Monday’s edition of the Chicago Tribune contained an editorial titled “Springfield’s lost boys” which criticized the politicians who infest our state capitol for failing “to deliver more government efficiency” and for not “reforming how Illinois spends.”
Move the site 200 miles north to 505 Butler Place and the Tribune could have been talking about our own City government, which has made deficit spending an annual event because it, too, seems to have no idea how to deliver more government efficiency or how to reform the way it spends our money.
But this year our City government finally woke up to the fact that we’ve got big economic problems that just can’t continue to be kicked down the road. It hurriedly raised taxes, cut services and personnel (and their related expenses), and did many other things it neglected to do in a more gradual fashion over the past decade. But whether it did enough is a matter of substantial dispute, which is why Mayor Dave Schmidt vetoed the budget sent to him by the City Council – a veto the City Council then over-rode.
The printed word just doesn’t do justice to what transpired at City Hall on Monday night, so we strongly encourage you to watch the video of the proceedings taped, as usual, by volunteer George Kirkland and now posted on the City’s website. But a few select comments are worth mentioning:
Ald. Jim Allegretti (4th), who made the motion to over-ride the mayor veto: “Like all of government, this [budget] is a compromise.” That kind of statement evokes the James Russell Lowell quote: “Compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.” The only question is whether the City budget is supposed to be an umbrella or a roof?
Ald. Robert Ryan (5th): “I really think we’re micromanaging.” This comes from the same guy who, in dealing with a $50 million+ budget, wanted to up the O’Hare Commission’s funding from $165,000 to $200,000, and also advocated for 12% cuts to the public funding of private community organizations, some of which amounted to only a couple thousand dollars.
Ryan, twice: “The veto is really disrespectful of the work done by the aldermen.” How so, Robert, given that state law allows the mayor no vote on the budget but only the authority to veto spending of which he disapproves? Are you saying that state law is “disrespectful” of the Council’s budget effort?
And Ryan, thrice: ““We need to accept [the Council’s budget vote] and move on.” How cute that he can channel his mentor, former mayor Howard Frimark’s, favorite directive when Frimark didn’t like how things were going.
Notable not for what they said but for their silence on their over-ride votes were Alds. Don “Air Marshall” Bach (3rd) and Frank Wsol (7th) – the former who voted against passage of the budget he called “fiscally and socially irresponsible,” the latter who voted for budget passage while inviting the mayor to make some then-and-still unspecified (both as to type and amount) line-item vetoes.
Perhaps Bach was uncomfortable revealing whether it was 30 of his constituents or just one Linda Ski who gave him his marching orders. Wsol, on the other hand, likely just came up empty on ideas of his own. After all, if Frankie the Politician had had his way in April 2009, City Mgr. Jim Hock would have had to figure out how to come up with a million dollars-plus of additional phantom revenues to cover the debt service on the big new police station Frankie wanted.
(Thank you again, Joe Egan, for giving us a referendum on the new cop shop in April ‘09. And thank you again, 83.39% of the April 2009 voters, who said a resounding “no” to spending approx. $28 million – $16.5 million of principal and another $12 million or so of bond interest and issuance costs.)
Not surprisingly, apologists for the Council and/or critics of Schmidt are already lambasting the mayor for not going with line-item vetoes – as if the guys surrounding him at The Horseshoe might actually have been inclined to sustain any line-item veto the mayor might offer.
How do we know?
How about the fact that none of them publicly identified even one line-item veto they would have unequivocally supported had the mayor made it?
Whether this budget tussle was just a political football or the honest disagreement among people with very different views of government’s role and its funding remains to be seen. But come this time next year we should all know who was right and who was wrong.
And we also should know whether Park Ridge’s “Lost Boys” are any closer to being “found” than their counterparts in Springfield.
36 comments so far
I don’t get Schmidt’s reasoning. If he thought revenue estimates were too high, why didn’t he just line item cut expenses down to whatever level he thought put them in line with shat he thought the revenues would be?
1109…have you been on a desert island? The mayor did not have the power to impose more layoffs or furloughs or reduce the library’s budget. Only the Council could do that, so he suggested they do just that. Instead they punted.
Speaking of punting, I just read the H-A’s online article about the budget veto override. Bach has to be the biggest nincompoop to ever walk the face of this earth. He said he had alot of problems with the budget (which he originally voted for), but that they were not the fault of the Council. He said the City Manager and staff make the revenue projections. So Air Marshall Bach, I guess the Council plays no role in making sure that the City Manager and staff are not selling you a bill of goods. What a goof.
If I understand this correctly, Hock’s job is to put together a budget, the city council’s job is to review, modify and pass it, and the mayor’s job is to sign it or veto it entirely or in parts.
The council passing the budget means that it approved what Hock came up with, as changed by the council. By vetoing the budget, Schmidt disapproved what the council approved. And by overriding Schmidt’s veto, the council re-approved what it and Hock did.
Does thta make this budget the council’s baby?
11:58:
That is what Schmidt and his team are hoping you will think.
OK 1213. What do you think? Frankly, it appears that 1158 understands it correctly and that what you have is a personal bone to pick with the mayor which somehow permits you to overlook the aldermen’s complete lack of attention to the revenues issue or the mayor’s suggestions at how they, using the power that only they possessed, could have made the necessary cuts in addition to the community group and O’Hare cuts which could have been done byu a line item veto. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Excuse me but the underlying theme of the blogs (or at least one of them) is that the aldermen SUCK!!! The authors of this blog and 99.9% of the posters think so. Have you ever heard the phrease “aldermonkeys?? Backtard or turd?? Lord of the manor?? The Mayor and his supporters think the aldermen are nothing but a bunch of idiots. So to now take the position that it was some how the right thing to do, that it was somehow leadership to simply expect this group you have labeled as idiots to do the right thing is laughable. He, you, they, everyone knew they were going to over-ride. Did you see the reaction?? Did anyone appear shocked?? So, after making a case that we are completely screwed, and knowing they will over-ride, the Mayor throws the ball back to them so he can say it is their fault. Now that is leadership!!
By the way, the only “personal” bone I have to pick is that I voted for him. I plan on judging him on what he said he was going to do.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You appear to be confusing this blog with the other one in town. While we did use “Lord of the Manor” in one post (with proper attribution to Park Ridge Underground), we have never (to the best of our recollection) used the terms “aldermonkeys”; and we know with certainty that we have not used “Bachtard” or “turd.” As for thinking of the aldermen as a “bunch of idiots,” nothing could be further from the truth: to the contrary, we are confident they know exactly what they are doing, what they are neglecting to do, and why.
As for the over-ride, once DiPietro and Sweeney said they would vote to sustain the mayor’s veto, the logical 3rd vote became “Air Marshall” Bach’s, because he voted “no” on the budget originally while ripping it as “fiscally and socially irresponsible” – which may have been the most intelligent thing Bach has said since taking his seat at The Horseshoe. But having watched and listened to Bach over the past three years, we knew better than to count on him for a “logical” anything; and, sure enough, he flip-flopped and voted to keep that “fiscally and socially irresponsible” budget. Go figure!
We believe the mayor did his job as the Illinois Municipal Code and the Park Ridge Municipal Code contemplate and provide. Those who disagree can vote him out of office in 3 years; or, worse yet, you can just surround him with the same, or more of the same, aldermen who are there now. Better yet, we encourage you to begin a petition drive for a recall ordinance that would allow the voters to vote the mayor and the aldermen out of office even during their terms. How about it?
To the Editor:
You say the mayor did his job according to the Illinois Municipal Code and the Park Ridge Municipal Code. What do those codes say?
“We believe the mayor did his job as the Illinois Municipal Code and the Park Ridge Municipal Code contemplate and provide.”
Way to aim for the fences. Don’t all of us try to do our job a little bit better than just keeping it legal?
And to suggest that the remedy is to create recall vote is absurd. How about voicing displeasure, and suggesting better courses of action in public anonymous internet forums. Some people seem to think that is a good way to effect change.
Anonymous on 05.19.10 3:37 pm:
The State and City Code provisions to which we were referring are not standards of competence or achievement but of legal authority. Under the City’s city-manager form of government, the mayor literally has no legal authority over the budget other than to veto it: he doesn’t even have to sign it for it to become law. You can find the applicable state laws in Chapter 65 of the Illinois Municipal Code, in case you’re really interested.
Anon on 05.19.10 5:55 pm:
If you’re serious about “voicing displeasure and suggesting better courses of action,” you must have missed the mayor’s veto statement, which Ald. DiPietro summarized into six categories prior to the over-ride vote. Yet even with DiPietro’s “Cliff’s Notes” analysis not one other alderman – including DiPietro himself – offered the mayor (or, more importantly, the residents of Park Ridge) even one line-item veto suggestion they would support; so the idea that the Council would have sustained individual line-item vetos appears to be nothing but fantasy.
By passing the budget and then over-riding the mayor’s veto, the Council clearly claimed that budget as its own – except for “Air Marshall” Bach, who said nothing of the sort at the meeting but is being quoted in the Herald-Advocate as admitting there are still “a lot of problems with the budget” that aren’t the Council’s fault but, instead, the fault of the City Mgr. and City Staff. Only in a mind like Bach’s could that explain his own vote against passage of the budget AND his vote against the mayor’s veto, as well as the general absolution he is claiming for the Council.
“I was against the budget before I was for it.” – Donald “John Kerry” Bach.
And this guy fancies himself as a 2013 mayoral candidate, and has enlisted the aid of Linda Ski who unwittingly helped push Frimark into retirement? Unbelievable.
9:14:
Funny stuff!!! Can I try?? “I was against being fiscally responsible before I was for it”. -David Schmidt
EDITOR’S NOTE: Very true, but at least he’s moving in the right direction. What are the other guys’ excuses?
To the Editor:
You didn’t answer my question. It sounds like you don’t want to give the answers and you are just going to make excuses and put everything on the council.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You should know by now that we love to give answers (when we think we have any worth giving) and ask questions (as many and often as possible); but we aren’t sure exactly what “question” you’re talking about. So with proper apologies to Alex Trebeck (and the late Art Fleming): Can you “make sure your answer is in the form of a question”?
And we’re not “put[ting] everything on the council”: We’re putting responsibility on the Council for passing the budget; responsibility for vetoing that budget on Schmidt; and responsibility for over-riding that veto on the Council.
Hey 930, I believe the mayor has repeatedly admitted the error of his aldermanic ways and found fiscal religion. As the editor says, what excuse does the Council majority have? Who knows? They’re not talking. At least the mayor has explained his reasoning on several occasions. If you still don’t get it, then you either can’t or have deliberately chosen not to listen.
Look…there seems to be this theme that by pointing out the role of the aldermen that some how absolves the mayor or vis versa. I understand the role of the aldermen and, as normally seems to be the case, it was not good – duh? That is a part of the reason I voted for Schmidt. Based on his words and his discussion of vision and leadership I hoped he could accomplish something inspite of the council or at least reach a compromise on some issues. So here we are after the budgeting process and what does the Mayor have to show for his leadership in this most critical of times for PR. In fact if you believe what he says we are at a cross roads. Hell, read some of his writings and you would think the sky is falling. So what does he (and we) have to show for it? Not a single issue (TOPR, CoC, other community groups, O’hare AND OTHERS) has been successfully brought to close in the way the Mayor wanted -not one. Forgive me if I find that disappointing! But what makes me really think this is a game is all of you dancing around saying it is the aldermens fault. It reminds me of Congress. The blame is more improtant than getting anything done. So congratulations to the Mayor and his supporters. You did not get a single thing done in this critical time but it all the fault of the aldermen…..yippee!!!!!
The council made a bunch of tough decisions and cuts, jobs in every department, some that made them very unpopular. They took steps to fund any new expenditures. They dropped the ball plenty, and made what many consider the wrong decision. They at least deserve credit for reigning in some of the spending, and blame for not doing enough.
The mayor also deserves credit for pushing a fiscal conservative agenda. However, the mayor loses points for not doing what he could with the line item veto, and shitcanning the entire budget when everyone knew it wouldn’t be upheld.
And to ask how we would know if line item vetoes would have been upheld points out another problem with the mayor’s style. Any leader should be able to have some idea through conversation, pubilc pressure and teamwork, how to rally enough of the coucil behind a line item or two. Most who sit in an executive chair of government have some idea if a veto will carry before they make it.
1032 and 1111…it’s a question of math. So long as the Dark Side has five votes and they stick together, they can block anything the mayor tries to do. And that goes for line item vetoes.
If you don’t believe me, wait until the contributions for community groups comes up for actaul approval before the Council which should be sooner rather than later. If the mayor stays true to his word, he will veto that expenditure, the same way he would have if he had exercised a line item veto in the budget. Any prediction on how the Council will respond to that veto? I’ll lay dollars to doughnuts that the Council will vote 5-2 to override the veto. And then all those pea-brains criticizing the mayor for eschewing a line item veto approach will be forced to swallow their pride and say they were wrong. (Sure, that will be the day) That is why peeling off two or three of the aldermen in the next election is a high priority. Give the mayor a Council he can work with.
1111…you are assuming the mayor knew Bach would flip flop. So it seems you are ready to villify the mayor because Bach proved himself to be an idiot. I guess that is somehwat fair criticism, since we all know Bach is an idiot and has nothing on his mind except positioning himself to run for mayor. God help us all.
Mayor can still line item veto. He said he would in his veto letter.
Anonymous on 05.19.10 12:28 pm you say only the aldermen could make the cuts but that is not true. The mayor could have made line item cuts for any appropriation sums. The Illinois codes and the Park Ridge codes say he can do it. You’re wrong about who has the powers. The powers are for both.
6:09 pm – the ultimate power over the budget is reserved to the council, because it is authorized to adopt it and it can override any and every mayoral veto while the mayor has no ability to override the council’s override.
12:32:
Perhaps I am missing something here. You seem to be saying that all of the expenditires for community groups that, because the Mayor did not line-item them and because his complete veto was over-ridden, are currently still in the budget will at some point have to go before the council again giving the Mayor an opportunity to veto those expenses. Why do you think this is the case? What am I missing? The money for COC, for example has been budgeted and all that remains to be done is to cut the check. The council has approved the expenditure as part of the budget. Now you are saying it has to go through the process for “extra approval”? How is Schmidt even going to get a chance to veto that? What do you mean by actual approval? As far as I can tell, the Mayor already missed his opportunity to veto money to community groups.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Council didn’t approve the “appropriation” of community group funding (or O’Hare-related funding), it merely approved a budget that provides for that funding. As Ald. Bach stated on at least two occasions with no correction from Mayor Schmidt, City Mgr. Hock, City Attorney Hill, or Finance Chair DiPietro, just because they budgeted for it doesn’t mean they have to spend it.
PD:
So are you saying that as things sit at this moment, the money in the budget connot be spent without going before the council, thereby giving the Mayor another chance to veto??
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we are saying that it is our understanding from what has been discussed in budget meetings that most/all of these budget items will ultimately become appropriations which (a) the Council will need to approve; (b) the mayor can veto; and (c) the Council can over-ride. The mystery, however, might be cleared during this coming Monday night’s Finance & Budget portion of the Council’s Committee of the Whole meeting, for which “Approve Contributions to Community Groups for 2010/2011” is an agenda item.
anonymous on 05.20.10 7:37 pm the final power goes with the aldermen but the mayor still had the power to make cuts and he didn’t.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The mayor has the power to line item veto budget items (like all O’Hare spending, but not just the lobbyist cost), but once the Council over-rides the veto the issue is resolved on the Council’s terms.
While I certainly am no supporter of Bach, it does seem pretty clear from his words and actions that he voted against the budget because he did not believe in the public saftey cuts listed in it. Then he most likely voted to override the veto because he knew that if it was upheld he would risk losing more of the spending he is for, rather than actually sway the rest of the council toward his way of thinking.
I happen to disagree with Bach, but to claim he is impossible to understand is not exactly the case.
And yes, the mayor is to be faulted for not knowing which, if any, of his veto options would be upheld, for not having a working relationship with this council even in disagreement, and for creating political footballs instead of solutions.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There is nothing “pretty clear” from anything Ald. Bach has said or done that would establish his reason(s) for voting against the budget yet voting to over-ride Schmidt’s veto. If Bach really wanted to save cop jobs, the $350K that he supported for the O’Hare Campaign and private community groups would have done the trick. Unfortunately, the “Air Marshall” turned into a “Sphinx” and clammed up about why he voted the way he did, other than to blame the City Mgr, his staff, and Schmidt.
We repeat: NONE of the mayor’s “veto options” would have been upheld, as was shown by the fact that not even one alderman said what line item veto(es) he would support.
We had a mayor who had a good “working relationship” with this Council. His name was Howard P. Frimark, and that “working relationship” cost the taxpayers of Park Ridge almost $7 million in deficit spending over Frimark’s last two years in office. And five of the seven current Council members (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan and Carey) are Frimark’s former “alderpuppets” who, in March 2008, voted to endorse Frimark’s “condemnation” of then-Ald. Schmidt for legally disclosing information from a closed-session Council meeting; and who then contributed over $3,800 to Frimark’s unsuccessful campaign against Schmidt. Based on that evidence alone, it seems “pretty clear” that their desire for a “working relationship” with Schmidt is the more problematic side of that particular equation.
Yes, Mr. Editor, and now Bach will get a chance to prove the theory that budgeting money for community groups does not mean actually spending it. The contributions to community groups is on the COW agenda for Monday night. Will he vote for the contributions or not? Should be interesting.
Got a good laugh, in fact many laughs, out of Bach’s quotes in the Advcoate. But the best one was his complaint that the mayor never talks to him. Small wonder. I have witnessed Bach having “conversations” with people. They usually consist of Bach monologues topped off with him listing his various accomplishments which get more outlandish as the “conversation” drags, and I mean DRAGS, on. Most “listeners” try to slip away before Bach gets to the part where he stormed San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt and helped Al Gore invent the internet.
Why no staff memo on the community groups agenda item?
625…how hard would it have been for Bach to say last Monday night:
“I am voting to override the veto because…”
Why didn’t he? Probably because local political guru Linda Ski told him to keep his mouth shut so he couldn not be pinned down on anything that might hinder his re-election bid in 2011 (or his mayoral bid in 2013?).
EDITOR’S NOTE: The same goes for the other over-ride votes, especially the elusive “Frankie the Politician” Wsol.
After the council passed the budget to the mayor, why didn’t the mayor line item veto enough line item expenses to balance the budget as he sees it?
People here have said he could not veto revenues. I get that. People here have said he could not veto furlough days. I get that.
The mayor could have vetoed enough line item expenses that reflect his view of what he thinks the real revenues will be. It is part of what he can do in his job as mayor.
Why didn’t the mayor do that?
By Anonymous on 05.21.10 11:27 am…
And you think those types vetos would have been sustained?!? You gotta be smoking some crazy sh*t, man.
By Anon on 05.21.10 11:51 am so you are saying the answer is the mayor didn’t line item veto anything because the vetos wouldn’t be sustained.
Then why is the mayor saying he will line item vetos now?
11:27:
The mayor answered that question when he issued his veto message and again Monday night before his veto was over-ridden. You may not like the answer, but one was given.
The mayor said he thought revenues were over-stated by more than $1 million, which isn’t just one line-item here and another line-item there. That’s major budget reconstruction, with is supposed to be the legislative branch’s (i.e., the council’s) job that doesn’t become the executive branch’s (i.e., the mayor’s) job just because the council doesn’t want to do it.
Beyond that, what you apparently don’t “get” is that the mayor couldn’t ADD furlough days by veto, even though he said additional furlough days could be something the council might consider if it had sustained his veto. He also couldn’t add any more taxes and fees, even though that too might have been in the mix if the council didn’t want to cut further spending.
You ask why the mayor didn’t line-item as if that were his only choice. It wasn’t, and he instead chose the general veto. So why didn’t the council sustain that veto?
Hoover, the $1 million over revenues isn’t one line item either. The mayor did enough work on the budget to come up with the total amount he views as being over projections.
The mayor could have done enough work and selected enough line item vetos to equal the amount of the over projections.
Why didn’t the mayor do that? Some people here say it was because he didn’t think the vetos of line itmes would be sustained.
Does the mayor think line item vetos will be sustained now?
If he doesn’t think the council will sustain line item vetos then why did he say he will do that now? He could have done it before.
12:31
You said the following:
“If he doesn’t think the council will sustain line item vetos then why did he say he will do that now?”
Listen mister!!! I do not know who the hell you think you are!! How dare you expect the mayor to be consistent. The mayors opinion of what the council will do is flexible depending what he needs to support his own actions. You forget, the office of mayor is not responsible for solving problems, only ponting out problems!!
You sir are an apologist for the clowncil!!
The bottom line I see is that the mayor could have vetoed line items enough to get the budget to his view of being balanced.
Why the mayor chose not to do that looks like it could be a question of politics.
Some have said it was because he doesn’t think the council would sustain his vetos.
If that is what the mayor thinks then making vetos now seems pointless unless this is about politics.
I went through the budget information on the city web site and found over $1 million in costs the mayor could have recommended to the council for cuts.
The council would have the final power to say no but the mayor could have put costs on the table to consider.
EDITOR’S NOTE: So you “found over $1 million in costs the mayor could have recommended to the council for cuts” but chose not to share any of them with the mayor or us? That’s not very public spirited of you, assuming that you’re not just making this up. But if we take you at your word, those must be the same cuts that the Council could have made before it passed the budget originally, or had it sustained the mayor’s veto – along with other things the Council could do but the mayor couldn’t impose by veto, like additional furlough days.
To the Editor:
I did find over $1 million in cuts the mayor could have line item vetoed and could have recommended for consideration to the council.
I didn’t think to put the list here but you asked so here is the list from the budget document the mayor could have done the work to find and some are the things he already spoke about cutting.
Contributions for community groups, $190,080
Airport commission $165,000
Noise monitors $25,000
Citizen Patrol dinner $500
National Night Out materials $9000
Citizens’ Police Academy $1500
Youth Outreach $500
Flu shots for employees $20,000
Consumer confidence report on water $7500
Consultants for streets and sidewalks $8000
Citywide training $4000
Library furniture $7500
Library newsletter $29,600
Library printing $11,500
Library postage $19,200
Reforestation $102,200
Parkway tree trimming $615,000
Cuts this blog talked about that could of been recommended for cuts too are Fireworks $20,000 and the Taste of Park Ridge $23,000.
All of these add to $1,259,080.
The mayor could have done the work to find these cuts to be line item vetoed which would have been additional to the cuts of $283,768 for police or the mayor could have line item vetoed his own choices.
The police cuts and the cuts listed here would add to $1,542,848.
The mayor could have put out the list here or his own and said what the furlough amount should be but he didn’t do that.
The mayor made no choices. He is no different then the council.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Too bad you kept all those good ideas to yourself until after the Council passed the budget, the mayor vetoed it, and the Council over-rode that veto. But maybe they’ll come in handy when the Council has to actually appropriate those budgeted funds, the private community organizations’ portion of which the Council will be discussing at Monday night’s COW meeting.
Anon @ 812…those are interesting suggestions, but it would not have worked that way. First, neither the mayor, nor the Council for that matter, can cut individual library expenditures. We can only cut the overall total expenditure, and only the Council could do that through a vote. I could not accomplish that through a line item veto.
Second, I consider tree trimming and reforestation to be essential city services, especially tree trimming which invovles an element of safety. I would not have made those cuts until every other possibility was exhausted. That is more than half of your proposed cuts right there. I would have preferred furlough days and an overall reduction in the library’s budget. But that had to be done by the Council. I could not do it through a line item veto.
Although you are wrong about how I could have cut the budget single-handedly, I do appreciate your suggestions and your involvement.