After just 13 months on the job, Park Ridge Recreation & Park District executive director Ray Ochromowicz (a/k/a “Ray O”) is leaving the PRRPD for the St. Charles Park District.
That Ray O is leaving for St. Charles is not surprising from a “career” perspective. The SCPD owns and manages 1,400 acres of parks and recreational facilities, compared to a meager 130 acres at the PRRPD. The SCPD also sports such features as a 9-hole Robert Trent Jones, Sr.- designed golf course, a miniature golf course, and a variety of other amenities beyond what the PRRPD offers. A new $10.2 million (not counting debt service), 9.2 acre water park complex is scheduled for a June 2011 grand opening.
It’s also rumored that the SCPD offered him a big bump up from his current $120,000 salary, which would be expected given how much larger the SCPD is than the PRRPD.
In his short time at the PRRPD, Ray O has done some very good things. He is credited with revamping the District’s organizational structure, revising job descriptions, and establishing a pay-for-performance plan that saw $36,000 of performance-based bonuses paid to District employees in 2010. He established needed customer satisfaction assessment measures.
He also started the District toward a modified zero-based budget process – which is the direction in which we wish all local governmental bodies started moving – and slashed expenses by 10% while producing approximately $1 million more in revenues than expected.
Those notable achievements, however, were tempered by a few notable failures.
Ray O was stonewalled when he tried to take on two of the District’s most sacred cows and financial black holes: the Oakton Pool and the Senior Center. In each instance small but entrenched, vocal minorities – with the aid of a slim majority of sympathetic Park Board members – were able to preserve their “entitlement” facilities that suck almost $300,000 a year ($100,000 for Oakton, $200,000 for the Senior Center) out of the taxpayers’ pockets to subsidize what effectively serve as semi-private “clubs” for their relatively few users.
Another notable gaffe was the cell tower at Northeast Park, a somewhat marginal idea to begin with that was totally botched by Ray’s failure to follow the long-standing District practice of sending written notification to all of the park’s neighbors in advance of the District’s public hearing on the project. Consequently, the project received few objections until it finally came before the Park Ridge Planning & Zoning Commission, where an irate SRO crowd convinced that City commission to deep-six it.
And we seriously question the wisdom of Ray O’s plan for turning Centennial Pool into a modified water park, if only because he has proposed using a significant amount of the District’s non-referendum bonding power to do so – in the face of the voters’ decisive rejection of every referendum on spending big money to increase the size and amount of water at Centennial (or at Oakton) since at least 1995.
The last time the District committed a significant amount of its limited non-referendum bonding power, we got our $12 million-plus (counting principal and bond interest) poorly-designed and undersized Community Center – which deprived the District of the $7.6 million of non-referendum bonding power it would have needed to acquire 13.8 acres of what was then (in 1996) the “Edison Park Home” property (on Canfield between Devon and Higgins) that subsequently became the Brickton Place development.
Despite those failures, we hope the District seeks and finds someone with Ochromowicz’s ability, financial focus and direction. But even if it finds one, it will need fiscally-responsible Park Board members to encourage the new director to stay on the relatively sound financial path that the District generally has been following for the past decade.
Unfortunately, the Park Board will be losing its most fiscally responsible member in Marty Maloney, who after 8 years on the Board has chosen to seek election to the Park Ridge City Council as alderman from the 7th Ward. Besides Maloney, only Board president Jim O’Brien (who is seeking re-election) and vice-president Rich Biagi (who has two more years remaining on his term) have consistently displayed any backbone on the Oakton Pool and Senior Center albatrosses, in sharp contrast to Board members Richard Brandt, David Herman, Mary Wynn Ryan and Stephen Vile.
Since 1995, the Park District has seen the most contested election races of any local governmental body. We think that is a big factor in the Park District having been (in our opinion) the leading local governmental unit when it comes to: improving operations of existing facilities while eschewing big expenditures and/or debt; meaningful intergovernmental cooperation; transparency of its operations (it was the first to videotape its meetings and post them on line); and accountability, including the solicitation of public opinion through both advisory and binding referenda before big decisions are made.
We hope this April’s election sparks spirited, issues-oriented debates among this crop of Park Board candidates about whether they wish to see the Park District continue to move in its present direction, or whether they wish a return to the District’s less transparent, less accountable, more tax, borrow and spend ways of the early-to-mid 1990s.
Meanwhile, we bid bon voyage to Ray O, while at the same time wondering just how much better the PRRPD might have become with another year or two of his presence at the helm.
To read or post comments, click on title.
16 comments so far
The Park District tends to fly under the radar because it doesn’t have the kind of budget the City or the Schools have, but I think you are right about it doing the best job of managing itself and its money (with the exception of Oakton Pool and the Senior Center).
EDITOR’S NOTE: We confess to not giving the Park District as much attention as we should, but that may mean that it isn’t as screwed up as the City Council, or as secretive and unaccountable as D-64.
If you’d watch videos of Park Board meetings you’d know how wrong you are about some of the Board members you accuse of being irresponsible. Some are strongly on your side about Oakton and others strongly on your side about Senior Center (in fact, have credited you with raising the issue initially!).
And BTW, the Park District is categorically NOT as screwed up as City Council, and you know it.
And it’s NOT unaccountable, either. Any unaccountability under the prior Director (before Ray) was aggressively supported by some of the candidates you now praise — in fact, they were beyond nasty to the elected officials who demanded accountability. Don’t ask, don’t tell was the mantra during the prior, pre-Ray decade, and taxpayers can only hope candidates moving to other governing bodies have seen the truth at long last. To hell with the City Manager/Exec. Director form of governnance if it means nobody says nothin’ — if the top dog is screwing up, or letting his direct reports screw up, and it hurts the taxpayers, the Board has the moral obligation as well as the right to speak up about it!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We havewatched some of the videos, and read some meeting minutes and the newspaper accounts. And we stand by our comments. If you wish to provide specific concrete examples to the contrary, we welcome them.
We never said the Park District is as screwed up as the City. We specifically noted that it appears to be ahead of the City – and way ahead of School District 64 – in transparency, fiscal responsibility and accountability.
As for the “pre-Ray” days, we disagree with you as to former director Jim Lange – who, while displaying certain weaknesses, took major strides in overcoming the fiscal irresponsiblility and opaqueness of his predecessor, Steve Meyer, a director who both encouraged and enabled what was for many years a tax-borrow-and-spend Park Board. If not for Lange’s efforts toward instituting a much more open, transparent, accountable (e.g., by promoting referenda for major spending) and fiscally-responsible District, we believe Ray O’s accomplishments would have been far fewer and less significant.
Once again, if you have concrete examples to the contrary, we welcome them.
I hope the current board gets someone good in place asap. It looks like at least three of the candidates for the spots are backed by the union that organized the park district employees. I would hate to see the union pick the director and end up on both sides of staff contract negotiations.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree, in no small measure because we generally object to the concept of public employee unions in the first instance.
Just to clarify, that’s three candidates for the open park board spots up for election in April.
Yesterday 5:57 pm.
Giordano, Mattes and Wachowski?
Information –
There are four open positions for the Park Commissioners: 3 positions are the full 4 year terms, one position is the remainder of a two year term vacated.
Watch the video on the Senior Board discussion and you will see that Mary Wynn, Rick, Marty, Jim and Rich sent back the proposed contract with the senior center that Ray O. had negotiated. To generalize and make a statement that only Marty and Rick are fiscally responsible on the senior center is flatly untrue.
What you see or hear on the video tape is only a small portion of the work that goes on by the Commissioners. Ray O., deserves a ton of credit for the work that he accomplished, but a few of those ideas were brought up to him directly by Commissioners.
Having an idea is one step in the process. Implementing those ideas is obviously the harder part and where Ray deserves credit.
Finally, the Commissioners deserve a little bit of credit because many of the accomplishments that you listed had in many cases the full backing of the Board.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What is the date of the “video of the Senior Board discussion” to which you refer?
You apparently misread the post, because we noted that only Maloney, O’Brian and Biagi “consistently displayed any backbone on the Oakton Pool and Senior Center albatrosses” [emphasis added]. Moreover, sending back a contract is one thing: have any of these current Board members publicly called for a halt to subsidizing the Senior Center? When and where?
Amazing!!!! That much park space, a new huge water park and they paid him more. All from a town with a population of only 32K.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And from what we can tell, a whole lot more open space; and a whole lot more industrial and commercial property that generates substantially more property and sales taxes.
2:54 –
That’s them. Looking at their petitions Giordano got only six signatures himself (out of 192 needed and about 300 received). All other petitions were circulated, for all three candiates, by the same three SEIU members — the most proment of which is Tim McDonald, the vice-president of SEIU Local 73, the union that represents the park district employees.
Sounds like a fox or three are trying to get in the henhouse.
Weren’t Maloney and O’Brien on the park board when the PRPD tried to get through a multi million dollar bond referendum or two on transforming Centennial Pool into a waterpark and the open land at Oakton (once the pool was dug up) into a sports facility to be used for indoor soccer and the travel baseball and football programs? Yes Maloney showed consistent backbone on the closing of Oakton Pool because apparently he wanted to the taxpayers of PR to build the soccer program-which is not supposed to be funded with taxpayer money other than through fees to participate-a facility for indoor soccer.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maloney (O’Brien wasn’t yet on the Board) and a majority of Park Board members didn’t try “to get through” anything: they simply submitted two different referenda proposals (one binding, the other advisory) for voter consideration; the voters said “no”; and nothing was built – unlike former Park Board members Bob “Gewalt-Hamilton” Hamilton, Mary Hester-Tone, Garry Abezetian, Mike Rozovics, Dave Hilquist, Joyce Clark and Roy Sues, who borrowed and spent approx. $12.8 million (principal and interest) of our tax dollars on the poorly-designed and undersized Community Center without even having the decency to give the voters a chance to vote on it.
You should mention that these elected officials are not paid, it is completely a volunteer job. For those that do a good job it is a huge time commitment. It is not about just showing up and voting, but you have to actually talk to residents that live in Park Ridge.
Look at the video on the vote about the Cell Towers. Marty actually brought up the issue of circularizing communication to the immediate neighbors before the Commissioners voted. Some Commissioners talked with many PR residents to get a pulse on how they felt about a cell tower in their backyard. All of the Commissioners wanted more public input at the meeting before they voted. The papers did not pick up that issue timely either.
Although you imply that some of the Commissioners are not fiscally responsible, and you disagree with them, that does not mean they are not working hard to improve Park Ridge Parks. Unfortunately you do not know, or understand what is involved in some of these votes. Maybe you should jump into the game and make the changes that you feel are of importance, or would you not get enough signatures to get on the ballot?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Why should we mention that? Holding pubic office is called “public service,” not “public employment” or “private enrichment.” If people don’t want to serve for free (like the PRRPD, D-64 and D-207 board members), or for $100/mo (like the aldermen), or $12,000/yr (like the mayor), then they shouldn’t seek those offices.
As for officials “working hard,” puh-leeeeze! A favorite quote of ours by the late, great UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden, says it all: “Do not mistake activity for achievement.”
What “video” are you talking about? We just checked, and there are only two posted on the PRRPD’s website: from 11/18 and 12/16 – which means we need to dock the PRRPD some transparency and accountability points for that poor showing.
As for not knowing or understanding “what is involved in some of these votes,” we have been monitoring the activities and attending meetings of these local governmental bodies for 20 years; and we believe we know and understand most of what “is involved.” Most of the time it provides abundant fodder for criticism, but occasionally it warrants praise.
The bottom line is that governing any of these local units of government is just not that damn hard – so long as our public officials: (a) are willing to do the heavy lifting to inform themselves on both the matters brought before them and on the public policythat is being furthered by those matters; (b) are motivated solely by the public interest, not their own or others’ special interests; and (c) are even more cautious and responsible with the public’s money than they are with their own.
PD:
As always, you are 100% correct!! These positions are “not that damn hard” and the PD board should stop complaining. Here’s an idea. Let’s get oust the PD board. After all we have soooo many people wanting to run for aldermen we could simply ask all these extra people to serve on the PD board!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Who on the “PD board” is “complaining”?
But if people don’t want to get involved in local government, then they deserve whatever inept, special interest-favoring public officials they get. Like a few of those leaving the City Council in a few months.
And just what is wrong with the community center? Do you expect it to be like a for-profit health club? Are you a member of the cc and a regular user? I use the cc everyday and have no complaints whatsoever about the facility. It is built for use by the whole community-from infants to seniors-and by the number of people there and the many different activities that take place there the cc is a success. In addition, from discussions with past park board members the cc holds its own and is being funded by the people who use it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Community Center is the proverbial “camel”: a horse designed by committee. Although in this case it was the aggregate of different components hastily cobbled together in an attempt to be all things to all residents – so long as the price came in under the limit of the District’s non-referendum bonding power so that it didn’t have to go to the voters via referendum.
As a result, we got: an “open” lobby design that is incompatible with distinguishing between, and controlling access by, “members,” daily-fee users, program participants and non-user spectators; a lap swimming pool that is too short and too narrow to stage sanctioned swim meets – and the only access to which requires those parents (often in street clothes) taking their kids to the pool for swimming lessons to actually walk through the shower area(!); an aerobics room that was almost immediately too small for aerobics classes (and was turned into a free-weight room) as part of a fitness area that was itself too small for the number of users; a running track that was too short with too-tight turns; not enough basketball courts; etc.
Is that enough for you?
The good news, however, is that in 2009 the Community Center had operating “profit” of $183,681, and the District is estimating a “profit” of $270,000 for 2010. We aren’t sure if that includes the debt service on the bonds used to acquire the property and build the Center, but those are still good numbers either way.
I would like to address the comment from yesterday that mentioned past Park District referendums and that implied there was something sinister taking place with the Oakton Pool.
I have been on the Park Board for the past 8 years, during which the Park District went to binding referendum twice on what do at Oakton Pool.
The first referendum was to replace Oakton Pool with an indoor athletic facility that would have been used for a number of things, including soccer, baseball, football, basketball, gymnastics, and other programs that the Park District staff wanted to put there. It also would have provided new locker rooms for the ice rink, and some funding from this referendum would have paid for some improvement/renovations to Centennial Pool.
The second referendum was to replace Oakton Pool with another pool very similar to what is there today – or, rather, what was there prior to the Diving Well imploding and being removed.
Both of those referendums failed, and the Park District has operated Oakton Pool since then with a “DNR” order in place. Unless a major problem occurs that requires a significant investment to correct, the pool will open each season regardless of how much money is lost on the day-to-day operations, or what the attendance is. But if the pool fails, the plan is to tear it out, fill the hole and plant grass on top.
I don’t agree with that passive “DNR” premise because, to me, it lets Oakton Pool manage the District rather than the other way around.
I am in agreement, however, with that portion of the plan that involves filling the hole and planting grass over it, because the voters have told us through both those binding referendums, an advisory referendum, and a survey, that they don’t want (and/or want to pay for) another pool or a recreational center on that site. And finding that out about the voters was the main purpose of those referendums, which I also support.
I realize there are people who do not agree with me, including many who have served on the Board. That is ok, and I don’t take it personally.
But it remains my opinion, which Director Ochromowicz validated after his independent review of Oakton Pool (how much money is lost there, how many people swim there, etc.), that it makes the most sense to close the pool, even if that seems like a harsh decision to some people.
Thanks.
Your assessment of the cc looks at it from your perspective which is nearly always negative based on my somewhat regular reading of this site. You always have to have the last word on all matters so you appear to consider yourself an expert on them all.
The cc serves its purpose and serves it well despite your opinion. You must have been on the park board at some time based on your list of perceived issues with the cc. Didn’t you want it built? Did you want it bigger-better-more expensive. But let it go-the center was built years ago. It works and apparently plenty of people in PR think so based on the number of people using it on a regular or semi-regular basis. Thanks to the PRPD staff for providing a clean and very usable space for the many of us who use it for what it is-a community center-and enjoy it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It is what it is – a half-baked, second-rate facility that was built that way because the Park Board members at that time wanted to get it built without having to go to referendum on it. That’s just bad management, bad public policy, and bad government – irrespective of who likes it and who doesn’t.
And for those who prefer using non-referendum debt (which we don’t), devoting the PRRPD’s allotment to the Community Center prevented it from being available to acquire the 14 acre Edison Park Home property when it became available a few years later.
I like the Park Ridge Park District and believe that the Executive Director, the management team, and the Commissioners are doing a very good job.
I read your blog weekly, and I think this week you gave a backhanded compliment to the Park District.
I personally think that the Commissioners of the Park District have a much easier job than an Alderman or someone on the Board of the School Districts. I don’t know for sure if that is true, but it seems that the budget for the district would be smaller than the city or school districts.
I think you are right the Park District is in good shape and hopefully the new Commissioners elected will continue to keep it in good shape.
One last thing, as I have read some of the comments on this post. If the Commissioners are not doing a good job, they will get voted out of office. I don’t know enough about any of the candidates running for Commissioner, but would sure like to see you post something on each candidate running.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, it was a front-handed compliment. And as soon as the candidates start issuing position papers and campaign materials, and appearing at candidate forums, we expect to address their qualifications and “platforms” – if any.
Did the Park District make a counter offer to ‘Ray O’?
Do you think there is more to this story than money for why Ray O. is leaving?
Do you know how Ray O. felt about the Commissioners? Or the Commissioners about Ray O?
Maybe he is leaving for other reasons, perhaps?!?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We understand that the PRRPD made no counter offer to Ray O. At this time we have heard or read nothing that would suggest anything more than what Ray O gave as his reasons for leaving.
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>