Public Watchdog.org

The City’s Three Amnesiacs…Or Three Liars?

05.19.11

Just two short weeks ago, Mayor Dave Schmidt asked the public officials assembled around The Horseshoe to tell him about how an “Agreement for Ground Rules Between City of Park Ridge And International Association of Firefighters, Local 2697” (the “Ground Rules”) was proposed and agreed to that prevents our City officials from telling the public about the negotiations between the City and the firefighters union, something that would have been allowed even if those negotiations were covered by the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) but held in closed session.

Sitting in their customary places of honor that night were City Mgr. Jim Hock, Deputy City Mgr. Julianna Maller, and Fire Chief Mike Zywanski – who also just happen to be members of the City’s “negotiating team” on the firefighters contract.  They sat silently except for Hock, who earned a pointed rebuke from Schmidt by explaining that agreements like the Ground Rules had been used in the past.

But at last Monday night’s meeting (at around the 17 minute mark of the meeting video on the City’s website) we finally discovered that the City official who unilaterally bound the City to Ground Rules that wrapped a cloak of secrecy around those negotiations and put an involuntary “gag order” on our elected representatives was none other than Chief Z.

The same Chief Z who sat silently two weeks ago finally manned-up and admitted that he proposed the Ground Rules to the firefighters union before negotiations began back in January. 

In other words, Chief Z effectively decided for the Mayor and the Council, without even telling them, that the firefighters collective bargaining negotiations would be conducted in secret.  And by so doing, he put our elected officials in a trick bag: if they exercise their right to inform their constituents – that’s us, the taxpayers – of the bargaining positions or the progress of negotiations, the City could be subject to an unfair labor practice charge by the firefighters union and fined thousands of dollars. 

Brilliant, Chief Z! 

His excuse?  That old bureaucratic stand-bye: that’s the way he’d done it in the past – presumably when he was drawing his paycheck from the City of Naperville.  Ironically, that’s the exact kind of excuse Schmidt “banned” at the May 2nd meeting in rebuking Hock. 

But maybe Chief Z doesn’t take the Mayor seriously, especially when it comes to things close to Chief Z’s heart like negotiating contracts with the union representing his comrades in blue.  Or maybe it’s just that Chief Z, like most other bureaucrats, has been getting away with the that’s-the-way-it’s-always-been-done excuse for so long he’ll need a 12-step program – covered by his City-provided medical plan, of course – to kick the habit.

What authority did Chief Z have for agreeing to those Ground Rules and binding the City?

Under direct questioning by Schmidt, City Attorney “Buzz” Hill quietly admitted that he could find nothing in the City Code or elsewhere that gave Chief Z that kind of authority.  But almost before Hill finished his answer, Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st Ward) jumped in and got Hill to readily admit that nothing in the City Code or elsewhere expressly prevented Chief Z from agreeing to the Ground Rules on the City’s behalf.

It’s not clear whether Sweeney, an unabashed fan of public employees in uniform, was trying to give Chief Z some political cover, or whether he was simply pointing out the shortcomings of the City Code.  Either way, however, is no bargain for those of us who foot the bill for this kind of buffoonery.

What is clear, however, is that Chief Z not only acted with disregard for the Mayor’s and Council’s authority, but he didn’t speak up and accept responsibility two weeks ago when the opportunity first presented itself.  Short-term amnesia, Chief?  Or just a lie by omission and concealment?

And what about Hock and Maller?  Was Chief Z’s amnesia contagious, or were they also lying by omission and concealment two weeks ago? 

Perhaps the better question is why didn’t all three of them tell the Mayor and the Council about the Ground Rules back in January, before negotiations started and something might have been done to withdraw or rescind them?  

What this situation suggests is that three of our highest-ranking City employees act as though they believe they can do whatever they want without any duty of loyalty, transparency and accountability to the taxpayers who pay their salaries – which, by the way, cumulatively total well over $400,000, with each of the three being paid more than the median Park Ridge household income of $112,049.

More disappointing than their delusions of grandeur, however, is that those same highly-paid employees have to be virtually cornered and cross-examined into telling the truth.  And even when that happens, they don’t appear to have the ability or inclination to take ownership of their errors, admit fault, and say they are sorry for overstepping their authority and/or concealing that conduct.

Maybe that’s because, truth be told, they aren’t.

To read or post comments, click on title.

16 comments so far

(5 ILCS 315/24) (from Ch. 48, par. 1624)
Sec. 24. Meetings. The provisions of the Open Meetings Act shall not apply to collective bargaining negotiations and grievance arbitration conducted pursuant to this Act.
(Source: P.A. 83?1012.)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Point taken. We have corrected that IOMA reference accordingly. Thanks for keeping us on our toes.

That provision is no more than a blatant effort to protect the unholy alliance between elected officials and public employee unions at the expense of the taxpayers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gee, ya think? Although we would substitute “politicians” for “elected officials” because some elected officials do have integrity and try to be transparent and accountable to their constituents.

Do you know why the mayor or at least one alderman (finance and budget chair?) isn’t on the city’s negotiating committee?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know but our guess is that neither the union negotiators nor “our” negotiating team members wanted an “adult” looking over their shoulders as they tried to figure out how to cut a deal that they can sneak past the the elected officials and the taxpayers.

The broad strokes getting blogged here are laughable. I do not see any unholy alliance between Park Ridge elected officials and our public employee unions here. That is just one more of the popular and more stupid Tea Party talking points. We get excellent services for our tax money we are willing to pay.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s why we suggested the change from “elected officials” to “politicians.” Although in this case we would have to concede that since no “elected officials” appear to have been involved in this Ground Rules fiasco, any “unholy alliance” is confined to our bureaucrats and the public employees unions.

Good question…score that up for future negotiations. Though those guys do have day jobs.

I can’t help but wonder what goes through the minds of people like Chief Z (and Hock and Maller) when things like this come up. Do they even stop and think for a moment “Is this good for the people of Park RIdge?” before doing these things?

The Chief not admitting the ground rules were his idea when the mayor first asked weeks ago really seems cowardly.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve wondered that ourselves many times.

While the Chief may be the main transgressor, the buck stops with Hock. What kind of self-respecting top manager doesn’t know that his negotiating team, of which he is a part by the way, has submitted ground rules with language containing a gag order?…or did he know?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each one of the three – Hock, Maller and Chief Z – deserve to “wear the jacket” for this one, although Hock does seem to have earned the “extra large” fitting.

Make room in the jacket for the aldermen who have been around and, you guessed it, the Mayor. He bangs the drum about the importance of being responsible with the budget and it took him this long to ask the question…..after the negotiation process had already started?!?!?!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s see now…you’re saying that the mayor screwed up by not affirmatively asking the brand new fire chief, the City Mgr. and the Deputy City Mgr. whether any of them signed a secrecy agreement – without consulting the mayor or the Council – that prevents the mayor and the Council from talking about labor negotiations? Maybe, from now on, he should regularly ask Hock, Maller and Chief Z whether they’ve done anything sneaky and/or stupid lately.

lies by omission are all in a day’s work for the typical public sector staff exec, but what’s with Sweeney Todd?

3:43… have you got any clue about the form of government we operate under in Park Ridge?
The fact is that this is/was Hock’s duty and he apparently has failed to know what’s going on or he’s participating in a cover up of sorts.

Hock is the city’s CEO but he reports to and has a great deal of responsibility to keep the people’s elected officials and the people informed of his activities. This is just another of those times where he has been caught acting without or above his authority. It has happened time and time again.

The $1000 a month Mayor and the $100 a month Aldermen are supposed to set policy and vision, with Hock’s input, and Hock and his staff are to execute. The problem is that Hock has been trained apparently to go off on his own and with his own initiatives. all well and good until he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar or when things go awry.

Hock is the problem…

EDITOR’S NOTE: But not the only one…

It could be possible Hock tried to keep the Mayor out of the mix of negotiations with the unions because as time goes on it looks as if the Mayor can’t seem to get along with anybody. I think it is a good thing to keep the politicians away from the bargaining table and keep them from shooting off their politician mouths to the public during negotiations. When it is time to review the product of the negotiations then the politicians can shoot their mouths off all they want, but let something get done before they get in the mix and try micromanaging everything and screw it up. We don’t nee them to give us more political kabuki.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That could be possible, considering just how well all these “secret” public employee labor negotiations have worked for the taxpayers over the years, both in this community and across the State of Illinois. And Hock does seem more comfortable with acting like a monarch than a city manager accountable to the officials we elected to keep an eye on him and the other people whose salaries we pay to provide us with City government.

Anon @ 732: perhaps we are in the predicament we face partly because the elected officials have previously shown little interest in the union negotiations, effectively letting staff negotiate with itself. A lot more taxpayer oversight via elected officials would be a good thing.

I get confused of why the city would want it public. Its a negotiation, much like a real estate purchase, you are trying to get as much for your side of the deal as you can. If its made public, its like playing poker with your cards face up on the table.

Why target the fire dept? The police are headed to federal arbitration and nobody on the city side wants to talk about that in an open forum (because it could very well benefit the city).

Also, the fire union was the ONLY union to give concessions back to the city to help in the tough times….

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t doubt your confusion, but we’ll try to work with you:

Public employee labor negotiations involve the public purse and, therefore, shouldn’t be “like a real estate purchase”…or like a used car purchase, or like buying a t.v. at Abt.

The City should decide, in a very publicly-vetted manner, what employment terms are in the best interest of the taxpayers. Then the City should publicly offer those terms to the relevant union, and let that union make its case, equally publicly, to those same taxpayers why its members deserve more than that.

As we recall, the concessions the fire union gave the City prevented it from having any of its members laid off – unlike the police department, which lost four people.

Unfortunately, with this mayor and incoming alderman, it is the taxpayer who must oversee the elected officials. As a taxpayer, I am more concerned about the crap spewing from dipschmidt,”not so good” kinght, and “baloney” maloney. These guys are loons!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since Knight and Maloney have only been on the Council for 3 meetings, we would be interested in hearing your take on what “crap” they have been “spewing.”

Some of you bloggers here are ridiculous. If you have an annual property tax bill of $10,000 dollars about $1,000 dollars of it goes to the city for all the services provided. Yet you whine and scream about how ripped off you feel you are. A $1,000 dollars a year is too much to pay for the services and employees who do the jobs? How many of you even pay that much? You whine and scream in your blogs here about economic disasters and some imagined predicament. This blog is ridiculous.

Anon. 5.22 12:25: While your math is in the right ballpark, your logic is not.

True, the schools eat up most of our property tax money. Don’t forget Crook Co., too.

While the City of Park Ridge’s share is smaller, it doesn’t exonerate the city staff nor the elected government from managing responsibly. I really don’t care whether you like Schmidt, Frimark, Maloney, Sweeney, or whomever. I just want the city to operate a balanced budget without raising my property taxes, which have gone up every year for one reason or another. If we don’t put pressure on them, they will continue how they like, raising our tax bills even more. We must apply pressure to the city government, the school boards and of course Crook Co.

By the way, let’s trade tax bills. Mine is $15,000….and rising.



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>

(required)

(optional and not displayed)