Senior Center Seniors – Carla Needs Our Help!

 

Senior Center Seniors! Our mutual friend, Carla Owen is running for Maine Township High School District #207 Board Membership! You know who she is! You know her as an intelligent and honorable woman!  You’ve experienced her steadfastness and integrity! Carla has given her all to Senior Center Seniors.  For the last few months she’s served as interim Board Member and now she wants to “officially” share her time and talents on behalf of District #207 students and taxpayers. We need people of this caliber on that Board; and she can represent the District in a way that will make all of us proud! I am a District #207 taxpayer, and I’m urging all you to vote for our friend!

Look at you Rick! All Grown Up – Writing For Yourself On Facebook! – Part #1

I guess Rick Biagi’s finally grown up and wants to share his fantasy's with his friends on the internet; and on Facebook no less! 

Here: Link to Rick’s Facebook site!

It’s a hoot!

Here’s a guy who’s gone from leader to whiner in only four years!

Now, this transformation didn’t come on to him suddenly.  One could see the metamorphous happening for over the last two years.  First with the Senior Center; later with the Grodsky/Vile Data-dump matter.

Unfortunately for Park Ridge Senior Center members, the change didn’t happen to him alone. 

Based upon recently received campaign literature, Mr. Hunst and Mr. Brandt have also been infected.

To go from potential strong civic leader to pathetic little  politician in such a short time, is to my mind, astounding. 

Rick’s Facebook Page

I went to Rick’s Facebook page and was sorely disappointed.

Where’s the Rick I expected; a man who touts his “accomplishment’s”, first as three-year Vice President Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners and then as it’s latest President?  That Rick wasn’t there, or at least not much of him. 

Of course, in order to tout ones accomplishments, one first has to have real accomplishment's to tout.

Instead of focusing on the positive, Rick, like his two election teammates, has chosen to go negative; has chosen to return to telling a unsubstantiated and discredited story of pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial.  One brave senior two years ago called it a lie, if recall!

Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me!

I’ve always found that statement to be true, especially for those who are confident of who they are, and what they’re about.

Park Board incumbent candidate (politician) Biagi has a problem with upset citizens referring to him (and Ms. Wynn-Ryan)as: “delusional”, “spineless” and an “intellectual cripple”.

I would like to add five additional words to describe Board President Biagi:

FORTY-TWO-YEAR-OLD WHINER!

And Rick should know, no one likes a whiner; especially whining local politicians who use their families as pawns to tell unsubstantiated stories about alleged toilet-denial by old people.

What does Mr Biagi now have to say about those seniors and their supporters?

From Rick Biagi’s Facebook Page 

Mr. Biagi writes:

“My colleagues and I on the Park Board (as well as our family members) have been subject to some rather vicious attacks over the past two years by members of the special interest group behind the Senior Center litigation. I’ve personally been called “delusional”, “spineless” and an “intellectual cripple” by these very people. My wife Sue and I were called liars at an open Board meeting because we... dared to share a story about being refused entrance to the Senior Center when one of our small children needed to use the bathroom while playing in the adjacent playground. But my favorite was when I was told, to my face, that my actions as a Commissioner involving the Senior Center caused a number of seniors to become so depressed that they were contemplating suicide. Click ‘Like’ if you want to bring civility back to the Senior Center and the Park District.”

Rick went on to write:

“It's really wonderful to have to explain to my five young children why people are saying that their Daddy is doing things that make people want to kill themselves. That's a conversation every parent loves to have.” And: “Thanks Ben - it is just amazing to me that neighbors in our town can spout such hatred and venom.”

For the record, I have asked Mr. Biagi twice to come to this forum to discuss those Park Board actions under Biagi/Wynn-Ryan  leadership. 

To date he’s refused!

Since Mr. Biagi, Mr. Brandt and Mr. Hunst chose to regurgitate their sordid tale, I now find myself reluctantly having to discuss this trash in detail; and of course, I’ll display the documented facts as I’ve found them as I have in the past. 

One last thing: the local politicians I’ve known over the years would never knowing place their wives and children in a position of ridicule or potential embarrassment for political gain. 

Why Rick and his friends continue to do so is beyond my understanding!

Mr. Biagi brought his family into this mess by telling and repeating his allegation, and I suggest, he alone bears all responsibility for any negativity experienced by his wife and/or his children.

No documents exist.

Mr. Biagi, Mr. Hunst, Mr. Brandt as well as VP & former President Mary Wynn-Ryan and their minions, continue to insist that pre-2011 Senior Center toilet denial occurred; and base their story on their allegations of mothers of children with “wet pants”, and that these same allegers were denied free and unfettered access to the 100 S. Western building.

Folks, PRPD Board says no records of toilet denial exist!  Would Maryanne Lucarz break the law and lie? Not on your life!

FOIA 110909-001

Email Summary

Freedom of Information Request Requested Information “Please provide copies of all citizen generated formal complaint documents associated with the use of Park Ridge Senior Center bathrooms between 01/01/2005 through 09/01/2011.” Maryanne Lucarz Response “The citizen complaints in regards to the Senior Center bathrooms were oral complaints, there are no written copies to provide.” My Response “Is there a written list containing the names of those citizens who issued "oral complaints" relative to this issue? If so, I will be glad to FOIA that list should you wish.” Maryanne Lucarz Response “There is no list of names.”

Biagi Responds

In response to my first publishing this information on September 15, 2011 in Restroom-gate continued – Park Ridge Park District says NO lists of formal complaints of complainers exist, Mr. Bisgi wrote the following:

“Mr. Butterly:

I read some of your recent blog posts asking me to provide specificity to my accusations of personal attacks on myself and my family. You also insisted in one of your posts that you did not engage in any such activity. I beg to differ with you as your September 15, 2011 post shows that you question my (and by implication my wife’s) truthfulness: ‘Gee Ms. Wynn-Ryan! Gee Mr. Biagi! Where’s the proof to your story? Don’t even tell us it was a family member, as someone near the Board recently suggested. Have you no shame? My research went back as far as 01/01/2005. Surely, an issue this important, and one used repeatedly as a reason for your current actions, would have generated one official report or the name of one citizen offended!’ I fail to see how the existence of a report to the Executive Director or Superintendent of Recreation is dispositive of the fact that my wife was turned away twice by people in the Senior Center when attempting to use the bathroom for one of my five young children. Moreover, the fact that I was told of identical stories by a number of PR parents at various sporting events also has no bearing whatsoever on whether a report was filed. In point of fact, each of these people, including my wife, knew that they were informing an elected official of the Park District and fully anticipated that I would bring such issue to the attention of staff…no written report is needed. If you circle back to some video transcripts from prior Board meetings I am almost certain that I mentioned the issue in public session before the entire Board. You, however, are not the only person that referred to me as a liar or questioned the veracity of my statements. In fact, Barb Ignolia referred to me and Mary Wynn-Ryan as “liars” and that “we should be ashamed of ourselves” at a recent Board meeting. I also believe that Helen Roppel and Millie O’Brien engaged in similar discourse in their various posts to your blog, PRU and to the local papers. If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, I would be happy to talk with you by phone or in person. In fact, it might be worthwhile for you to appear at a Board meeting where you can address the Board en banc. However, I will not engage in further discussion of this topic on your blog where “anonymous” posters can continue to disparage my credibility and character and/or that of my family under the shroud of anonymity.”

End part #1

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

The whole document was 49 pages long - the misinformation in question was on page six.

or: to FREELOAD or not to FREELOAD, that is the question!

Park Ridge Park Board and some of their supporters have portrayed those who disagree with them over Senior Center and Centennial Park pool issues, as special interest groups and/or freeloaders. 

Lately, Park Board members, some running for reelection, have gone back to retelling their unsubstantiated and discredited “Restroom-gate” tripe.  These shameless smalltime politicians have also fallen back to denigrating the 30-year PRPD/SSI Senior Center public/private partnership, by calling the pre-2011 Senior Center a  “clubhouse” and belittling some of those who worked there; not to mention the good work of prior Park District Commissioners.  

Decenters to Board actions (that appears to include me), are now being referred to by some paranoid PRPD supporters, as a cabal: “a small group of secret plotters; a group, a gang, a ring, a plot, a scheme, a conspiracy, a collusion.”

Recent Examples

Completely flummoxed PRPD Board members and their groupies now mantra:

	those who disagree with “the Board” are only interested in themselves and their own personal gain
	those who disagree with “the Board” don’t have the publics or taxpayers best interest at heart; and that only “the Board”, are the one’s that do
	those who disagree with the wishes of “the Board” are “special interests” operating out of anger and for personal gain.

But what about the Board’s personal gain?

Warning: This is going to be a long post!

September 20, 2012

Most Park Ridge Park District voters don’t attend Park Board meetings.  Most don’t read Board Meeting Minutes; and definitely most don’t watch Board Meeting Videos; and because they don’t, they miss opportunities to observe first hand the actions of their elected officials.

The main topics for discussion that night, based on the Official Park Board Meeting Minutes For Sept. 20, 2012, were the:

	Land Acquisition Committee Report
	Historical Society Proposal
	Kemnitz Litigation – Update.

Two other seemingly unimportant Commissioners Internal Policies and Bylaws Manual policy amendments were also on the agenda.

	Policy 3.02 - Opportunities for Development
	Policy 3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

These changes were scheduled to be voted on late in the meeting.

I didn’t know about the proposed changes until the “Board Packet” was uploaded to PRPD’s website weeks later.  Since then, I’ve started paying more attention to the “Board Packet”.

What is the “Board Packet”?  The “Board Packet” is a file that normally includes all the background information required to support the meetings agenda.

Included in the October 25, 2012 “Board Packet” were Mel’s minutes of prior meetings, including, the then unaccepted but eventually approved meeting minutes for the September 20, 2012 Regular Meeting.

The Board Secretary, who’s job it is to oversee the accurate chronicling of Board Meeting activities, released the following Board Meeting Minute entries:

#1: 3.02 Policy – Opportunities for Development

#2: 3.03 Policy – Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

Based upon the entry for “3.02 Policy” above, it’s unclear if Board members Brandt, Hunst, Ryan, Thillens and Biagi approved:

	Policy 3.02 - Opportunities for Development
	Policy 3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities.

So what did they approve?

3.02 - Opportunities for Development

Policy before change.

Proposed change.

Note: Sorry the text is so hard to read.

Simply put, the policy change would now require PRPD to pay full Per Deim costs associated with Commissioners attending PRPD required functions instead of one-half the cost.

I am sure you’ll agree with me, that Commissioners should not have to pay out-of-pocket to attend Park Board required conferences or training sessions. 

The motion passed with limited discussion!

From my video viewing notes:

Mary Wynn-Ryan proposed to amend 3.02 Opportunities for Development policy. Click here: video #5 of 5 @ 23:36 minutes into the video.

3.03 - Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities

Note: The original policy and proposed changes presented below are very long and somewhat difficult to read. For your convenience I have presented: “Proposed 3.03 Policy Changes – Full Version -Side-by-Side” further on. To get to the heart of the matter skip on to: “AT THAT POINT…”.

Copy Policy 3.03 from Policy Manual before proposed change.

Copy proposed changes from 09-20-12 “Board Packet”.

Proposed 3.03 Policy Changes – Full Version -Side-by-Side:

Original

Proposed Change

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities The Board of Commissioners is charged by law with the responsibility of managing all the offices and properties of the Park District and with planning, establishing and maintaining recreational programs and facilities. Pursuant to these directives, the Board oversees the facilities, grounds, programs and employees of the Park District. In order to facilitate the Board in the performance of its duties it is important that the individual Park Commissioners not be deterred in their use of the grounds, facilities and programs of the Park District so that they can directly inspect, evaluation, observe and assess same. Commissioners availing themselves of this opportunity are encouraged to periodically report their experience in writing to the Director of Parks and Recreation if they so choose. It is therefore declared to be the official policy of the Park District that the incumbent Park Commissioners shall be entitled to the free use of the facilities and grounds of the Park District and to free participation in all programs of the Park District where there is sufficient enrollment to cover program costs of the Park District (program supplies, etc.) shall be paid by the Park Commissioner. In revenue-producing facilities and programs where costs are computed on hourly rates, a Park Commissioner shall pay the hourly rate charged, or the direct costs, whichever is less. In cases where a particular program is not being filled on a regular basis no charge shall be assessed. Regarding the status of Commissioners occupying positions of paid employees or acting as a contractor for the District, the Illinois Compiled Statute clearly states that no Commissioner can be directly or indirectly involved as an employee or contractor, except to the extent permitted under the Fraudulent and Corrupt Practices Act. Individual members of the Board shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending meetings or in making trips on official business for the Park District when so authorized by the Board. If Board members are elected or selected for Park and Recreation Association involvement, the District will pay expenses if the Association does not. Commissioners will serve as such without compensation.

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities The Board of Commissioners is charged by law with the responsibility of managing all the offices and properties of the Park District and with planning, establishing and maintaining recreational programs and facilities. Pursuant to these directives, the Board oversees the facilities, grounds, programs and employees of the Park District. In order to facilitate the Board in the performance of its duties it is important that the individual Park Commissioners not be deterred in their use of the grounds, facilities and programs of the Park District so that they can directly inspect, evaluation, observe and assess same. Commissioners availing themselves of this opportunity are encouraged to periodically report their experience in writing to the Executive Director, if they so choose. It is therefore declared to be the official policy of the Park District that the incumbent Park Commissioners and Commissioner's Immediate family members' shall be eligible for complimentary family memberships in District facilities and programs which include season passes. Participation limited to immediate family members. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall mean the Commissioner's spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner and dependent children residing with the Commissioner. All incidental program expenses such as supplies, equipment and food shall be paid by the Commissioner. Regarding the status of Commissioners occupying positions of paid employees or acting as a contractor for the District, the Illinois Compiled Statute clearly states that no Commissioner can be directly or indirectly involved as an employee or contractor, except to the extent permitted under the Fraudulent and Corrupt Practices Act. Individual members of the Board shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending meetings or in making trips on official business for the Park District when so authorized by the Board. If Board members are elected or selected for Park and Recreation Association involvement, the District will pay expenses if the Association does not. Commissioners will serve as such without compensation.

From my video viewing notes:

Mary Wynn-Ryan proposed to amend 3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities policy. Click here: video #5 of 5 @ 40:36 minutes into the meeting.

At that point, Board’s Attorney chimed in:

“I would ask not to have a second yet. um - I have a problem with this; and I hadn’t reviewed it until this evening. Always feel like a skunk at a birthday party when I have comment on this {unintelligable} ah we had {or have} a little discussion – can you defer this…”

So, what got Board’s Attorney’s attention? Well,I can’t say for sure, but let me tell you what caught my eye!

Original

Proposed Change

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities “…incumbent Park Commissioners shall be entitled to the free use of the facilities and grounds of the Park District…”

3.03 Opportunities for Oversight of Park District Programs and Facilities “…the incumbent Park Commissioners and Commissioner's Immediate family members' shall be eligible for complimentary family memberships in District facilities and programs which include season passes. Participation limited to immediate family members. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall mean the Commissioner's spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner and dependent children residing with the Commissioner.”

Can you imagine the potential political fallout for this politically-brain-dead Park Board, had this change become public; that in the midst of this deep recession, while:

• they were planning to spend $7,000,000 in Bonds for Centennial Pool replacement and upgrade,
• they were proposing a NEW $13,200,000 land acquisition Bond Referendum,
• some of their over-taxed neighbors were having to cut back on family expenses?

Park Ridge Park Board Members almost voted themselves and their families; up to thirteen family members in the case of two Commissioners alone, FREE MEMBERSHIP to the Community [fitness] Center activities, golf range and more, when ordinary Park Ridge taxpayers have to pay the going rate.

Now that’s chutzpah!

Had Board’s Attorney not intervened, had he not felt “like a skunk at a birthday party”, had he not put a stop to Board’s insensitive goofiness, Park Ridge taxpayers would now be paying for an even bigger and unnecessary FREEBEE than they already are.

Now we know why they need the attorney present at every Board meeting!

Get ready for the excuses guys! 

Get ready to hear:

“we never read it” or “we didn’t vote for it” or “we tabled it like we tabled the 2010 Senior Center Contract proposal”;

or of course, the ever-popular “everybody else does it”!

Whatever they say, they can’t cheat their video.  It happened; and had it not been for Board’s Attorney’s common sense, I have no doubt the amended policy would have passed! 

Had it not been for Mel not catching the mistake; had it not been for his fellow Commissioners not reading the material presented on page 6 of 49, the mistake would not have been published; I would not have seen it and you would not now know about the FREEBEE!

Trizna says he never took the FREEBEE!

When I first learned of the current FREEBEE provision within Policy 3.03, I decided to ask my fellow blogger, Park Ridge’s very own Public Watchdog, Bob Trizna what he knew. Bob was once a Commissioner and President of the Park Board.

Bob told me, during his eight years on “the Board”, he refused on principle, to take advantage of the FREEBEE; and of his unsuccessful attempts to persuade fellow Commissioners to change their policy.

Sometime in the future…

Now, with this possible Policy change or something like it lurking out there in the future should the same Commissioners be reelected; will Mr. Trizna finally come out publicly, on his blog or mine, against the continuance of this unnecessary, unconscionable; and I must say, un-neighborly FREEBEE?

Could it be any wonder these guys might want stay on this Board?

Well, something needs to change folks!

It’s time to bring the openness the public deserves to the Board Meeting process.  Commissioners Internal Policies and Manual Bylaws changes need to be:

publicly announced, formally read and publicly displayed well ahead of Board’s official proposal, discussion and vote properly presented within Park Board Meeting Minutes, so the public would know the content of what was voted on and the rules under which Board members operate.

Commissioners Internal Policies and Manual Bylaw changes need to be presented in a way that facilitates, at least the image, of genuine openness!

Other Park & School Boards do it; PRPD’s Board should do it also!

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

Always thinking of Park Ridge taxpayers first!

Seems like Park Ridge Park District Commissioner Mel Thillens and his “Parks Legacy” friends would rather take their Parks Legacy Election Rally business out of town!

What is it Mel?

Houlihans isn’t Irish enough for ya?

A word of advice Sport.

If you want to make friends and influence voters in your own town, spend your donated campaign money where your bread is buttered - in Park Ridge!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

Don Corleone couldn’t have said it better!

“Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!”

That’s how I felt when I received an email from this man last Saturday.

Board Commissioner Steven Hunst

MBA, MS, CPA, CMA, CEBS

The Email.

Mr. Hunst is part of this team of Park Ridge Park District  incumbent candidates!

As you can see, between them, these three claim to be  experienced consensus building experts; and based upon the Hunst email, Senior Center constituent bashers and tellers of tall tales! 

What points did experienced consensus building expert Hunst make?

First Point

“There's a very real threat to all of our Park District initiatives from a handful of candidates who are proud to say they are a special interest who believe the most urgent need at the Park District is putting the Park Ridge Senior Center entirely in the control of a private group.”

Surely experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt know Park Ridge Park District Senior Center has been under the complete control of the Park Ridge Park District since January 1, 2011; and that the “private group”, Senior Services, Inc. are currently negotiating to open their own NEW SENIOR CENTER as we speak.

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – Bullshit!

Mr. Hunst went on to write:

“For decades that group, under the umbrella of "fundraising," was allowed to: Control prior staff at the facility Run up an annual deficit of over $160,000 per year Refuse access to families, even for use of the washrooms, in a public facility paid for by all the taxpayers.”

Second Point

“That group…”

“That group”, Senior Services, Inc., is a 501 (c3) charity, the purpose of which is:

Those words come from the Senior Center Newsletter dated: March 1984.  The newsletter goes on to say:

Since that newsletter was written, Senior Services, Inc. went on to fund-raise over $1 million to upgrade the 100 S. Western building in support of Park Ridge’s unique public/private partnership.  A good portion of those dollars were donated by Senior Center members, themselves.

The working documents that controlled the relationship were contracts.  These contracts were clearly not one-sided affairs and gave no side a free ride.

Third Point

Who controlled “prior staff at the facility”?

Copy of PRPD/SSI Senior Center Contracts

As you noticed, the contracts specified the relationship of the partners.  The Park District provided the building and ancillary support services (including a Senior Center Coordinator, a Custodian, a Program Assistant and a Registrar and Part-Time Staff) and SSI/Senior Center Senior Senate did the rest.

Just for the record, the contracts specify that “all ‘full-time’ and ‘part-time’ employees of the Senior Center shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District and shall be subject of the provisions of the Personnel Policy Manual of the District.”

Experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, as well as the other sitting Park Commissioners, clearly know what the dynamics of the relationship were and that the Park District alone, controlled the activities of their staff prior to January 1, 2011 takeover of the Senior Center.

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – BS!

Are we starting to see a trend?

Fourth Point

Mr. Hunst went on to say, the “group” ran: “up an annual deficit of over $160,000 per year”.

Experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, know that the $160,000 “deficit” was a projection made in 2010 by the Ochromowicz staff to be used as a negotiating lever during the contract negotiating process.  As a matter of fact, no other analysis of this type was performed that year; not even for the alleged revenue-loosing Community Center.

A budget projection is not a fact!

So, the statement is knowingly untrue – BS!

Fifth Point

Next, those experienced consensus building experts Hunst, Biagi and Brandt, believe the “group” refused: “access to families, even for use of the washrooms, in a public facility paid for by all the taxpayers.”

More BS!

Why, why, why?

Why would Mr. Hunst, MBA, MS, CPA, CMA, CEBS, twice Board Member and part of the experienced consensus building experts Team Biari, Brandt & Hunst, stupidly bring up this already discredited accusation again? 

Makes no sense to me!

However, his doing so, now demands further “Toilet-Gate” discussion.

Sixth Point

Mr. Hunst wrote:

“Since professional management and responsible Park Board returned the facility to taxpayer control over two years ago, the place is clean, attractive, cared for and welcoming, both to seniors on a daily basis and to other residents as needed.”

Need I remind Mr. Hunst and his two associates that his/their Park District administrations were always in control of the buildings; by contract.  The Park District was always responsible for maintenance and cleanliness; and whatever level of attractiveness the prior Park District Administrations and Boards imposed on their partners were the responsibility of the Park District.

Contract Page #1:

“District shall be responsible for all reasonable repairs to the buildings and surrounding grounds, not required by reason of Corporation’s acts of omissions.”

So, if Mr. Hunst, Mr. Biagi or Mr. Brandt still have a problem with the maintenance and cleanliness of 100 S. Western building prior to their acquiring control of the Senior Center organization on January 1, 2011, might I suggest they have a heart-to-heart talk with their friends and prior Commissioners.

Futher, as you will clearly see in line #4:

“District retains the right to utilize such facilities for other uses when Senior Center activities are not scheduled.”

Doesn’t look to me like the Senior’s had “exclusive use” as some Board officials like to say!

Seventh Point

“It's essential that we keep the Senior Center in taxpayer hands, not a private club's, and keep the Park Board's focus on all of the other projects and renovations the Park District needs to provide what you and your family want in the future.”

The Park Ridge Park District Senior Center is now and will, so long as PRPD wishes to have one, be in the complete control of the Park District.

There is not now and there never was, a “private club” known as the Park Ridge Senior Center!

There once was however, a public/private partnership under that name; one that lasted 30 years; an arrangement that will never be again!

For additional background read:

	I swear by my tattoo – Part One
	I swear by my tattoo – Part Two
	A funny thing happened on the way to writing: I swear by my tattoo – Part Three!

Finally

Current Commissioners Biagi, Brandt and Hunst are running as a team; in part, because they are like-minded, wrong-headed and in my opinion, delusional on this subject; and apparently they’ve chosen to share their mutually-held positions about the Senior Center and their former partners with all of us, primarily, because I believe, these three have no record of unblemished accomplishment to point to.

And just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.

So long it’s been good to know ya!

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 2) No 6 lane pools, only 8 lane pools 3) No pools with a dual slide structure 4) No pools with a 23ft slide structure 5) No pools unless they have a 36ft slide structure 4) No pools with a single diving board 5) No pools with a single drop slide into deep water 6) No pools with zero depth 7) No project that doesn’t include two zero depth pools 8) No pools unless the project includes a lazy river 9) No pools unless the project includes a new bathhouse 10) No pools unless the placement of the two pools is flipped 11) No pools unless the placement of the slide is rearranged 12) No 25ft 6 lane pools, only 25m 6 lane pools 13) No project that isn’t an exact replacement of the current two pools 14) No project that exceeds $7M 15) No project that exceeds $6.5M 16) No project that exceeds $6M …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.

I’m back!

I received an anonymous blog comment today attached to  Last Senior Center contract to end in 11 days! 

It read:

“Knock, knock! Mr. Butterly, are you in there? Two months is a long time not to hear from such a distinguished fellow like yourself. Maybe you’re just tired of fronting for disgruntled geezers. Of course, two years is a long time to waste! But that’s over now. So you can go back to sleep and dream of sailboats or whatever else it is you dream about!”

Well, I had to agree with the writer.  Two months has been a long time between posts. 

So, I guess it’s time to get back on the horse; so to speak.  Time to take up unfinished business.

Cheers!