In our May 30, 2008, post (“Going Into Hock For New City Manager”), we criticized former mayor Howard P. Frimark and the City Council for giving then-new City Manager Jim Hock a contract that treated our tax dollars like Monopoly money and that “put [Hock] “a lot closer to Boardwalk and Park Place than most of the residents he will be serving.”
While we criticized the approximately $200,000+ compensation package he was given, we did not criticize the one-year term because we thought such a “guaranty” was reasonable consideration for Hock’s moving here from Oak Park, Michigan.
But that term expired in 2009, and Hock has continued to work and receive that same level of compensation without a contract, with no apparent detriment.
Until December 20, 2010, that is, when the City Council approved a deal “negotiated” – and we use that term about as loosely as we can without laughing out loud – by Alds. Rich DiPietro, Jim Allegretti, Don Bach and Frank Wsol that not only improved Hock’s financial arrangement but also extended that arrangement through April 30, 2013 – which the Council locked in this past Monday night with its 7-0 over-ride of Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of that contract.
If anything speaks to what’s wrong with government in the State of Illinois, or the County of Crook, or our own sleepy little burg, it’s that kind of fiscal irresponsibility.
Why does Hock deserve a contract at all instead of remaining as an employee at will, as the vast majority of us are?
Check out the video of Monday night’s meeting on the City’s website and then let us know whether you heard a satisfactory explanation by any of the aldermen of why Hock deserves a 2+ year employment contract.
Watch and listen to Ald. DiPietro prattle on about how he and his colleagues believe Hock’s new contract is a “fair” one.
Watch and listen to Ald. Joe Sweeney – who previously described this contract as being a good deal for Hock but not such a good deal for the taxpayers – attempt to justify it by noting that back in 2008 Schmidt, as a new alderman, voted to give Hock a 1-year contract. That’s right: because Schmidt voted to give Hock a one-year contract almost 2 years ago, Sweeney can now vote to give Hock a 2+ year contract.
Watch and listen to departing Ald. Frank Wsol compare Hock’s compensation under that new contract to the compensation provided his counterparts in other communities. As if other dysfunctional and fiscally-challenged local governments are somehow the gold standard by which Park Ridge government should be measured.
We especially liked Wsol’s praise of Hock’s performance, which consisted of Wsol’s pointing out that Hock has maintained City services at the level he inherited from his predecessor. In other words, Hock hasn’t screwed up to the point where services have declined.
But let’s get down to the real nitty gritty.
How many of you who have been helping pay Hock’s $200,000/year (all in) compensation earn similar compensation? And for those of you who are so fortunate, how many of you also have a 2+ year contract that calls for a $117,000+ severance payment?
What we are seeing from this Council, 5 members of which are heading for the exit come April, is the same mindset that has pushed public employee compensation and pensions, especially in Illinois, to the point where they have become an unsustainable burden on the taxpayers.
A few weeks ago, Gov. Pat Quinn and our General Assembly passed a 67% state income tax increase, ostensibly to make up for decades of mismanagement. And our own City Manager has just recommended his second consecutive 5% property tax increase.
The better to pay for his new contract.
To read or post comments, click on title.
24 comments so far
The more of this stuff I see, the more disgusted I am by the people we elect to these offices. Your point is exactly correct. Why does Hock need or deserve a contract? If he doesn’t like what he’s being paid, or doesn’t like not having the security of a multi-year deal and big severance payment, let him leave.
ALGERNON, did you watch the video? I think the Mayor should be embarrassed. He admitted that he refused to meet face to face with the manager.
The contract is generous but it is also fair for both sides. With politicians in charge of things it is better to have them have to deal with a contract or they get crazy with politics.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The flaw in your argument is the implication that Hock is entitled to any contract at all, much less one that’s “fair for both sides.”
Whether the mayor screwed up by not meeting with Hock is subject to debate, but it is indisputable that all seven aldermen gave a sweet deal to a City Manager whose three years of employment have produced multi-million dollar deficits and property tax increases – endorsed by the buffoons who just gave him this contract, naturally.
Anon @ 341pm:
I want to clear the air on this once and for all. The “face-to-face” issue is a red herring. I engaged in several telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges with Mr. Hock about certain aspects of his contract. We reached an impasse on: (1) the issue of deferred compensation for opting out of the City’s insurance plan; (2) a non-disparagement clause; and (3) his right to more than 6 months of severance pay. A face-to-face discussion would not have changed anything. I still would have objected to every one of those provisions because they were not in the taxpayers’ best interests.
Frankly, I think you are dead wrong about this contract being “fair” for both sides.” As Alderman Sweeney pointed out in December, the contract is good for Mr. Hock and bad for the taxpayers. I see nothing “fair” about that, at least from our “side,” the taxpayers.
Mr. Mayor, I understand you are a lawyer. When you negotiate contentious settlements, do you do that via email and the telephone? When you have to convince a judge or jury of your position, do you do that via email and the telephone?
I’m sorry. You refused to properly meet with the manager for 18 months to get through the difficulties and that reflects very poorly on you and your management.
I feel the aldermen did the right and fair thing for all of us by making you and the new politicians subject to a contract so you can’t just do as you please for political reasons.
605…It may be that the “new politicians” will want to dispose of the City Manager but your jump to the conclusion that it would be for political reasons. How about if they simply have issues with his performance? Unfortunately, or fortunately for the City Manager, there seems to have been little done in the way of an objective evaluation of the City Manager before he was granted this most recent largess. Here’s hoping the “new politicians” impose that evaluation on him and his performance and then what will be will be.
“Whether the mayor screwed up by not meeting with Hock is subject to debate…..”
The only reason that it is open to debate (in your mind that is) is because you are Schmidt supporter.
I am not crazy about the contract but for a Mayor to refuse to meet with a city Manager ( I would like to think theyse folks meet a on a regular basis) is a joke!!
He refused to meet with him before. What is he going to do now??? Go to his room and hold his breath until he gets his way???
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t support Schmidt personally, we support most of the policies Schmidt supports. Big difference.
Frankly, we believe Schmidt screwed up this Hock contract matter – but not by not meeting with Hock about the contract. Schmidt screwed this up by not insisting from the very beginning that Hock didn’t deserve another contract and should be an employee “at will”; and he should have made it clear, from the very beginning, that he would veto ANY contract for Hock. Period.
Once Hock got his one-year, $200,000 guarantied term of employment to justify his relocation from Oak Park, MI, he should have become an at-will employee like 99% of the private sector employees who pay his salary, his interest-free mortgage, his car, etc.
Bottom Line—Schmidt screwed up..period.
Schmidt’s ability in leadership makes mussolini look like a virtuoso.
As a citizen who watched the video, I was embarrased that Schmidt is the mayor. He should be careful for his health because he becomes so apopolectic when people make calm and reasoned disagreements.
Hey Schmidtface…Here’s a taxpayer (for whom you do not speak–because I and many others have not given our consent to your ideas and actions) who think it is better to have a city manager that is not a political chewtoy.
Let’s re-define city government…and remove Schmdt from the definition.
(and PW –AKA sir barksalot)(yea, PW–you don’t support schmidt personally–Don’t let anyone come up with evidence to the contrary–cause you know your claim is pure 100 percent grade BULLSCHMIDT!!)
EDITOR’S NOTE: Indeed he did – by his failure to say “No new contract” for Hock from Day One, as we noted in response to a previous (one of yours?) comment.
We also agree that Schmidt needs to take a few deep breaths, although we understand how irritating it is to be surrounded by public officials so willing to throw away the taxpayers’ money they have sworn an oath to manage responsibly.
As for Hock being “a political chewtoy,” that’s all he’s been up until now. And it worked extremely well for him: his departing Council buddies rewarded him for helping them run up multi-million dollar deficits by locking him into no less than $117,000+ for not working (if he gets sacked) or another $500,000 if he stays. Now all they need to do is put together another horsebleep budget to saddle the community – as well as Schmidt and the incoming Council – with.
Our support for Schmidt is based on, among other things: (a) his efforts to straight-talk his constituents, unlike virtually every other person sitting around The Horseshoe (except, perhaps, the new F&B director); (b) his efforts to demand and work toward something besides the “business as usual” that has failed the City and depleted its treasury; and (c) the appearance that he has played a key roll in driving Frimark’s four handpicked alderpuppets out of office after only one elected term.
how many of the new crop of aldermen are schmidt picked?? We know it is at least 2, right??
oooops I mean at least 3!!
What the hell are you talknig about? How exactly did Schmidt “pick” them?
Don’t the voters “pick” their aldermen?
hmmmmm….well, he picked one to fill his old seat. This one is running again. He is going to have to pick another one because there is a ward that has zero candidates. Lastly, one of the candidates (unopposed I believe) is his campaign finance manager. Of course there was no conversation there, right??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ald. Joe Sweeney was chosen by Schmidt to fill Schmidt’s vacant aldermanic seat. The 3rd Ward will likely be represented by Jim Smith, who registered as a write-in candidate and should at least get his own vote. We are aware of no connection between Schmidt and Smith. Dan Knight is/was Schmidt’s campaign treasurer, and he is running unopposed for 5th Ward alderman.
And Sweeney and Knight had to wander about gathering petition signatures. Sweeney has an opponent; Knight does not…who can say why no one else is running. This amounts to Schmidt “picking” these two?
Take off the tin foil hat you loser. If you have such a problem with who decided to run, or in your feeble mind who Schmidt “picked” to run, you should have done so yourself. But of course it is easier to sit and bitch and conjure up all sorts of imaginary goings on.
At least the mayor is looking out for the taxpayers in this town. Most of the aldermen certainly aren’t.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We would change “most” to “all.” And millions of dollars of deficits over the past few years is the evidence.
Anonymous 6:24 PM, I wish I could agree with you. I can’t. The Mayor is talking about some political philosophy of redefining government operations and doing nothing but cutting teeny parts of the spending for social service that won’t put us ahead. I haven’t heard a plan of his and what he does say is full of platitudes. I keep givig him the benefit of doubt. I think I will have to give up on him now. His not managing to complete one of his major jobs and all his angry nasty comments when he is the one who screwed up, is just too much for me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Benjamin Franklin wrote, in Poor Richard’s Almanack: “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Wise words still; and if they had been followed by City government over the last decade, the City would be way better off financially today.
The cuts suggested by the mayor which the Council actually implemented have saved the taxpayers, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars already. And it could have been much more if the obstructionists on the Council got out of the way or, better yet, actually proposed some cuts of their own.
5:52:
Exactly how thick headed are you?? PD wrote the following…..
“(c) the appearance that he has played a key roll in driving Frimark’s four handpicked alderpuppets out of office after only one elected term”.
My replies simply pointed out that by such an arbitrary standard there are candidates in the upcoming election who qualify as “picked”. I agree with you!!!!!!
Your standard seems to be the following “And Sweeney and Knight had to wander about gathering petition signatures. Sweeney has an opponent; Knight does not…who can say why no one else is running”. That applies to the those who have been constantly labeled and beat on for being picked by Frimark. They had to all get signatures. Not all of them ran unopposed.
SO which is it??? Information is used to make our opponent appear “evil” but ignored for those we support.
EDITOR to 6:46 PM, I’m not sure what besides community groups and the airport the Mayor said should be cut. This leaves me without knowing what hundreds of thousands of dollars the Mayor’s suggestions have saved us already. I hope you can list them.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Just for starters: $165,000 re O’Hare; $190,000 re community groups; and over $600,000 of personnel cuts.
EDITOR to 12:50 PM, the personnel cuts weren’t talked about by the Mayor. A couple of the Aldermen and the manager came up with those. The airport money hasn’t been dealt with and is still sitting on the books. The most the Mayor or this blog can say the Mayor suggested for cuts is community groups and the airport money. He has not talked about cutting anything else. This blog and the Mayor should not try to claim credit for things the Mayor hasn’t done.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong! Personnel cuts were among the several areas Schmidt – along with Ald. Don Bach – suggested and endorsed prior to Hock’s coming up with the first draft of his budget last year.
EDITOR to 10:47 AM, I see you as the one who is wrong. In every speech about budget cutting, the Mayor only talked about community groups and the airport. The Mayor even used the personnel cuts for the police to explain why the community groups should be cut and saying those cuts could pay for police salaries. If the Mayor supported the personnel cuts then his comments about community group funds paying for police salaries was just political spin.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong again. In each instance of which we are aware, the mayor’s referring to the funding of the community groups in the context of personnel cuts (including police) noted that the community groups should not receive funding while City personnel are being laid off.
That even was a major theme of last year’s State of the City address, in which the mayor pointed out the necessity of personnel cuts in every department, including public safety and public works, before noting: “I cannot accept a budget which cuts essential city services and personnel but which leaves in place optional contributions to community groups.”
We’re tired of punching holes in your factually erroneous arguments, so please go away until you have something of value to add to this discussion. Maybe you can go find out what happened to Park Ridge Underground, where your kind of misinformation would have been accepted more readily.
EDITOR to 12:53 PM, here is an email the Mayor sent where he talks about using cuts to community group contributions to pay for police. The Mayor does talk about brush pickup first so maybe he thinks brush pickup is more important than police protection. It is clear from my reading the Mayor’s email and your comments that what the Mayor said was just used for political spin to get rid of community groups. The Mayor never was serious about using those cuts to pay for police. The Park Ridge Underground is not posting and I think you should be happy about it since your blog is now getting some attention. You do sound like you can’t handle the challenge though.
from: Dave Schmidt
subject: Text of Mayor’s comments to the aldermen given at Aug. 23 Special City Council meeting
re: community group contributions
I have personally contributed to at least seven of the organizations. I whole-heartedly support their efforts. I encourage the aldermen, the residents and the business community in Park Ridge to also generously support the organizations of their choosing…but with their own money.
We should not be supporting the organizations with taxpayer money. Taxpayer money should only be used to fund essential city services such as police, fire, water services, sewer services, roads and tree-trimming.
Even if the money was available, which is something I have serious doubts about, the money should be spent on those essential services. By way of example, $190,000 would pay for reinstating brush pick-up. It would pay the salaries of two laid off policemen who could help patrol the streets. It would pay for almost a full block-long relief sewer. Or it could be used to help offset the multi-million dollar deficit we experienced last year and are facing again this year. You should vote no on these contributions.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong, for the third time. None of that language comes close to a statement of the mayor’s unequivocal support for paying those salaries, or reinstating any of the laid-off employees.
If your attention is all we’ve gained because PRU has gone dark, we’ll do our best to get by without it – at least until you can find some legitimate factual support for your arguments.
EDITOR to 1:46 PM, I can’t offer more legitimate factual material than the Mayor’s own words. The Mayor’s emails and speeches never gave unequivocal support for employee layoffs too. If you choose to not see that the Mayor was using political spin and at least tried to infer paying salaries for two laid off police to help patrol then go ahead. I was told the only purpose for this blog is to promote the Mayor. I believe it now.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You aren’t offering “factual” accounts of “the Mayor’s own words” because the Mayor consistently has talked about staff reductions and furlough days as ways of cutting the City’s overall personnel expenses.
Now run back over to the owner of PRU and beg her to re-light her site so that you can have a more forgiving place to post your factually-impaired comments.
EDITOR to 8:38 PM, other people and myself have asked in comments, but they have not been posted. You sound more concerned than anybody. I think you should go beg. What a blog this is. Submit the Mayor’s own words and they get denied and you are told to leave. Pathetic.
EDITOR’S NOTES: Now you’re lying about what comments have been posted – but at least you’re consistent because you were lying when you claim to have submitted “the Mayor’s own words” when, in fact, they were just your misrepresentations of the mayor’s words.
Since you seem to have problems with facts and the truth, we will only continue to publish your fabrications and drivel if you submit them under your own legal name that we can verify. Otherwise, we again suggest that you go beg the owner of PRU to light it back up for you (she’s a friend of yours, isn’t she?), or step up to the plate and start your own blog.
Or
Can any of Hock’s supporters tell us what would constitute a “poor performance” by the city manager?
Anonymous 2/14 @ 12:47 pm
There are no Hock supporters, because he has not done enough to merit support. His “supporters” are only those who are using Hock as a tool to screw with Schmidt.
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>