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!

Last Senior Center contract to end in 11 days!

Well, that would have been the headline had Park Ridge Park District Board of Commissioners exhibited a bit of common sense and accepted the contract agreement negotiated by then Executive Director Ray Ochromowicz and Board Attorney Tom Hoffman almost two years ago.

Joint PRPD SSI Agreement

Although I could illustrate several unfortunate results brought about by the short-sighted senior-centered actions of the O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Biagi lead Boards; let me just give you one.

Postings by Butterly on Senior Issues

Date Postings Views January 20, 2011 6 <   1,000 December 21, 2012 82 > 37,000

Making a Difference

A cliché  commonly used by people in “public service”, is their wish “to make a difference”!

Well, the O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Biagi lead Boards have surely  made a difference. 

Unfortunately for many Park Ridge seniors and other concerned taxpayers, not all differences are for the better!

Happy Holidays to you!

More conversation about the new swimming hole!

As I mentioned in the last post, the Board’s December 5th meeting went as well as Rick Biagi could have hoped; and many of his “mini-waterpark” friends attended to express their support of the $10+ million dollar, two-phase project. 

There were a few intrepid “naysayers” there of course.

Look folks - their mind is made up! 

There will be a new 7.1-to-10.5 million dollar “mini-waterpark” of some design.  I don’t think it matters a hoot what the general public has to say on December 13th.

The fix is in, so to speak!

That said; one has to wonder about the a thought process of a Park Board that includes the inability to cope with a $160,000 yearly loss for a Senior Center, while at the same time, sees no problem plunging an entire community into an additional long-term debt of 25+ million dollars (including the Youth Center property)!

Like a bad case of gas!

Well, like a bad case of gas, this story will ultimately come to an end.  Some of you will feel better – some of you won’t.  

The towns new GenXer, “your taxes are not going up” believing elite; the self-proclaimed future of Park Ridge, will feel better.  In 2014, they are going to have their expanded aquatic facility; and by choice, the financial responsibility that goes with it!

Unfortunately, the rest of you “naysayers” are going to be sucking pond water! 

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

Stack the deck – win the hand!

I went to the Park Ridge Park Board meeting last night.  As I said on the 4th, Rick Biagi intended to stack the deck with his supporters and that’s exactly what he did.

The dog & pony show went off without a hitch; and it appears he and the Board are well on their way toward indebting Park Ridge citizens with an additional $7.1 million this year plus another 3.5 +/- million in the years to come.

I stayed for most of the meeting, and during that time, 25 citizens expressed their opinions, with 21 in favor of the planned pool project.  Of course, the Board was unanimous in their support of the plan.

So, it appears the  Board and Mr. Biagi in particular, deserve kudos for their effort.

Now, that leaves December 13th for those wishing to express their disapproval, and even then, I think the new “mini-waterpark” is a done deal.

“It Ain't No Mystery,If It's Politics Or History,The Thing You Gotta Know Is,Everything Is Showbiz!” from: The Producers.

Of course, it’s just my opinion!

 

Some people call this process waterpark by stealth – I prefer to call it business as usual – Updated: 12/06/2012!

or “waterpark lite” - a pool replacement that’s more than a pool but not a waterpark like the big boys have in Des Plaines.

“Mini-Waterpark” Meeting Tonight!

I recently received a copy of an email sent from Park Ridge Park Board President Rick Biagi to various friends and supporters.

Note: Yes, some of Rick’s friends are also my friends.

Rick, knows how important the next two meetings are for his “mini-waterpark” or “waterpark lite” plan to succeed; and success (public support) is what he and his Board are lacking at this moment.

You see, Rick’s 2012 Presidency has so far been a bust; and he knows it. The senior problem hasn’t been resolved and has cost the Park District thousands of dollars in litigation fees, court costs and lost employee productivity; and the youth campus property bond referendum still has more than a 50% chance of bombing out!

Further, Rick Biagi is running for reelection to the PRPD Board and needs something “positive” to run on; and hopes the creation of the “mini-waterpark” will bring out enough of his supporters for the win.

Here is what Rick wrote:

“Subject: Centennial Pools Friends: As you may have heard, the Park District is in the midst of a discussion to replace the 58 year old pools at Centennial Park. It has been my honor to serve the citizens of Park Ridge on the Park District Board of Commissioners since 2009. In my role this year as Board President, I am extremely excited to help direct the future of the Park District with a proposed plan to modernize the aquatics facility at Centennial…but I need your help at this critical juncture. Over the past year, the Park District staff, in conjunction with the Board and independent aquatics engineers, has been developing a plan to replace the two aging pools at Centennial with two new, modern pools that have such common amenities as zero depth entry, slides, modest recreational water features and competitive lap areas. Detailed information on the plan can be found on the Park District’s web site at the following link: http://www.prparks.org/sites/default/files/images/centennial_pool_renovation-12-faq.pdf I want to stress that, while we are planning to modernize the facility at Centennial with amenities that are comparable to many other nearby communities, this project is not on the scale of a “water park” such as the Mystic Waters facility in Des Plaines. The overall cost of the proposed modernization project is $7.1 Million. This includes not only the cost to replace the pools, but also to properly address potential flooding issues in the area and to increase the size of the current parking lot. This project will be funded by the Board’s non-referendum bonding authority. In other words, the Board has the statutory authority to issue bonds for this amount, without increasing the tax burden on the taxpayers of Park Ridge (i.e., no new taxes for this project). Over the past few weeks, a relatively small but vocal group of citizens have voiced their strong objection to this project, on a number of grounds. Some who live in the area don’t want a new facility which, in their opinion, could bring more noise and more people to the park. Others want the Board to simply replace the current pools with exact replicas of the existing pools (at an approximate cost of $4 Million). Still others question whether we should even have outdoor pools in Park Ridge given the limited window of time (typically 90-100 days) to operate them during the summer months and thereby accusing the Board of fiscal mismanagement by ever considering an expenditure on outdoor aquatics. In my mind, the sole question for the taxpayers of Park Ridge is quite simple…do we or don’t we want outdoor pools in our City. If we don’t want them then the Board should be planning for the demolition of the Centennial pools within the next year, given the significant mechanical and physical problems the current 58 year old pools face. However, if the citizens feel that outdoor pools are an important fixture in our City, then we need to move forward on plans to bring a modern aquatics facility to Centennial Park. Simply put, the Board is at a crossroads and I need you to let your voice be heard on this very important issue…one that will impact the citizens of Park Ridge for generations to come. At my direction, the Board will be holding two public hearings on the future of the Centennial Pools...on Thursday December 6th and again on Thursday the 13th at 7:30pm in the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center at 100 S. Western. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have as many people as possible at these hearings…the future of pools in Park Ridge is in your hands. So, please plan on attending one or both of the public hearings and please, pass this message on to as many people as you can. Sincerely, Rick Biagi”

Todays post is primarily intended to inform my readers who are not on Mr. Biagi’s email list, of his attempt to stack the meeting audience with his supporters.

“It Ain't No Mystery,If It's Politics Or History,The Thing You Gotta Know Is,Everything Is Showbiz!”  from: The Producers.

Look friends, we’re dealing with smart people here – not necessarily wise people, however. 

I believe these seven Commissioners, this “relatively small but vocal group”, are conspiring to ramrod the issue past an unsuspecting electorate.  It is obvious they will do so because they can; and because they think you are too dumb and lazy to launch any effort to stop them!

Board members have told us more than once that they’re elected and represent 37,500+/- residents. 

You are one of them!

More importantly, you are taxpayers and voters!  Biagi and other Board Members are looking to have their ego’s stroked and are running for the Board again.

If you want to stop this foolishness, you need to stop them!

Run for the Board!

In the mean time, the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Board purports to represent you; and if you think they need to hear your voice NOW so they can REPRESENT YOU, you’d better make it a priority to attend the next two meetings and tell them what you think!

Background Information

First, read the PRPD Brochure: Centennial Pool Reconstruction 2013-14 which explains their version of the story.

Centennial Park Site – Now

Picture of proposed “mini-waterpark” facility.

Note: the rendering does not take the viewer to the western edge (bottom) of the park.

Lets take another look!

This time, lets take a look at a site rendition plus the addition of Google earths photo that includes the neighbors.

Look how close their property lines are to the proposed “mini-waterpark”.

Now, look at the rendering one more time.

This time, put yourself in the place of those property owners.

You can see that the bottom of the picture (west side of park) ends at the pathway intersection, just a few feet from the property line.

As you can see, neighbors on Seminary will have a front row seat to the entire waterpark; the overflow parking and noise and their friends to the south (to the right), will also be exposed to the same unwanted disturbances all summer long!

Update: 12/06/2012

Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.

“I would appreciate, since you are concerned with getting your readers the facts, that you make sure you have them. The Park District property borders Seminary, and the current western most location of the pool fence (wading pool) is 141.5 ft. from the west side of the street and the approx. distance from the proposed slide fence(which will be the furthest western point) to the west side of the street is approx. 100 feet. Which is more than a few feet.”

All that entertainment for the initial $7+ million debt.  Such a deal!  And we haven’t even discussed phase two’s “lazy river” addition.  Maybe there’s even a phase three for all we know. 

Update: 12/06/2012

Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.

The Lazy River is in the Conceptual Plan for Phase 2, there is no timeline or dollars budgeted for this. A timeline has not even been discussed. The bath house renovation would also be in phase 2. The cost for phase 2 is estimated at $ 3,453,300. This includes lazy river, bath house, site work, and support.

Only Park District Officials know their hidden agenda and the full financial implication along with increased neighborhood degradation due to usage growth!

This is a stealth enterprise, I believe, and an attempt to circumvent the will of the people as displayed in two prior referendum attempts to install a waterpark one step at a time. 

In short, it’s an attempt to put the camels head under the tent flap!

Finally, lets take one last look at the complete Google earth site picture, including the boundaries.

Close you eyes and visualize the possibilities.

Warm weather, screaming children, pina coladas, reggae music and palm trees? 

The neighbors are going to love it!

What do you think?

More on this issue next time!

Of course, it’s just my opinion.