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.]
20 comments so far
$10,000? For what?
I wonder how much Dewey, Cheatem & Howe will charge for him for his “legal action”?
What is a travesty is Frimark got off from being held to account for breaking the law. Frimark, Schmidt, the Aldermen, and Jennifer Johnson should all be sued with a class action law suit by the people for conspiracy to commit fraud on us with thier posing for the cameras and stupid reporting as representatives of the people.
Feckless Council
Former Mayor
Frimark
Fortitude to enforce
Facet of the complaint
First blog
Formal complaint
Fees
Funds
Found probable cause
Figuratively caught
Truly this is one big F-ing deal.
Sadly, the missing word is felony.
I don’t know what irritates me more, that Frimark did this stuff or that Schmidt started the ball rolling and then walked away from it after Hill determined there were grounds to prosecute.
This insurance deal isn’t the biggest thing to hit the news, but if these ordinances aren’t going to be enforced, why have them in the first place?
As one of the primary authors of the ethics ordinance, I’m definitely more irritated that Mayor Schmidt chose political expediency over taking a principled stance and casting a principled vote.
But somehow, I’m not surprised by it all…despite Mayor Schmidt’s campaign promises of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.
First of all, thank you for the Royko reference. Oh, he would love all the political crap going on in this area!
Ms. Johnson is truly an embarassment to the H-A. Are they so desperate over there that they continue to keep her on? I guarantee there are many more talented reporters sitting on the unemployment line who would honestly report the news fairly and honestly. She, too, has the Frimark disease that if you call her on anything, she just turns the issue around with her vendettas.
I have GREAT faith that something else is going to pop up, that Frimark did while in office. Something illegal, unethical and wrong. He will hang himself, the Council won’t need to. Just watch and see.
What a bitter, bitter man. He DOES play the victim well, doesn’t he?
Nobody has asked or answered this question: why would Schmidt have a vendetta against Frimark? Schmidt won. Frimark lost and continues to be a loser.
That’s not a bad question, Roarke, but the better question is: If Schmidt didn’t have a vendetta against Frimark, then why did he complain to the city attorney about Frimark but then vote not to prosecute after the city attorney said there was cause to do so?
As Frimark and Pub Dog says, that makes no sense at all.
Ald. Markech, you still seem quite bitter. Let it go, you arent going to be on the council any time again. How you live with all the negativity is amazing. Try doing something postive for the community instead of trying to make more problems. Move on.
Ha. Good one Roarke. Anyone who has ever opposed Frimark in this town politically, in business or even in a social standing arena leaves with a personnel vendetta against him. That’s because he makes everything so personnel. In the last two weeks of the election Frimark threw so much garbage, most of it personnel, at Schmidt because he knew his ass was going down. Nevertheless Frimark did in this case violate the law, but after cutting through all of it you are left with the question of purpose because of Schmidt’s bizarre actions.
An inquiry is not a complaint. However, the City Attorney could not tell the difference, so the wheels were set in motion.
One last time…if Schmidt had a vendetta against Frimark, he would have filed a complaint supported by an affidavit which would have resulted in the hiring of a special investigator and likely prosecution.
anon on 11.12.09 9:04 am,
I understand there are those who view ethics ordinances and the expectation of their enforcement as so very very “negative” and you appear to be one of them.
After all, how’s a guy supposed to freely engage in exploitation of current or fromer political connections for purposes of self-promotion and personal gain with all those pesky ethics ordinances getting in the way?
But rest assured, you have no reason to expect such ordinances to be enforced…at least, not by any of the current members of the City Council.
You are so very right, anon, we should all simply “move on” from any expectations for ordinance enforcement or good ethical government.
Roarke,
Maybe Schmidt only wanted to give Frimark a public punch in the ribs. Maybe Schmidt is still mad about what Frimark tried to do with Schmidt’s divorce records. Vendettas don’t have to go the distance and some people don’t have the backbone to carry things through. Who knows why Schmidt did what he did. It doesn’t really matter since he didn’t follow through.
Frimark did something he should not have done so he deserves the consequences, such as they are. If Schmidt didn’t want to prosecute he should have stopped the proceeding early on, so he deserves the criticism he is getting.
But the guy who is getting screwed in this deal is Buzz Hill, who obviously did not enjoy having to investigate this and find a violation by Frimark that deserved prosecution. But he sucked it up and did his job, and then the city council and the mayor pretty much turn their backs on him. Talk about a vote of no confidence.
Anonymous 2:07 is correct about City Attorney Hill having the City Council turn their backs on him. But, Mr. Hill did not raise the issue of what motive PRC might have had for throwing insurance business to the ex-mayor when they surely had existing relationships with other casualty insurers. Mr. Hill also failed to raise the issue of why the loosing insurance broker immediately lowered his quote when the Frimark-Keller bid was withdrawn. Why would an insurance broker do that if his original bid had been legitimate in the first place? The second broker had no economic reason to lower his bid since it immediately became the lowest bid once the Frimark-Keller bid was withdrawn. These are questions Attorney Hill should have addressed. They are issues the City Council voted to ignore.
Anon. 4:50
The issues you raise were not within the scope of the ordinance, so there is no reason Mr. Hill should have investigated them. Motive doesn’t matter. The only issue that Mr. Hill was authorized to investigate was whether Frimark sold the insurance – which made him an “agent” of someone (PRC, UCHA or the insurer) who was seeking consideration (in the form of premiums) from the City. That’s it, that’s all.
The rest is irrelevant for purposes of ordinance enforcement, even if inquiring minds would love to know all the little details about what else might have been going on.
Can someone explain something to me? When the Council voted 8-0 not to prosecute Frimark, why did Mayor Schmidt vote? Doesn’t a mayor only vote to break a tie? (Cf. Frimark handing Bill Napleton $400K in taxpayer money.) Seems to me the Mayor could have avoided voting and let the alderpuppets exonerate the man who still pulls their strings. Can somebody help me here?
As we understand this particular ordinance, the mayor is actually given a vote rather than merely allowed to serve as a tie-breaker.
Thanks, PubDog — but it still seems like he could have abstained. Have to admit I’m scratching my head a bit over Mayor Dave’s judgment on this one from start to finish.
anon without tears:
I have given up on trying to figure it out – it gives me a headache. No matter how you look at it it does not make sense.
He had to know, based on available information as well as his own experience as a lawyer, that if he asked Buzz to investigate there was better than a 50/50 chance there would be grounds to go forward. So if he believes in his heart that to prosecute is wrong then why even have Buzz investigate? Some might say it was a vandetta but it was politically stupid. If it was always his belief we should not prosecute, then by asking Buzz to investigate he put himself in a position of publically going against the picture on which he campaigned.
ARGH!!! The whole thing is just baffling!!
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>