Tomorrow Morning’s The Time To Show We Mean Business On City Budget


As we noted in Wednesday’s post, tomorrow morning from 9:00 a.m. to noon the City Council will be holding its first “budget workshop” for the 2010-11 budget year. 

Although Mayor Dave Schmidt was instrumental in changing the customary “workshop” practice to permit citizen comment, if citizens don’t show up and speak their minds about how the City takes and spends our tax dollars we’re likely to get another year of business as usual – which, in the City’s case, means multi-million dollar deficits and insufficient funds to maintain the City’s infrastructure and essential services.

We can’t wait to see whether Frank DiFranco shows up to actually learn something about City finances to go with his simplistic, one-note “We need billboards” refrain.  If so, that would appear to be a first, as we don’t recall Frankie D ever publicly expressing any prior interest in the City’s finances, even as the City spent most of the past decade posting multi-million dollar operating deficits while at the same time depleting fund balances and running up more multi-millions in bonded debt. 

In fact, Frankie D’s only only involvement with City government our research disclosed is as a $2,100 contributor to Howard P. Frimark’s first mayoral campaign, and as the attorney defending Norwood Builders’ Bruce Adreani against charges he had a “Monica Lewinsky” moment with a temporary waitress in the Park Ridge Country Club’s men’s locker room in July 2007. 

But now he’s writing to the Herald-Advocate about how “[o]ur taxes are going up. City services are being cut. Police raises are not being paid even though the city was contractually obligated to pay them.”

Good points all, which is why it’s up to the average citizen to start letting it be known, in no uncertain terms, that the City’s business-as-usual financial mismanagement will no longer be tolerated. 

So will we see you at City Hall tomorrow morning, Franki D?

How about the rest of you Park Ridge taxpayers? 

18 comments so far

Anyone know, for those of us quite interested but unable to attend, will tomorrow morning’s session be taped??


Pubdog asks what we will see at the budget hearing on Saturday.

what we will see is the quickly becoming evident fact that mayor schmidt is

losing support from his base and reinforcing his negatives with those who did

not support him in the last election.(remember almost half of those who voted

did not support him –a 5 or 6 percent margin is slim and frankly not very

much of a showing to say he is the \”annointed one\”).


Loss of support from his base.

When staunch supporters like BEAN can only spout a modicum of \”praise\” with

descriptions of Mayor shcmidts character being akin to Bill Cosby\’s favorite

dessert…….Schmidt might have acted with the strength and determination of

a tower of jello…

well, it makes you wonder if we can trust him.

Here is what BEAN said on the PRU on december 15, 2009:

…Additionally…there was I time I would have simply taken Schmidt\’s word

for something (without verifying) and moved along. Now? Not so much…

Schmidt\’s words and actions (which speak louder by far…as well as words

unspoken and INactions too, for that matter) and time and experience has


In short, trust but verify. Personally, I\’m going with \”verify\” and leaving

\”trust\” off the table.


Then when you add in the distressing news that a citizen overheard the mayor

say that he was glad that Uncle Dan\’s went out of business….How should we

trust the man?

Inconsistency and breaking of Campaign promises. (certainly not a suprise

when it comes to a politician –but this time was different, right? Right?

Right? Appearently not.

Based on a recent January 13 PRHA article, Mayor Schmidt shrugged off his

promise of ethical and honest government. (see PRHA article copied below:)

January 13, 2010

Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt said a reported violation of the city\\’s

ethics policy for employees appears to have been unintentional, and he does

not plan to pursue the matter.

An anonymous letter sent to the mayor and members of the City Council in

December accused the city of violating its ethics provisions by hiring Depkon

Landscaping to perform a job July 14 at a cost of $1,075. The company is

owned by a current Park Ridge Public Works Department employee, and,

according to the city\\’s ethics provisions for employees, city employees

cannot be hired contractors.

City Manager Jim Hock said Depkon Landscaping was used by the city until

about two years ago when James Depkon joined the Public Works Department.

Depkon was told the company could no longer be contracted to do work for the

city of Park Ridge, Hock said, but last summer, supervisor Ron Brubaker

issued a work order to Depkon Landscaping to repair a parkway on the 1700

block of Elliott Court that was disrupted due to a main break. The contract

was only discovered by the city\\’s purchasing director after the work was

completed, Hock said, adding that Brubaker was advised this landscaping

company cannot be contracted again.

It did not appear that any disciplinary action was taken.

Schmidt said he is satisfied with the explanation provided by the city


\\”Apparently there was a mistake made,\\” he said. \\”It was rectified, and it

will not happen again.\\

Once again, when Mayor Schmidt had a chance to do the right thing on ethics,

he gives it a pass. So much for his word on that campaign promise.

What it comes down to is this: you can\’t trust mayor Schmidt.

Those who did not support him saw that he is untrustworthy before the

election. And those of us who did support him are now realizing that the

other 40 some percent who didn\’t support him may have had better eyesight

than did we who did support him.

What really irks me, as someone who thought Schmidt would be different, is

the admission on the pubdog site that Schmidt\’s campaign supporter Anna

Dudzyk who ran the polish fest (and by the way Mayor Dave, when will we be

seeing a full disclosure from that event?????) (another campaign promise

broken) was convicted earlier this decade of criminal activity (theft) and

charged in August of 2009 for theft after the polishfest happened in the end

of July. And this is the same lady who hosted a fundraiser for SChmidt. This

is the kind of person the mayor defends???? That is the straw that broke the

camel\’s back for me.

As a mother of three children, I thought mayor schmidt was someone who could

provide a model of behavior to emulate, unfortunately, the model he provides

is of what not to be like. The lessons my children will learn from his

failure are that you should keep your word, stand up for what is right, and

not defend those who have done wrong. Schmidt has failed to keep his

promises, failed to act in accordance with his sworn oath of office, and

defended a criminally charged and prosecuted person just because she was a

campaign supporter and FUNDRAISER.

As pubdog always says, this is the county of crook in the state of

corruption. Mayor schmidt may only have been here for a decade but, sniff,

sniff, sniff –whew–it\’s been long enough….

Hey Anonymous on 01.15.10 5:36 pm,

Where’d you pop those three kids out of? Your ass?!?
I am not sure you are capable of reproduction… if you know what I mean. You write like a certain Alderidiot I am so fond of…

Did I miss something? What did that rant have to do with the city budget?!?!?

I’m sure the ORD rest…er.uh..I mean the O’Hare commission reps will be there asking for “their” money for legal issues.

The author makes a few valid points. Unfortunately, his/her “rabid” dislike takes over and negates any real information the post might contain. It reminds me of some of the anti-Frimark posts I have read over the years. Actually it reminds me of a birther!!

anon on 01.16.10 9:54 am

I would agree with your assessment that valid points have been made. there

does seem to be emerging a real issue about the lack of trust many in the

city are feeling about schmidt. What is striking are many that supported him

are fleeing like the cliched vermin from a sinking vessel.

While the previous poster let her emotion overpower her rational points (And

I do not blame her for having a very real human reaction to what amounts to

many as a betryal of trust by the current mayor) it does seem to indicate

that schmidt has broken the monopoly many assinged to the previous mayor for


Schmidt now has shown that his past actions (many of them documented in

public and legal sources) of bullying, disingeneousness in speech, and at

times inappropriate social conduct have started to dissatisfy those who may

have thought he had the \”right stuff\”. Now it seems they are feeling like

they are carrying Schmidt\’s baggage. BEAN\’s comments that the previous poster

reffered to really do make the salient point of that betrayal of trust.

I applaud the previous poster for her courage to admit that she made an error

in the recent election. (she indicated in her language that she was among

those who supported schmidt) And would echo the sentiment that schmidt has

shown to all that you can not trust his words or actions.


I do not personally mind if you attempt to criticize Mayor Schmidt up one side and down the other. Responsibly offered free speech is one of the rights we enjoy.

However, what I do mind is your pretending to be several different people, and your attempt to lend an appearance of some kind of anti-Schmidt groundswell, when in fact all of the comments you refer to are your own; talk about being “disingenuous”…

The chief editor of Public Watchdog may hold a different view and will undoubtedly let me know if that is so.

OK….I am not an expert but I would bet the farm that 12:18 and “the lady” are the same person.

Good call Alpha!!

I believe I am a little offended in his/her comments by putting word in the mouths of Mayor Schmidts supporters as if they have some sort of intimate insight of what and how they are may be thinking or even feeling for that matter.

I assure I for one am perfectly capable of speaking for myself as I’m sure are many who do not share his/her sentiments.

It looks like I’m chasing Anonymous on 1.16.10 @ 12:18 pm from his/her comments to Wednesday’s post to this one.

I think Schmidt is an honest guy, unlike the slime bucket who previously occupied his office, and unlike the slime pot still sitting in one of the aldermanic chairs.


I am a Schmidt voter and, while disappointed to date, I agree with most of what you have said.

Based on your “chasing….” comment, I am assuming you are 4:34 on the Wednesday thread. In that post you said the following….”But I have seen not even a shred of evidence whatsoever that he is dishonest, either before he was elected or since”. This is what I find sooooo amusing. You look at the prior poster and think he is jumping to way too many conclusions and I agree. There is no evidence for some of the things he seems to claim as fact. Having said that, if evidence is so damn improtant (especially here in the blog world), please provide me with a single shred of evidence related to the “slime buckets” you referenced. The only evidence against either of them was virtually ignored by the Mayor and city council. So the poster is wrong because of lack of evidence and yet you draw your conclusions with no eivdence.

So while I agree with your position related to the posters comments, to somehow claim lack of evidence is hysterical. Evidence??? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!!!!!

I may be stepping on 4:44’s toes here, but the “evidence” v. Frimark I would point to includes his giving away Taste of Park Ridge to private company of his cronies at no charge (2005); his engineering of zoning changes for crony/campaign contributor Bruce Adreani/Norwood Builders at Executive Office Plaza (2007); his negotiating to get the city to buy 720 Garden from his country club buddy Griff McDonald for $400K more than the city’s appraisal(2007); his casting of the tie-breaking vote to give $2.4 million to crony/campaign contributor Napleton Cadillac (2008); and his ethical violation (as found by the City Attorney) with the Uptown insurance deal.

And if the “slime pot” 4:44 is referring to is Allegretti, I would point to his non-disclosure of his contribution to Frimark’s campaign when he was appointed to Frimark’s council seat; and this billboard deal.

Let\’s look closer at 10:11pm\’s attempts at


his giving away Taste of Park Ridge to private company (2005) –Actually the city

council decided that including Jeannie Markeech and all

of Frimark\’s detractors; his engineering of zoning

changes Executive Office Plaza (2007)

— again decided by a city council; his negotiating to

get the city to buy 720 Garden for $400K more than the city’s

appraisal(2007)—deal never came to fruition and

building is now owned by someone else; his casting of the

tie-breaking vote to give $2.4 million to Napleton Cadillac (2008) —again, decided by

others in addition to him; and his ethical violation (as

found by the City Attorney) with the Uptown insurance

deal—a political show orchestrated by Schmidt as a

\”gotcha\” ploy — and given a pass by schmidt and thus

breaking schmidt\’s campaign promise. (by the way, since

no action was taken the previous poster would be advised

to refer to it as alleged in order to be accurate)

Schmidt\’s slimy actions include pushing through a polish

art fest event that was poorly planned and cost the city

in services, and we still haven\’t seen any type of

accountabilty from him and the fellow planners (which

includes anna dudzyk–schmidts campaign supporter and

fundraiser who was criminally convicted earlier in the

decade of theft and who was charged with theft again in

august 2009–)

Additionally, schmidt used his position as liquor

commissioner to try to deliver a favor for a campaign

contributor and exempting them from city fees. (yea

–that\’s thinking about the best interest of the city)

(it\’s in city can dig it up online).

So it seems that schmidt is on his way to claiming the

moniker of current slime bucket.


Case 1: A person looks at an Alderman who gives a campaign donation (small amount) and does not hold a press conference to announce it. They do disclose as required by law and the information is available but not announced in a paper. Now I can see how a person can look at the and go off on a corruption rant.

Case 2: Mayor votes to let off Frimark. a person can go off on broken promises and not really carrying about ethics.

From an evidence perspective, both situations are exactly the same. It is a matter of what side you are on.


I’m not sure where your experience comes from but in little town elections the usual small contribution is about $50 to $100 bucks.

Allegretti gave Frimark $300 in March ’05, $200 in July ’05, $1000 in November ’08 and $500 in March ’09. I looked these up and I also saw that in March of ’05 Allegretti’s legal associate in his same office building, DiFranco, gave Frimark $1,100. None of these contributions are small, not in a small town like Park Ridge.

The first two contributions weren’t disclosed at the time Allegretti was put forward to be appointed an alderman. He went through a lot of interviews and neither Frimark nor Allegretti said a thing about the contributions and both acted like they hardly knew each other. Allegretti even said at one point the reason he didn’t run for the 4th ward alderman seat was because he really didn’t know there was an election which is evidence to me he is a liar since he gave money to Frimark for an election he claims he didn’t even know about.

Only after the contributions were filed with the board of elections in January ’06 did anyone learn about them. Frimark and Allegretti hid behind the strict letter of the law.

I also know Allegretti was aksed why he didn’t disclose the contributions and his response was, Nobody asked.

That is corruption because corruption is a failure to be honest, have integrity and be forthcoming about what you are doing or have done, pure and simple.

Schmidt wussing out on following through with a vote to prosecute Frimark for an ethics violation that he clearly committed isn’t the same thing at all.

So, no. It doesn’t depend on what side you are on. It depends on whether you are being intellectually honest, or not.

9:20 – Wrong.

Frimark and Allegretti didn’t tell the city council about Allegretti’s contribution to Frimark’s campaign while he was being interviewed for appointment to Frimarks council seat, before Frimark filed his report disclosing that contribution. So that was a dishonest concealment.

Schmidt correctly (in my opinion) complained about Frimark’s ethics violation, then stupidly (again,in my opinion) voted against prosecuting him even though the city attorney said it was a violation. No concealment of anything, no dishonesty, just stupid or gutless.

anonymous on 01.17.10 5:08 pm said about Mayor Schmidt….no dishonesty, just stupid or gutless.

WOW–that\’s a ringing endorsement.

Schmidt, Stupid or gutless? Well, it actually appears to be both, and just wait a bit, the dishonesty part will emerge soon…just wait and see.

Leave a comment
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>


(optional and not displayed)