It appears Park Ridge Park District Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle has a problem.
Rumor on the street is that some Park Board Commissioners and their politically-connected friends are dissatisfied with the Executive Director’s work. Some of those friends have gone so far as to openly make their case.
Let me give you one example:
From: Bob Trizna’s Public Watchdog Post “Politican-it is” An Insidious Disease” dated: 12/29/12.
Bob Trizna wrote:
| “…board made up of sheep who contentedly rubber-stamp whatever Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle tosses their way…” | |
| “…if not for Biagi, Mountcastle and her Park Board Munchkins would have pushed this decision through…” | |
| “…It was Mountcastle and her Munchkins who tried to substitute a 682-person survey…” | |
| “Unfortunately, Rick appears to have trusted Mountcastle and bought into that quasi-fraud…” | |
| “…to be expected from Mountcastle and her Munchkins…” | |
| “But the conspiracy of Mountcastle and the Munchkins is noting less than a fraud on the taxpayers…” | |
| “Too bad Mountcastle and the Munchkins won’t let it get there.” | |
| “…in this case, Mountcastle’s Munchkins – draining money out of the entire base of taxpayers…” | |
| “Gayle Mountcastle convinced the board a survey was all that was needed to be done to provide support for her resume building waterpark project.” | |
| “…current Centennial Pools were toast – giving Mountcastle and the Munchkins a chance to start getting their non-referendum traction by spending money on surveys and designs.” | |
| “…we’ll never get to find out, Mountcastle’s Munchkins are terrified of an up/down referendum vote…” | |
| “…this project has been manipulated by Mountcastle and her Munchkins…” |
That’s not the worst part.
Bob’s apparent distain isn’t just for her, it’s for every Park Ridge Park Board Member, except his good friend and her boss: current Park Ridge Park Board President, Rick Biagi.
This is what Mr. Trizna (and the others that make up the “We”) had to say about his/their friend:
| “We have endorsed the work of Board President Rick Biagi on various occasions, most recently for his sole dissenting vote against the PRRPD’s whopping 5.97% increase in its tax levy for 2012. On a board made up of sheep who contentedly rubber-stamp whatever Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle tosses their way, Biagi has stood out as the only critically thinking voice for the average taxpayer.” |
Wow! Can’t you just feel the love?
Now in truth, Bob is not the only Park Ridge politician (active, inactive or want-a-be) or the only “concerned citizen” who feels that way. Seems to them, Ms. Mountcastle’s professional performance has not been up to par since being rehired.
Unfortunately, those same people seem to forget the Board’s responsibility in guiding her activities.
So, if she has screwed up this year, as Trizna appears to think, it’s not her fault alone. It’s the Board’s fault. It’s current Board President Biagi’s fault!
You see, either Commissioners run the Board or the Executive Director runs the Board!
And, if Commissioners aren’t running the Board they need to be replaced by people who can!
I was struck by remarks made by one commenter in response to Trizna’s attack.
| “Guilty as charged. Those were, in fact, my comments as quoted by the PR H-A, although there was a bit more that I said that puts them into context. During the lengthy Centennial Pool debate on the 20th, I raised the issue of placing an advisory referendum on the April ballot. Thereafter, each Commissioner expressed their displeasure and disagreement with placing any referendum question for this project on the ballot. If I made a mistake that evening, it was in not actually making a formal motion…which would have died for lack of second. I suspect, however, that such a symbolic gesture on my part would still not quell your concerns. As I sit here today, I still support the concept of placing an advisory referendum on the ballot to gauge whether the citizens of this town are willing to spend $7.1 M to replace the Centennial Pool facility. However, I disagree with framing the question in the context of a particular plan design. What I (also) said on the 20th, and stand by today, is that such a question provides little, if any, guidance to the elected body. Suppose the question read something like, “Do you support the District in spending $7.1M to replace the Centennial Pool facility with one as depicted in the plans proposed by the District on x date”. If a majority of the voters responded “no” to this question, the Board could interpret that answer in one of the following ways: 1) No outdoor pools at all …and so on. In my opinion, those are all valid questions that should be addressed once we’ve established that we do, in fact, want to replace the Centennial Pool facility. Once we establish that fact, then, in my opinion, the proper vehicle for addressing those various concerns is by holding public hearings and forming an advisory task force made up of experts and concerned citizens (both of which we did, specifically at my direction). We had somewhere between 100 and 200 people turn out for the three public meetings I chaired (I was traveling for business during the first town hall meeting so I can’t speak to the comments or attendance at that meeting). The one consistent comment that I heard throughout the three meetings is that the pools do, in fact, need to be replaced. Where people differed (greatly) was on exactly how we do so. It is for this reason, that I came to the conclusion that an advisory referendum on the blueprints we had before us would not prove helpful to me in rendering my vote for or against the project. In the end, I stand by my vote to support the project because I believe that failing to act does a greater disservice to the taxpayers…but that is just my opinion. In the end, I will be able to walk away and face my family and friends knowing that, in my heart, I felt I was doing the right thing for Park Ridge. I make no excuses and am fully prepared to take whatever criticism is due.” |
Mr. Biagi then goes on to say:
| “As I recall, at the meeting on the 20th, I did discuss the idea of a referendum question that asked whether the Board should be authorized to spend $7.1M to replace the pools. However, I still think that the answer to that question provides little guidance to the Board. Does a “no” vote mean that we should spend $6.8M instead…or maybe $5.9M…or does it mean we shouldn’t spend anything on the pools at all? That is why I keep coming back to what is, in my opinion, the most germane question…should we or shouldn’t we have outdoor pools? I can live with a “no” answer if that is what the community wants (and that is precisely the question that I lobbied for at the meeting). If the answer to that question, however, was “yes”, then we could engage in further public hearings and advisory task force meetings to discuss specific plans for the project and move forward under the Board non-ref bonding authority. Some folks who posted previously on this blog accused me of threatening the public with such a question (i.e., do we or don’t we want outdoor pools), but I really don’t see it as a threat…instead, I see it as the seminal question that needs to be answered (and was, for better or worse, answered by a majority of the Commissioners on the 20th).” |
And:
| “Point well-taken. It is certainly not my intent to imply that I am fishing for an answer that would give me cover to vote to close South Park and Hinkley. Maybe the better question then would’ve been, “Do you authorize the Board to replace Centennial Pool at cost not to exceed the Board’s non-referendum bonding ceiling?” |
Mr. Biagi used 950 words or 83 lines of text to cover his nates, but could not pen a few more words in defense of his Executive Director.
If Mr. Biagi disagreed with friend Trizna’s assessment, he sure didn’t take the opportunity to let us know.
Seems to me, when the boss can’t write one good word about you in public, it’s time to move on!
Of course, it just my opinion.
14 comments:
Ken:
Welcome back. But if you call me a "politician" again, our friendship is over. But "concerned citizen" is okay.
Keep in mind that a "board" is a majority-rule entity. It takes four votes (assuming a full board shows up) to accomplish anything.
Also remember that the Park Board president - whoever it might be at any given time - is only one vote (unlike, in contrast, the mayor of Park Ridge, who has NO VOTE other than to break a tie, but does have veto power - which I do not believe the Park Board president has).
So Pres. Biagi is no more Ms. Mountcastle's "boss" than Comms. Brandt, Hunst, O'Brien, Thillens, Vile or Wynn-Ryan.
Thank you Robert! Glad to be back.
First, I purposefully used “concerned citizen” as a gesture to you. I assumed you’d like to forget your eight years in office. I suppose many others would like to do the same.
Bob, your comment about Board voting is irrelevant to the discussion since the post was not about Board voting but about your post and the written comment response by current Park Board President, Rick Biagi to it.
Now, the Board President is the Park Board’s representative and its official leader. In this case: Commissioner Rick Biagi.
The President’s job, in part, is to expresses the authorized wishes and concerns of those elected Park Board representatives as made via their vote. The position is the day-to-day portal through which that expression is relayed to the Park District Executive Director and/or its Attorney; and allows the elected body “to speak as one voice” to the public and administrative staff; to be the point of the spear, so to speak.
Therefore, he/she effectively becomes the Executive Director’s “boss”.
Of course, you did know that: you were once the Park Board President.
My point in the post was that your good friend, present Park Board President and candidate Rick Biagi, took a great deal of time (words) to cover his and the Boards political behind in response to your post/ rant against Park District employee, Executive Director Mountcastle’s actions.
Further, my point was to illustrate Rick missing the opportunity to set the record streight to you and your readers. Surely, he could have penned one line to express his commitment to her and to her current/prior activities that would have shown her, and us, Ricks faith in Gayle’s future with this district; since she was only carrying out the Boards bidding under his supervision and prior Board President Wynn-Ryan’s supervision!
The other point I wanted to make, was to inform Ms. Mountcastle of her current dilemma, assuming she hadn’t picked up on the vibes over the last couple months.
Of course, why should Rick cover her behind? The “street” says his Board is unhappy; and your blog site represents that segment of the local populous that wants her gone - too?
Maybe Mr. Biagi didn’t want to offend your readers since you guys are also voters.
Look Bob, when the opportunity came to show real leadership; when the opportunity came to publicly take responsibility for the activities of his Board as expressed through the actions of its Executive Director; Board President Biagi, balked!
If I were Gayle Mountcastle, I’d be feeling uncomfortable knowing I had that Board President as my “supportive” boss.
Getting to be coffee time – how about it?
Wrong. Trizna was implying that the board was not thinking and being led by Mountcastle. Biagi explained why that wasn't true by showing his and the board's thoughts on the matter. It is obvious if you aren't trying to turn one argument into another.
OK, so delete the perfectly innocuous to those with no problem "silly billy" and put my post back up. Unless the facts in it are too much for you to stand.
But facts they are. And for your own sake, re-read your way-wierd analogy and delete that if you want to delete something too revealing.
Anon: March 7, 2013 8:03AM,
Once deleted – it’s deleted!
If you’d like to repost your comment you are welcome to do that. The balls in your park!
Anon: March 6, 2013 9:29PM,
Trizna was not implying anything. Trizna was stating his position clearly!
He did not mince words.
Bob apparently thinks all members of the Park District Board of Commissioners except Board President Biagi, are “Mountcastle’s Munchkins”.
Bob’s implication in referring to them as “Munchkins”; is that current Board members who are not members of Trizna’s “lollypop guild” to which Mr. Biagi apparently belongs, are intellectual cripples and easily lead by that “wicked witch”, Executive Director Mountcastle.
Please, give me a break!
Biagi produced three song-and-dance comments to the Trizna post, totaling 950 words.
In my opinion, Trizna's written comments, is a slap at Mountcastle.
Biagi failed to cover Mountcastle’s back.
Anon, you need to talk to the local politicians in this town – as I have.
There is unchallenged consensus that Mountcastle is the reason for the Park District’s problems – from the Senior Center fiasco to Centennial Swimming Pool brouhaha.
Now, if the Board truly wants to put an end to this issue, it need only publicly come out in support of its Executive Director, and take responsibility for her actions while under their direction.
Of course, I don’t believe that’s going to happen!
Mountcastle is not the cause of the "fiasco" when people who are dishonest and disloyal conspire behind the public's back or the "brouhaha" when individuals throw hissy fits to try to bully public bodies against the general public's interest. Selfishness and special interests are not created by an executive director -- they're either tolerated, as in the past, or coped with for the sake of the public, as in the present. Maybe you don't like the clean-smelling, newly refurbished, attractive and functional Senior Center, Community Center, Oakton Center, etc. etc. under Mountcastle's watch, but most residents of all ages do. Maybe you don't want a renovated Centennial pool that seniors, the disabled, small children and others can access easily and safely, but most residents do. Mountcastle and her staff are getting the job done right, with the support of her board and despite your carping. Deal.
Ken:
First of all, I do remember my 8 years on the Park Board, including my one year as president. And, unlike most other ex-elected officials in this town who act like there's a statute of limitations on what they did while in office, I consider myself to be accountable for the rest of my life to the taxpayers for everything that occurred on my watch.
I don't have the time to get into all the legal and factual errors in your description of how the Park Board functions and who has what authority to do what, other than to say that - unless the law has changed since 2005 - the Board president's practical authority is not what you describe.
The PRRPD currently is benefitting from the economic spade-work (e.g., full-loading of costs, more realistic fee structures, etc.) begun back when I was on the board and Jim Lange was the Director, and that continued through Director Roy O's short tenure, which in many respects Ms. Mountcastle has continued and even developed further. She is to be commended for that.
Conversely, it appears that she substantially mishandled the Grodsky/SSI/Senior Center/Kemnitz Bequest matters, arguably costing the taxpayers a couple/few hundred grand in the process.
And she has led the compliant Board around by the nose on the short-sighted, decidely inferior Centennial Pool project, and the Youth Campus projects, in each instance using what appears to be suspect data and projections.
As for 03.07.13 @ 3:47's comment that "most residents" want the second-rate Centennial pool that Mountcastle and the Munchkins pushed through on the cheap (a la the second-rate, half-baked Community Center 20 years ago) to keep the cost below the mandatory referendum threshold, if anybody actually believed such tripe about resident support they wouldn't have been so terrified about voluntarily going to referendum, as they should have done - especially since, even if the referendum were defeated, the Board could have still gone ahead and done it.
But that would have taken true courage, not the false bravado of M & the Ms now that we'll never know what the vote would have been. And, instead, we're getting a second-rate facility for the next 30-40 years from a bunch of cowards talking big while acting small.
Coffee sounds good, Ken. You know where to reach me.
And your professional experience in municipal pool design and development is....?
This isn't an issue that requires "professional experience" in pool design, or anything else - unless you can't do the math that demonstrates how committing $7 million to a pool that will only be open 3 months a year (at most) - and doesn't include the feature (lazy river) that more respondents to the PRRPD's silly survey wanted most - is a foolish "investment."
Or that claiming that anything close to a majority of taxpayers want such a facility, without actually putting it to referendum, is intellectually dishonest.
ALL outdoor pools are open 3 months of the year, at most, in this latitude. Including those that leach Park Ridge residents' discretionary dollars away because they have what a majority of taxpayers want -- a fun, functional pool -- three months of the year. Drive or stroll by when the pool is open and you'll immediately see that renovating it is hardly an untested concept.
The public has their opportunity to show their displeasure with the centenial pool project right now. If these feelings are as strong against as you intimate there should be one or several candidates who have this issue on their platform. On your blog today you talk about two factions or groups running for the PD board. THe incumbents, who you think basically who did not put this on referendum, and the challengers who are focused on the Senior Center Issue. Where is the group hammering on the pool issue?? Apparently what you call a huge expense and a waste is such a motivating issue that not a single person or group is even running on it.
One-issue candidates usually make poor candidates, and even poorer officials if they get elected. So the lack of any one candidate running an anti-Centennial Pool campaign - especially now that the project can't even go to referendum for more than a year - is irrelevant, and may even be a good thing.
Not surprisingly, almost all outdoor pools in this latitude are run by either country clubs, where expense is little-to-no object for the well-healed members, or by park districts who don't even care about expense (unless it would cause a referendum) because they're spending Other People's Money (a/k/a, "OPM").
By the time the bonds for the new Centennial Pool are paid off, the pools themselves will be about as attractive, innovative and popular as a Betamax videorecorder. But if global warming becomes a reality, by then they might be able to stay upon a whopping four months a year.
Post a Comment