This week’s Herald-Advocate contains an article that reads like it was written by a public relations agent for former mayor Howard Frimark (“ETHICS ORDINANCE: Victory, vendettas on Frimark’s mind after ethics dispute,” Nov. 10).  So we’re taking this opportunity to provide some direct commentary on that piece, including information that the writer overlooked or intentionally omitted (with our comments in bracketed boldface):
_______________________________         

Victory, vendettas on Frimark’s mind after ethics dispute

November 10, 2009
By JENNIFER JOHNSON [email protected]

Former Park Ridge mayor Howard Frimark contends he was “vindicated” by the City Council’s vote last week not to prosecute him for an alleged ethics-ordinance violation, but he remains angry about the complaint. [“Vindicated” by a political decision, despite the City Attorney’s finding that there was probable cause to prosecute Frimark for a violation of the City’s ethics ordinance – a fact that mysteriously didn’t make it into Ms. Johnson’s story.]

“A lot of people are telling me this whole process was a political vendetta by the mayor’s office,” Frimark said this week.  [“A lot of people” apparently has replaced the “little birdie” that used to tell Frimark all the gossip he used to spread about his political opponents and critics when he was still mayor.]

When asked if he agrees with this interpretation [“Interpretation”?  Of what?  Is the word you were looking for “opinion,” Ms. Johnson?], Frimark responded, “I hope the complaint was not politically motivated,” but added that he felt it was an attempt to “smear my family and my business reputation and hurt my ability to make a living.” [Then City Attorney “Buzz” Hill must have been in on the “smear” campaign, because he’s also the City’s ethics officer who found that there had been a violation of the ethics ordinance that warranted Frimark’s prosecution.] 

The council, including Mayor David Schmidt, voted unanimously not to seek prosecution against Frimark for the alleged violation, which involved Frimark’s sale of insurance policies for the Shops of Uptown’s underground garage, which the city of Park Ridge partially owns and for which it pays a portion of the insurance. According to the city’s ethics ordinance, which was adopted while Frimark was mayor, for a period of two years after leaving office an elected official may not act as an agent for any party requesting “consideration” from the city. [Which is exactly what the City Attorney found Frimark had done, even if the Council and the mayor lacked the integrity and the fortitude to actually enforce the City’s ethics ordinance.  But hey, we live in Crook County, Illinois – who needs ethics?]

“He spoke against me in every facet of the complaint, but then he votes not to prosecute,” Frimark said of Schmidt. “To me, that doesn’t make sense. [In what we believe to be a first for this blog, we actually agree with Frimark on this one: that doesn’t make any sense to us, either.]  I wonder what the real motive behind it was.” [And we wonder what Frimark’s “motive” was for ignoring the requirements of an ethics ordinance enacted during his mayoralty, especially because just this past January he signed a legally binding amendment [pdf] to the City’s agreement with PRC and the Uptown Condominium Homeowners Association that expressly identified the City’s interest in the project.  Oops!]

Schmidt said he brought the matter to the city attorney to inquire whether the city’s ethics ordinance had been violated, and it was never meant to be a formal complaint.  [If that’s true, then why did he encourage the City Attorney to perform the review process prescribed by the ordinance; and why did he waste two hours of City Council time on what appears to have been nothing more than a “show trial” of Frimark, before announcing that he would be voting “no” on prosecution?]

“If this was a political vendetta, I would have filed a formal complaint with an affidavit so it would have gone to a special investigator instead of leaving it in the hands of the City Council, which I knew would never vote to prosecute Frimark,” Schmidt said. “It doesn’t make sense for people to believe this was a political vendetta. If it was, I wouldn’t have handled it the way I did.” [If this was “handled” at all, we believe that term deserves the prefix “mis-“.]

Frimark said he is considering legal action, but would not say what type of litigation he might seek or who it would be directed toward. [This sounds like the stereotypical hollow Frimark bluster we’ve heard since he became a public official.  But we have to wonder what his legal claim will be: “Attempted enforcement of an ethics ordinance for which the City Attorney determined there was probable cause to prosecute me”?  Good luck with that!  Or maybe he’ll try the late Mike Royko’s favorite Chicago ordinance violation:  “Aggravated mopery with intent to gawk”?]  He did say that he has incurred about $10,000 in legal fees related to the issue even though it never reached the courtroom phase, and he objected to the way the complaint has been handled.  [If this is true, Frimark might actually be as irresponsible a spender of his own funds as he was of the public’s!]

“I never had the complaint given to me,” Frimark said. “Whatever system of justice this is, it’s a complete travesty.” [More Frimark hollow bluster.  Under this particular ordinance enforcement procedure, what occurred was only the investigation stage, so there was no “complaint” for Frimark to be given.  And even though the City Attorney found probable cause to prosecute Frimark, because the feckless Council voted to give him a pass, there never will be any “complaint” to give him.  We would have thought that for $10,000 some lawyer would have explained that to Frimark by now.]

Frimark maintains he did not do anything wrong, and that Park Ridge was not listed on any documentation he was given prior to establishing the insurance policy. He admits he did not take action to remove Park Ridge from the policy once he learned the city was responsible for a portion of the insurance payment.  [Apparently he expects us to believe that he simply didn’t remember that amendment he signed last January, or that we won’t remember his attorney’s admission to the Council that Frimark was advised of the City’s insurable interest before he bound the City to this latest insurance coverage.]

“No one said I should do anything with it or not. So I let it sit there,” Frimark said of the policy. [Apparently the $10,000 in legal fees didn’t cover that bit of advice, either.]

The insurance coverage has since been canceled by PRC Partners, the owner of the commercial Shops of Uptown properties. Frimark said he voluntarily canceled the homeowners portion of the insurance, as well. [Which just goes to show that Frimark can do the right thing…once he’s figuratively caught with his hand in the ethical cookie jar.]