber, Somerman, Streff, Sues, Trizna, Van Thorre, Vile, Wilkening or Wolf, or Wynn-Ryan? |
Are any of these suspects, in your opinion, the incompetent Park District leaders since 2000 or were you thinking of someone else to blame for PRPD’s lax management?
You also went on to describe the pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center as a “club”.
Again I say; so what? The derogatory use of “club” in this case, or “club-house” or “club-member” is, in my opinion, a sign of childish envy; and a personal issue you need to resolve!
You wrote: “Any group depending on the largesse of all the taxpayers, any group whose membership dropped, per Mr. Butterly, from 1600 to 800 when the senior population is not only larger than in most towns but growing nationwide, is a poorly managed, unmanaged resource.”
My response: First of all, the pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center did not just depend “on the largesse of all the taxpayers”. That is incorrect – period. I strongly suggest you meander through this site. There, you will find imbedded official documents supporting my statement.
As to drop in membership, I must agree with you.
Senior’s did a poor job of marketing their center!
There was a time, in the later 1980’s when the Center grew to 1,600+ members. That membership peak was created through the efforts of younger “60ish” Senior Center members.
Many of those members have since moved on, so to speak.
When the OLD SENIOR CENTER was taken over by the 2011 Park Board, there were still 800+ dues paying members. Based on current information, the NEW PARK RIDGE PARK DISTRICT SENIOR CENTER has slightly over 650 dues paying members. Maybe you can find out why this is so and report back here!
The major issue supporting those then opposing the old “Senior Center” back in 2011, was the $160,000 projected deficit. Of course, PRPD’s decision to take over responsibility for the new Senior Center in 2011, has grown that deficit well beyond that projection.
It didn’t have to be that way of course. The new contract agreement would have diminished the deficit significantly.
Further, as has always been the case, Park Ridge leaders and management, could have rented out the space at 100 S. Western during post-senior activity times cutting the projected deficit considerably.
This they failed to do!
You wrote: “That has changed since Ray Ochromowicz showed up, took one look and started making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier.”
My response: What changes are you talking about?
In 2008 the Board panicked.
In 2009 PRPD hired Ray “Mr. Profit Center” Ochromowicz to solve all their previously neglected financial problems. Rays idea was to run a taxpayer-funded public Park District in the manner of a private amusement park, with each amusement or activity paying its own way or making a profit.
What a cool idea the O’Brien Board and friends must have thought; and he (Ray) suggested PRPD could have a waterpark too!
By 2010 Ray targeted the Senior Center for cost reductions and offloaded the NEW CONTRACT NEGOTIATION RESPONSIBILITY to two subordinates, Ms. Lorie Knouse, Superintendent of Recreation and Ms. Teresa Grodsky, Manager of the Senior Center; both of whom had no previous negotiating experience.
In baseball terms, Ray sent in bat-boys as pinch-hitters, expecting a home-run and a World Series win!
Big Mistake In Judgment!
On August 26, 2010 9:03 AM, he wrote the following to Ms. Grodsky describing his thoughts on the matter:
| “My strategy was to throw a grenade into the status quo way of doing things. That's why 3 to 4 months ago, I gave a deadline to have the Senior Services agreement renegotiated by August, so we could budget appropriately for 2011. I suggested the radical Senior Services consume 99% of the full time staff time so they should pay 100% of their salaries and wages. I was hoping that would set people aflame. I was hoping it would cause them to not only think outside the box but drop the box and think of radically new approaches. I was hoping they'd spend the next few months research best practices from around the country, foundations, other senior centers and not-for-profits, etc, to come back with a unique counter proposal that would dramatically lower the District's subsidy.” He then went on to say: “None of that happened. I periodically inquired about the status of the agreement while growing increasingly concern about the outcome. But, I did not interfere. I let appropriate channels do their thing. What came back to me did not accomplish the objective. Nothing new, different or radical. Nothing that substantially changed the bottom line or would lead us to a better bottom in the future. I guess my long winded points are: |
| 1. You are on a team that overall has outperformed expectations in terms of quality, efficiency, finances and pulling together as a team. The Board and I recognize, applaud and are rewarding that. Feel good about it. Celebrate! 2. Lesson learned about my expectation for the renewal of the Senior Services agreement. Obviously, since we have never talked directly about this matter there was a breakdown somewhere. 3. It's not an individual or a ‘we' that is the problem. The problem is the outcome. We, the District, need a better outcome. It's required to avoid financial disaster in three years. 4. Change isn't always easy. The test is being able to look back three years from now and see that the action we took was consistent with the District's mission and in it' long term best interest.” |
Original Email
Mr. “O”, in my opinion, abandoned his direct responsibility as the chief negotiator for the Park District. The Park District Commissioners, with the responsibility of oversight, allowed, if not encouraged, Mr. “O” to do so, to the detriment of the Park District taxpayer; in my opinion.
I’m sure the ever watchful O’Brien/Biagi lead Board saw no problem with Mr. Ochromowicz’s lead from behind management style, since they gave him a much publicized July 15, 2010 bonus of $3,000 in recognition of his performance.
So much for “making changes any real manager charged with obtaining results at a certain cost could have seen were needed far earlier.”
You wrote: “So be it. Time to move on.”
My response: They’d love to, if only the Park Ridge Park District would keep its contractual agreement, cut the court crap and just pay up! Moses said it best: Let my people go!
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
26 comments:
What changes are we to attribute to Ray? I saw one claim he made as his accomplishment on a list of notes included with a budget presentation to the Board of Commissioners.which was/is a verifiable untruth. I recollect it was #21 or 22. (near the end of the page and not worth re-checking on my part.)
What changes were made by the previous Executive Director to make the community proud of its Park District? Could put him in a police line-up with 2 other people and I would not be able to identify him. One of the accomplishments could not have been that he interacted with his constituency.
All we hear about is what the Senior Center is costing the taxpayers of Park Ridge, and I will not deny that they have covered the shortfall for years.
Park Ridge is viewed by most people as an upscale community. Most upscale communities provide all the services and amenities normally afforded to citizens in comparable areas. Although Bob Trinze scoffs at our membership fee, it is the second highest in the Chicagoland area. Park Ridge does, and should, provide a senior center for its aging population. The thing that amazes me, and I fail to understand is why the Park Board and Bob Trinza think their senior center, shouldn't be subsidized by our Park District. Almost all of the senior centers, with the exception of the Frisbee Center, in Des Plaines, are subsidized by their communities. And I hasten to add, that most of these communities fall into a lower economic strata than Park Ridge. No howling about expenses in these areas. Frankly, I'm confused and just don't understand why our Park Board finds it so difficult to support their senior constituency. And please don't try to tell me that these senior centers have a larger percentage of their seniors attending their senior centers.
Those other communities have shopping malls, light industry factories, casinos, hotels and other major revenue engines that do not depend on homeowner property taxes. They can afford a lot of stuff we can't. Many of our current seniors are among those who adamantly fought against any of the above attractions to help shoulder the tax burden, because they (I happen to agree) like Park Ridge as a bedroom community. But there's a price to be paid for every decision, folks. Most of us are old enough to know that.
Interesting concept that the staff professional is seen as somebody who's supposed to be interacting with his/her constituency. In reality, going to rubber chicken dinners and schmoozing with customers is not the main job of any staff management, whether it's at the senior center, the community center or the whole park district. Their main job is to keep the process operating smoothly and responsibly, safely and within budget. The members are responsible for providing the welcoming camaraderie, something which has been apparently missing for a long time if staff has to supply it. It's up to the board to interact with the "constituency" as they are the elected officials, and take everyone's input. And by "take" I mean "listen to," not necessarily "obey no matter what the effect on others."
Anon, 11/4 7:44 a.m.
You missed my point by miles. Never did I or would I suggest that a characteristic of good management practices was for Mr. O or any ED to act as a greeter to be a welcoming monitor anywhere. Read again the comment and detail the specific actions you, or someone, have suggested in the writing that verify what actions that ED took to "turn the Senior Center around" and make it a better managed resource?' That was the documentation I was looking for. Maybe he did, but I would like the writer's reasoning and examples which you failed to emote. That request was the purpose of my comment.
If he had meaningful suggestions, I would have thought he would have, at a minimum, met with the members of SSI. Never happened. I do not have his name on any set of minutes as a guest, nor am I aware of even one viable suggestion he may have made regarding improving the Senior Center.
However, as I alluded to previously, in the District budget notes, O said he implemented some activity to get the Senior Center more involved in the community. That activity had been one the Senior Senate had implemented years prior to his even driving into Park Ridge. That is an example of how the District Board accepts comments as facts. The budget was accepted by the board which indicates they approved the document. That is off message.
SSI did have a special meeting once and met with one of his direct reports. Every suggestion she made had been previously implemented. That, is why I would find the details of the writer's theory that O was a change-maker helpful information.
I'm sure Ms. Knous and Ms. Grodsky would love your characterization of them as inexperienced "bat boys" at negotiations. Given that both had considerable financial responsibilities including many levels of negotiating deals with all sorts of vendors, service providers, affiliates, etc; they would probably be offended. What they were probably inexperienced at was actually negotiating, not just rolling over, so to speak, for a particular group. Blame their bosses and blame the boards who believed top brass at good salaries and lifetime benefits would be doing some due diligence on the public's behalf. And please don't keep repeating the falsehood that the Park District could have rented the building out when the seniors weren't using it. The Park District tried, and tried, and was rebuffed resolutely because, per SSI, somebody else renting the place might touch "our" pool tables, etc. etc. So extra revenue was not pursued. You cannot blame the Park District for that. Although no doubt you will.
Anon November 9, 2012 3:51 PM,
Are you and Anon October 22, 2012 one and the same? Need to know that before I answer your comment.
Anon, November 9:3:51 p.m
SSI concern over the care and safety of its insured property was never expressed until an SSI Agreement for daytime building occupancy was PRRPD rejected at the end of 2010. Your shifting of the blame for the inability of the PRRPD to rent space within the building is juvenile and incorrect. Timeline is muddled in your mind. I can, if necessary, produce the email requesting that our property receive the same respect and care as would the district’s belongings be regarded if the rooms were rented to others. The Mountcastle/Hoffman team refused to agree to the request. Such decision remains today. The ‘falsehood’ is yours. I will be happy to send you a copy of the referenced email, if you identify yourself. I find it inappropriate for the PRRPD to charge an hourly rental fee to those current renters who wish to use the SSI grand piano Perhaps an issue ought be: should SSI expect to receive a portion of that fee to cover wear and tear on its equipment. Is it legal to rent items insured and owned by others without compensating the owner?
The previous ED is unfortunately not here to defend his good work. (Or, perhaps, fortunately.) In his memo to Teresa, the reference to the ‘radical’ Senior Services was pathetic. Whatever he meant is actually unknown. From his general demeanor observed from his working habits and actions, ‘radical’ likely denoted negativity. This is not the first time I have noted PRRPD associates do denegrade customers. Hoffman has done it in his billing notes also.
As he admitted to Teresa, “Obviously, since we have never talked about this matter, there was a breakdown somewhere.” Obviously? No kidding? To in any way, suggest that Mr. O was a change-maker and an excellent leader if he (among other actions) fails to communicate goals and objectives to those impacted verifies he was not a change-maker or effective. To not be familiar with nor to communicate honestly and directly with your constituency and community is a HUGE management failure.
Still waiting for all the RO attributes to be listed in a response. Maybe the line in the published email which states that in 3 years look back (almost here) we took action which was in the best interest of the PRRPD. At least two lawsuits and residents not supportive of anything the PRRPD might wish to do going forward. I characterize "best interest" much differently. I must be radical.
Anon: November 4, 2012 7:39 AM,
I don’t get your point. I assume you live in Park Ridge. You know, and have known since your arrival, that Park Ridge is a bedroom community without the “shopping malls, light industry factories, casinos, hotels and other major revenue engines” you’re now complaining about. You also know you are not living in an affluent community; like Wilmette.
If I were you, I’d complain less about a senior center that no longer exists, and more about the way the current Park Board spends your money on expensive law suits to acquire trust monies or to keep from paying legitimate contract-based former senior center debts, all in the name of serving the public’s interest.
If I were you I’d complain about the community’s financial losses relating to TIFF and its connected participants. I’d be complaining about the community’s outdated, inadequate sewer system or its inadequate street lighting. If I were you, I’d be complaining about the ever increasing costs to educate my kid in D64 and the other increasing costs of living in this town. Instead, you complain about thirty-year-old decisions made by today’s 80 and 90+ year-old seniors.
Anon, instead of acting like a pathetic dolt, get off your duff, run for office and bring about the real changes you think need to be made. If you don’t like the way the senior center is run, if you don’t like the way the sewer system works, if you don’t like the way others get out of paying taxes, run for office and make things happen – your way!
In the meantime, quit complaining and pay your outrageous taxes; and remember, like Wilmette, you have a Walker Brothers right downtown. Don’t forget to try the apple pancakes!
Anon: November 4, 2012 7:44 AM,
You wrote: “Interesting concept that the staff professional is seen as somebody who's supposed to be interacting with his/her constituency.”
My response: The concept is not only “interesting” but doing so, is the mark of a successful professional leader and manager.
Park Ridge taxpayers pay professional-level salaries and have a right to expect professional results; including, where possible, their public officials and staff having first-hand knowledge of every important situation. Direct interaction is the only way to effectively achieve that result!
You wrote: “In reality, going to rubber chicken dinners and schmoozing with customers is not the main job of any staff management, whether it's at the senior center, the community center or the whole park district.”
My response: You’re right! Going to “rubber chicken dinners and schmoozing with customers is not the main job of any staff management, whether it's at the senior center, the community center or the whole park district”; however, it is an important part of that job. Direct involvement by Board leaders, upper and mid-level management in Park District social activities give leadership and stakeholder the opportunity to unofficially communicate ideas in a non-threatening, unofficial environment. It works; and it is what successful districts do!
You wrote: “Their main job is to keep the process operating smoothly and responsibly, safely and within budget.”
My response: And when they are not doing those other important things I discussed above, they are not effectively doing “their main job”!
You wrote: “The members are responsible for providing the welcoming camaraderie, something which has been apparently missing for a long time if staff has to supply it.”
My response: You’re right and wrong.
You’re right: When the pre-2011 Park Ridge Senior Center was run by Senior Senate/SSI, senior center members were responsible for tenor (“quality, character, or condition”) or as you’ve suggested, the “welcoming camaraderie” of the Center. This, they successfully did for 30 years!
You’re wrong: The post-2010 Park Ridge Park District Senior Center is now run directly under Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Park Board leadership through Park District management. Seniors no longer have authority or responsibility for the Centers operation, and therefore, no longer have a responsibility to create an atmosphere of “welcoming camaraderie”. That responsibility is now, staffs. Senior Center members are, for all intents and purposes, paying guests.
You wrote: “It's up to the board to interact with the "constituency" as they are the elected officials, and take everyone's input. And by "take" I mean "listen to," not necessarily "obey no matter what the effect on others."
My response: The Board definitely has the responsibility to “interact” with their “constituency”. Too bad they did not take that responsibility seriously when dealing with the seniors. Instead of open, honest public dialogue ending in a successful negotiated agreement, Park Board leaders, in my opinion, chose to employ deaf ears and totalitarian-like attitude, which I believe, is based on leaderships closed minded adherence to some long held senior center envy and/or prejudice, resulting in an expensive two-year self-created political/legal problem.
Yes, in my opinion, Park Ridge leaders ALLOWED seniors to “speak”, except no one with authority to bring about an honorable solution, was listening!
So people are unwilling to extend a friendly welcome to lonely peers unless the former are in charge of the use of the grand piano or what have you? Good thing the many other service groups around these parts don't act that way. Interesting that the SSI, deprived of its "power," is no longer willing to be kind or sociable to other seniors, while the Park District, although deprived of actual bequest donations for nearly two years, is still very happily providing seniors with a place to go, things to do and folks to talk with. Looks like the average taxpayer is more interested in being there for seniors than SSI is. How very odd.
Anon: November 9, 2012 3:51 PM,
You wrote: “I'm sure Ms. Knous and Ms. Grodsky would love your characterization of them as inexperienced "bat boys" at negotiations.”
My response: Based upon an email I received yesterday, at least one of those ladies considered my comment, an accurate characterization of that situation.
You wrote: “Given that both had considerable financial responsibilities including many levels of negotiating deals with all sorts of vendors, service providers, affiliates, etc; they would probably be offended. What they were probably inexperienced at was actually negotiating, not just rolling over, so to speak, for a particular group. Blame their bosses and blame the boards who believed top brass at good salaries and lifetime benefits would be doing some due diligence on the public's behalf.”
My response: “Negotiating” deals with small vendors or service providers does not qualify one to renegotiate a two-year licensing agreement between a Park District and its major Senior Non-Profit licensee. The authority and responsibility for negotiating that agreement on behalf of the Park Ridge taxpayer was the Executive Directors and Boards Attorney, as it had been since the first contract was let in 1980; in this case, Mr. Ochromowicz and Mr. Hoffman.
Now, the O’Brien/Biagi lead Park Board had the responsibility to monitor and direct the activities of Mr. “O”, their Executive Director. They either did so or did not. It appears; based on discussions with PRPD and SSI negotiators and supported by records received by me under FOIA, Mr. Ochromowicz, did not directly and fully engage in the process until early October 2010.
Where was the O’Brien/Biagi lead Park Board? Who oversaw the overseer?
You wrote: “And please don't keep repeating the falsehood that the Park District could have rented the building out when the seniors weren't using it. The Park District tried, and tried, and was rebuffed resolutely because, per SSI, somebody else renting the place might touch "our" pool tables, etc. etc. So extra revenue was not pursued. You cannot blame the Park District for that. Although no doubt you will.”
My response: The Park District had the right and responsibility to rent out space at 100 S. Western when senior centered activities were not going on. The contracts clearly indicate that right. If the Park District did not pursue those much needed revenue generating opportunities for fear of being rebuffed by SSI, then I think those PRPD officials were a.) wusses and/or b.) were not very clever.
The expensive pool tables and not-so-expensive pong-pong tables were in separate rooms with lockable doors. Didn’t any Park Ridge official suggest closing and locking those doors? Or how about locking up the cues and balls? How about locking up the library? How about locking up the kiln/storage room? Isn’t that something you’d do in your own home to protect your valuable items from the ravages of uncontrolled or under-supervised children?
Seniors had a right and responsibility to protect that property, BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY. Wimpy and unimaginative Park Ridge Park Board officials HAD A RESPONSIBILITY to develop a creative solution, since THEY WANTED TO USE THE SPACE for additional revenue generation.
Even a lowly “overpaid” Executive Director with decades of experience, should have been able to figure that one out!
Give me a break!
There is room for all in a town that is older than average in a nation that is about to see its biggest older generation ever. Best wishes to all who serve seniors.
Anon: November 11, 2012 5:01 PM,
You wrote: “So people are unwilling to extend a friendly welcome to lonely peers unless the former are in charge of the use of the grand piano or what have you? Good thing the many other service groups around these parts don't act that way.”
My response: What the heck are you talking about here? Can you be more specific? As to “other service groups around these parts”, I have no Idea what they think about anything. Nor do I care how they act! I really only care about how 800 pre-2011 Senior Center seniors have been treated by their elected Park Board officials since January 1, 2011.
You wrote: “Interesting that the SSI, deprived of its "power," is no longer willing to be kind or sociable to other seniors, while the Park District, although deprived of actual bequest donations for nearly two years, is still very happily providing seniors with a place to go, things to do and folks to talk with.”
My response: Can you be more specific? Can you give me an example of the unkind or unsociable activity you’re talking about?
Anon, seniors currently utilizing the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center do so for their own reasons; most go there because they currently have nowhere else to go.
For the record, SSI and others like myself, have encouraged them to go, to participate in their chosen activities, because as taxpayers, they have a duty to themselves to get their tax-money’s worth from the District. This they are doing; and I expect they will continue to do so, so long as the District holds the $330,000 Kemnitz Trust fund money hostage in court, thereby making it impossible for SSI and others to open up a new non-political, non-taxpayer-funded Senior Center of their own.
Unfortunately, some seniors continue to feel estranged due to recent unkind Park District management acts and no longer feel welcome at the center; and some of them have already moved on to other Senior Centers. Others, some in their late 80’s and 90’s, without an alternative; remain at home.
As to Park District being deprived of bequest funds; they have only themselves to blame. Had they signed the contract; had they worked with the seniors, had they not been such pathetic asses, PRPD Board leaders and Park District managers would have been in line for almost $1MM in future (non-tax) senior bequest largess. The contract would almost be over by now; the transition from “private club” to Park District run amusement almost complete. You just can’t fix stupid, can you?
Yes, PRPD is operating its version of a Senior Center; and it’s doing so at a deficit. Too bad it still has to rely on SSI largess and SSU owned equipment to do so!
You wrote: “Looks like the average taxpayer is more interested in being there for seniors than SSI is.”
My response: The “average taxpayer” is represented by the Park Board; and the Park Board doesn’t give a hoot who uses that building at 100 S. Western so long as the “full-up costs” are paid for. Today 100 S. Western is a “Senior Center”. When the majority of those seniors move over to the new center, THEIR SENIOR CENTER, Park Ridge Park District will change the 100 S. Western name to something else.
Maybe in the future, there will be a Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Cultural Center after all!
Ken:
I can’t begin to address all your points other than to say that many appear to be questionable, and others simply inaccurate. So I’ll limit myself to three points.
First: Every board member (myself included) and every staff member is permanently accountable for what went on at the PRRPD on their watches. Nevertheless, for the 8 years I was on the Board (1997-2005) I don’t recall Directors Steve Meyer or Jim Lange, or Finance Directors Barb Barrera or Lynn Jarog, ever providing any reports detailing Senior Center membership, the Center’s gross or net operating costs, its annual deficits, etc. All we got were occasional anecdotes suggesting everything was fine over there.
Which is why I was stunned to learn back in January 2008 that the Senior Center had been losing between $160,000 and $200,000 a year for the past few years – which prompted the 01.23.08 PublicWatchdog post critical of that situation. Had those deficits been brought up prior to my leaving in 2005, I definitely would have raised hell about them because I spent my last 2-3 years in office working to increase membership and user fees at the Community Center, at the pools, for the sports programs, and everywhere else we could identify taxpayers subsidizing the users.
Second: You say that “Senior’s [sic] did a poor job of marketing their center!” As best as I can tell, the “Seniors” didn’t do any “marketing” because they already had their taxpayer-subsidized semi-private clubhouse: there was no practical incentive for them to try to grow membership and thereby risk crowding themselves.
Third: Director Ray O was spot-on in “simply trying to shift more of the costs to those who benefit from the service.” And delegating Senior Center negotiations to manager Teresa Grodsky and Recreation Supt. Lorie Knouse was not at all like using “bat-boys as pinch-hitters”: those were two very senior staffers paid good money to manage and supervise THAT facility, so their failings in that regard are all the more problematic.
Finally, thanks for the delicious irony of your comment of 11/13 @ 12:12 p.m. that seniors “as taxpayers…have a duty to themselves to get their tax money’s worth from the District.” I’m at a loss to think of any group in Park Ridge less likely than SSI and Senior Center members to leave a dime of their own money, taxed or otherwise, on the table.
So when are you getting your Park Ridge entry visa reissued so that you can buy me that cup of coffee you've owed me for months?
Good Lord!!! Here is a guy who hammers every board and council and elected official (except Schmidt) in town for doing a horrible job and what does he tell us about when he served??? He sat on the board for eight years watching those involved give reports in front of the board and not hearing any numbers but only "every thing is fine over there". Yet he hever asked any questions??!?!?!! Oh I don't know....like how about "can I see some financials from our relationship with the senior center???" He goes on to relate that for the last 2-3 years of being the board fees and usage were very much on his radar and yet he never asked anything about fees and usage at the senior center??
Anonymous 11/16:
Should I not have trusted Staff and insisted on seeing financials, notwithstanding all the happy talk Staff was giving us? Sure. Do I regret not having demanded financials? Sure, especially after seeing what has occurred since.
But unless you're a taxpayer who wanted those geezers to cover the full cost of their clubhouse, you've got no beef about my failure to find and gnaw on that particular bone.
Bob,
I know this is repetitious X 3, but why have you not encouraged the PRRPD staff and the board who have been micro managing the 100 building and its daytime occupants since January 1, 2011, to accept the responsibility of fiscal management. Raise those dues and take responsibility for being more fiscally responsible so we taxpayers are not financially abused for the running of the Park District Senior Center.
Such has been their responsibility for almost two years. I bet the dollars saved might even pay for port-a-potty service at the North Prospect Park site so coveted by the PRRPD.
Sandee:
Not sure I understand your point.
The PRRPD IS accountable for how it is running the Senior Center - and that's the very same accountability it always has had, the very same accountability that finally made all those $160,000/year deficits an unacceptable problem.
Bob, 11/21
If the Park District were so administratively responsible for the Senior Center, why was there a clause in the Agreements/contracts stipulating that SSI must remain a not for profit to rent space to assure that that taxes would not be levied on the property. If the District really viewed itself as the management of the Senior Center all these years, why was the charitable status of the management an issue and a defined clause year after year? That clearly defined that there was some other management prevailing. Think outside the box just a bit.
I still urge your simple resolution of the purported $160,000. Raise the dues.
The point is, Bob, my reference to the Park District planting of porta potties in parks is unacceptable, both visually and practically. if that is what you could not understand. Address the money issue of Senior Center and there may be money available to provide more acceptable facilities at parks.
Sandee:
That provision had nothing whatsoever to do with the management of the Senior Center. It was required to protect the District's taxpayers from potential tax liability in the event the County Assessor determined that SSI's use of the premises voided the Park District's tax-exempt status.
Glad to see you agree with me that Senior Center "dues" should have beeen substantially increased to cover the deficit. But if both SSI and the Park Board had been able to see the wisdom of that back when I first suggested it, we wouldn't have spent all this quality time together.
Take one step more, if the PRRPD had truly been the master of the Senior Center as it contends in the lawsuits and in your head, such requirement would not have been necessary. PRRPD would just tell our property assessor friends that SSI was an irrelevant squatter and a part of the PRRPD and the property was exempt because the Senior Center was part of the PRRPD. Building activities were a service provided by the government entity.
My mention several times of an increase in dues ought be implemented so the PRRPD can be fiscally accountable. Because SSI is out of the equation and has been for almost two years, any further mention of an SSI responsibility at 100 S. Western is inapplicable to existing budget concerns.
My question has been why the Administration or Gayle’s Advisory Committee of Seniors (if there is one) have not yet implemented their new dues structure. I have heard operation is by ”nickel and diming” participants. Looks like an outstanding management practice. Certainly not cost effective if one looks at the utilization of staff time to collect and process those dollars here and there. That no longer seems to be an issue as at least TWO people have been hired to accomplish what one Teresa accomplished. Makes it even more essential that the dues be adjusted mid year
.
I do not agree with you, Bob, that the Senate was obligated to raise dues. I still believe tax payers of all ages in Park Ridge should expect and receive services by submitting their property taxes. Perhaps we can suggest to Ken that he provide the Park District and you with a venue to communicate to the residents about what residents get for paying their property taxes as related to the PRRPD share. How does the PRRPD compensate the citizens? I honestly can think of nothing we get except an opportunity to submit high fees to do things. ‘Nothing is free’ doesn’t cut it, because money has been previously submitted for a service.
Sandee,
Hold it there! I know what taxpayers get for their “donation”.
They get to see and walk on all that green stuff.
They get to sit under those trees!
They get to walk into those buildings to use the loo!
They get to pay maintenance on the buildings and other property so that the Park District might make money to help defray the cost of personnel who operate and maintain the green stuff, the trees and the buildings!
Everything else sold separately!
Sandee and Ken:
That's right, for their property tax dollars the taxpayers get expanses of grass and trees, an indoor ice rink, a community fitness center, tennis courts, a golf driving range, etc. But many of these things have a user fee, otherwise the taxes would be much higher for users and non-users alike - although I suspect the users wouldn't be the ones complaining.
I have suggested on more than one occasion to those who claim to want an entirely "free" (i.e., property tax-funded) Park District that we should put that proposal on a referendum ballot. But guess what? None of those quasi-freeloaders wanted to risk being told "no" by countable votes, kind of like the folks who claim everybody wants that new $7.1 million Centennial Pool complex, but without any referendum.
As for the Senior Center, Ray O was on the right track until he started to pursue his St. Charles opportunity, at which point he just punted the matter to the Board and Staff - who, with SSI's equally greedily-inept assistance, botched it beyond belief. But despite the botch, the District is far more correct - legally and policy-wise - than SSI or whichever seniors fancy themselves the proprietors of this fictional "Senior Center" association.
Bob,
Your continuous and continuing references to taxpayers, people who submit dollars regularly for services, as mooching individuals are exhausting.
Sandee:
The "moochers" are those taxpayers who want more services than they're willing to pay for.
Some "moochers" are your favorite seniors who want the non-mooching taxpayers to pick up the $160,000 Senior Center deficit. Other "moochers" are the folks who want to saddle the taxpayers with $6.3 million in bonded debt for a $7.1 million half-baked Centennial aquatic facility - without even the benefit of a referendum.
"Moochers" come in all shapes and sizes. You can usually tell them by their empty hands extended, palms up.
Post a Comment