Since the Taste of Park Ridge was handed over to private not-for-profit corporation Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) in 2005 after the Chamber of Commerce abandoned the event, Taste Inc. has often stated that it would provide the City of Park Ridge with a report on Taste Inc.’s finances.
Taste Inc., however, never delivered; and City staff under Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark never followed up. But new Mayor Dave Schmidt has expressed an interest in getting that information for the taxpayers who support Taste (the event) with their taxes, their volunteerism, and their patronage. And Taste Inc. has once again stated that it will provide a report.
Early indications, however, are not promising – if comments by Taste Inc. honcho Albert Galus are any indication. As reported in the July 22, 2009, issue of The Journal (“Organizers Bask In Success Of Another ‘Taste’”), Galus bragged about the “great success” of this year’s event, bragged about attendance, bragged about vendors and prices, and bragged about the “between $30,000 and $40,000” Taste Inc. spends each year on the event.
Galus was less than forthcoming about the financial details, however, stating: “We are working with the city in terms of providing them the information we can provide” and claiming that some of that information is “proprietary.”
Hey, Albert! You guys are running a self-proclaimed not-for-profit corporation that has a no-bid monopoly on running an allegedly not-for-profit community event using not-for-profit City and community volunteer resources. What the H-E-double hockey sticks could be “proprietary” about that?
As we’ve said before, if Taste Inc. really is on the up and up and if no “insiders” are fattening their wallets on this not-for-profit event, the best way to show it is for Taste Inc. to do the honorable thing and make a full disclosure of this year’s operations and Taste Inc.’s overall financial condition. Produce line-item revenue and expense statements (including the names and amounts paid to each and every vendor), profit & loss statements, and all the other information that shows exactly what’s coming in, what’s going out, and to whom.
That’s the kind of detail the taxpayers have a right to expect from Taste Inc. and its principals who control the City’s premier community event, especially when those principals consistently claim that they do all the heavy lifting for the good of the community rather than for personal gain.
And that’s what’s called “transparency,” something that is way overdue from the folks who run Taste Inc.
9 comments so far
City employee Kim Uhlig is on the Taste committee. Why isn’t she reporting on what’s going on?
Ms. Uhlig is a committee member…
Committee Members
Chairman Albert Galus Academic Tutoring Centers
Carol Brown Park Ridge Police Dept
Jim Bruno Chase Bank
Bob Hansen Park Ridge Police Dept
Dave Iglow Pine’s
Jackie Mathews Rainbow Hospice
Dean Patras Broadway Livery Service
Sandy Svizzero Parkway Bank
Mel P. Thillens Thillens Service Corp
Barbara Tyksinski All on the Road Catering
Kim Uhlig Park Ridge Economic Devl.
John Warnimont Activision Electric
…not one of the Board of Directors.
Board of Directors for 2009
President Dave Iglow
Vice President/Secretary Albert Galus
Treasurer Jim Bruno
Director Dean Patras
Director Sandy Svizzero
Director Barb Tyksinski
Director John Warnimont
So, it is likely she does not have access to all the financial details.
if this is a not-for-profit activity and the group running it is a not-for-profit corporation using public assets and community volunteers, why is any of the information about taste of park ridge being withheld from the public?
“9:05. You are correct that I have been paying attention. You are also correct that I have been quiet. That was deliberate on my part because I did not want to create unwarranted controversy prior to this year’s Taste which might have eclipsed the event.
The issue of the City’s involvment in the Taste and other events will be addressed at the City Council’s Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on August 24. That will give the Taste organizers and the City time to accumulate the financial information necessary to make a reasoned assessment of the situation.
The public should understand that this review is not directed solely at the Taste. There are a number of events where the City provides services but receives no reimbursement. The Council will be engaging in a broad review of all of these events. Stay tuned”.
By Mayor Dave on 07.13.09 9:24 am
I believe this is your answer. If you do not feel that the city should be involved with the taste unless they release the information that you want then this is the guy you need to talk to. Along with that you could attend the meeting on Aug 24th and see if your questions are answered and ask more if you like.
anon, you’re so very close!
The bottom line isn’t really “release” of the financial information, is it? So many times I’ve heard some folks say, “Making a profit isn’t a crime! Nothing wrong with making a profit!” Okay…then who cares what’s being paid out to whom for whatever service then?
…and “not-for-profit” doesn’t mean not making money, and paying bills…
The real bottom line is reimbursement to the City for expenses, isn’t it? Making sure the costs for the use of City assets are being repaid should be the bottom line; volunteers, as I understand it, are “free people” who can do as they please, aren’t they? So, the City can’t stake any real claim to “community volunteers.”
One course of action could be to simply add up, in a comprehensive way, all the expenses incurred by the City on behalf of the Taste event, then hand the bill to Taste Inc.
If Taste Inc. cries “poor mouth”…difficult to do after Mr. Galus’ comments…then again demand that they PROVE “poor mouth” through release of a full and complete financial statement, or pay the damn bill.
If Taste Inc. refuses both reimbursement AND release of complete financial statements, THEN the City should simply refuse to do business with them again. Period. End of story.
edited: for structure/typo
Jeannie:
I think your course of action is logical. The frustrating part for me about the entire taste debate is I feel as if the anger is misplaced. If one feels that having this information is so critical it seems to me the question is not “why won’t the taste release this information?” The question(s) is why would the city enter into what is basically a partnership without knowing (or requiring) this information? I like your suggestion about counting up what it costs, but what baffles me is why doesn’t the city already know this??? It would seem to me that this would not be brain surgery. Why wouldn’t the city have require year end meetings after each taste to discuss these issues?
Perhaps this is the direction we are headed. I guess more of an answer will come on Aug 24th.
Do you mean this Monday, the 17th? See the agenda on line… Mayprs report, item e.
anon 8:45 PM:
I got the the Aug. 24 date from a recent post by the Mayor. I did not check the agenda(s) online – my bad! Thanks for the information.
The issue of disclosure and/or reimbursement will be discussed on August 24. The matter on the 17th is just for the Taste organizers to thank the city for its assistance. The mayor’s report is not the time for the aldermen to engage in a policy discussion.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>