Last night Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt issued another one of his vetoes. Actually, it was two vetoes: of the contract negotiated with unionized City employees represented by ICOPS, and of the raises given to the non-union City employees.
Schmidt’s veto message echoed themes voiced in his previous vetoes: “you cannot spend money you do not have”; the City “cannot afford to emulate [the federal and state governments’] irresponsibility” on spending; and “the Uptown TIF debt is a financial time bomb” that is projected to be $1 million short on its bond debt payment this year.
He also claimed that his vetoes sustained by the City Council cut $500,000 of City expenditures, and that the vetoes the Council over-rode would have cut another $800,000. Schmidt owes the taxpayers some solid back-up for those figures, but we’ll take them at face value for the time being.
Two of the more interesting points in his speech involve the City’s recent hiring experiences: a whopping 98 applicants sought a single $39,000 Finance Department position; and an even more whopping 192 applicants sought 3 vacant firefighters positions.
We can speculate almost endlessly as to whether the stampede for these positions speaks to the generosity of the pay and benefits, or to the desirability of Park Ridge as a municipal employer, or to some other factor(s). But it sure suggests that City employment and compensation is highly desirable.
Notably, Schmidt ended his veto message with a general invitation for residents to submit suggestions for other expense cuts different from those Schmidt has made, or for tax increases: “I want to hear your ideas about other ways that we can pull our City out of [this] financial quicksand.”
Which brings us to resident Larry Ryles.
Mr. Ryles has declared himself a candidate challenging Schmidt’s re-election bid. He already has a campaign fund, a campaign treasurer (Paul Sheehan), and a website. So it would appear he’s a serious candidate, even though it’s too early for any candidate to submit the nominating petitions required to make his/her candidacy “official.”
As the first and only (so far) challenger to Schmidt, Ryles enjoys an outstanding opportunity to draw clear distinctions, in real time rather than retrospectively, between what Schmidt is doing and what Ryles would do with regard to various situations and circumstances facing the City.
Like the ICOPS contract and non-union employee raises which Schmidt just vetoed.
According to the “Control Taxes” page of his website, Ryles claims Schmidt has been profligate in presiding over 3 straight years (2009-11) of increases in the City’s portion of the property tax that have averaged almost 3.9%, well above the 2.4% average annual increase in the CPI for that same period (We are ignoring Ryles’ unfounded attribution to Schmidt of an 11.11% “December 1212” increase, as no such increase has been proposed or debated by Schmidt or the Council). Ryles promises to “take the lead on getting annual tax increases down below the annual rate of inflation of CPI, just like our two school districts and our Park District.”
Frankly, we like the sound of that. But we’re not too sure of its economic soundness.
First of all, those three other governmental units lack the home-rule powers the City enjoys – meaning that their ability to raise taxes is legally capped at the percentage increase in the CPI or 5%, whichever is less. And while we retain a warm spot for the Park District, everything – EVERYTHING – it provides qualifies as an amenity rather than as a necessity, such as the streets, sewer, water, police and fire protection that the City provides.
Perhaps Ryles wasn’t paying attention when Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64 so mismanaged its finances following its successful $20 million-plus new-Emerson Middle School referendum in 1997 that, by the Fall of 2005, the Illinois State Board of Education’s school finance arm was poised to take over the District’s finances in response to the District’s four appearances on the ISBE’s financial “Early Warning” and “Watch” lists. That led to a sneaky “back-door” $5 million working-cash bond issue band-aid to tide the District over until it could organize the successful 2007 referendum campaign that added an unprecedented (?) 44 cents to the District’s tax cap rate.
He might also have been preoccupied 2 years ago when all the bad news hit about Maine Twp. High School District 207 facing “its worst financial challenge in 80 years” (according to a Chicago Tribune 01.13.10 article) that was going to require $15 million in cuts through the layoffs of 135 employees, including 75 full-time teachers.
Nevertheless, we would love to hear Ryles’ plan for operating the City with sub-CPI tax increases. So, starting today, we begin a new feature here at PublicWatchdog – “What Would Ryles Do?” (“WWRD”) – to give Mr. Ryles roughly 400-500 words to tell his prospective constituents how he would do certain specific thing(s) differently from Schmidt.
In view of Schmidt’s vetoes last night, today’s WWRD topic is:
Would Ryles veto the ICOPS contract and/or the non-union employee raises? And, if not, how would he come up with the money to pay for them?
Should Mr. Ryles choose to avail himself of this opportunity, he need only provide this blog with his written response to this topic, along with a fool-proof way for us to verify that whatever is submitted truly comes from candidate Larry Ryles, such as a telephone number and a photocopy of a drivers license or similar identification.
WWRD?
We hope to find out. And when we do, we’ll share it with you.
To read or post comments, click on title.
17 comments so far
That is very nice of you to provide Mr. Ryles a platform to present his plans for the City of Park Ridge. I don’t know if I interpreted your idea correctly, it sounds like he will write the script and you will post it. It seems to me that you should also allow Mayor Schmidt a platform to rebuttal Mr. Ryles stance, and not just as a commentator.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We are not giving anybody – neither Mr. Ryles nor Mayor Schmidt – a “platform” to present his plans for the City.
If/when Mayor Schmidt says or does something notable related to City government (as determined by us in our absolute discretion), we will give Ryles an opportunity to say whether he would do the same or something different, and explain why (hopefully). If Schmidt wishes to comment, he can; and if Ryles wishes to comment on Schmidt’s comment, he can.
Our goal is to get apples to apples comparisons of how the two candidates view the issues and related public policy.
ya right….
EDITOR’S NOTE: We assume you mean “Yeah, right” – as in: I don’t believe your response to the comment of Anonymous on 09.05.12 @ 12:38 PM.
Unfortunately, we can’t prove that you are wrong unless/until Ryles submits something. Frankly, we doubt he will do so because, judging from his website “platform,” he’s already over his skis when it comes to City administrative and policy matters. But we’d be happy to be proved wrong, because we hope this upcoming campaign is a spirited one loaded with substance rather than empty rhetoric – as there will be more than enough of the latter at the federal and state levels up to November.
Interesting….However, wouldn’t the Mayor have been giving the City staff , including the Labor Attorney hired by the city at considerable cost to the taxpayers, ongoing ‘direction’ while this contract was at the bargaining table? This is standard practice in most cases. If the Mayor was enagaed in this matter ( and if he was not that brings up a whole other set of questions), was provided updates and gave the City staff parameters on how much they could or couldn’t offer, how did it get to the point of being tentaively agreed upon by the parties until to have it stalled by a veto. If the City Staff and the Labor Attorney disregarded the Mayor’s direction and/or mislead him on this contract, then maybe it’s time to go in a new direction on who the City pays to be at the table with these groups.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have no idea from where you’re getting your “standard practice” because, in Park Ridge’s form of government, the mayor has no legal authority to direct the City’s negotiating team – that’s the City Manager’s and/or the Council’s prerogative. So the rest of your “analysis” is irrelevant.
Somebody running on the “we the people decide what is the proper purpose of government” platform (with the scary idea it might include some human services, or what you’d call amenities) might have a chance against Mayor Dave. But a guy who purports to be even more frugal and is also ill-informed? Not bloody likely. In advertising-speak, the fiscal responsibility uber alles position is already Dave’s — and he has the track record to prove it. Why look elsewhere?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We happen to agree with you, but until you have a contested election where the people have a choice that they can exercise, you’ll never know. And if “fiscal responsibility” was such a strong sell, how come Illinois keeps falling deeper and deeper into the fiscally IR-responsible hole?
I followed your link to the Ryles website and the thing reads like it was stitched together from a bunch of handouts for those in-office/in-service management consultant training programs (“True leaders find someone to applaud every day”). And his “retail” ideas sound equally meaningless (“If we have empty store fronts today, we will need to change the bait to attract bigger and better fish.”) I’m guessing he’s a nice guy whose running for mayor as much for adding another entry to his resume of all the volunteer stuff he does than to actually win and do something for the city.
I see his campaign treasurer is Paul Sheehan. Is that the same guy who volunteers for a bunch of things but doesn’t seem to do much of anything?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We got that same impression about Ryles, which is why we are giving him the opportunity and blog space to show how he would be different from Mayor Schmidt on specific issues.
Re Mr. Sheehan, we believe he is an active community volunteer. We are unaware of any specific accomplishments of his in those roles.
“Is that the same guy who volunteers for a bunch of things but doesn’t seem to do much of anything”?
As opposed to people who volunteer for nothing and just sit on the sidelines and bitch???
Tell me, does your comment apply to the other hundred plus people who volunteer for various committees, boards and task forces in this city??
EDITOR’S NOTE: We interpret your question as being directed to “bynonymous” – who can answer for him/her self.
But from our perspective, there are a lot more joiners than there are actual doers. And from what we’ve seen of the numerous volunteers on various City, School District and Park District boards, commissions and committees, we’d put the actual “doers” at about 20%, with the other 80% basically being seat-fillers and/or resume builders.
Let the whining and howling begin!
Gee, I guess I had not considered the incredible resume boost that comes from being able to include “Park Ridge Sign Task Force”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We didn’t, either, but apparently people do.
For example, Mr. Ryles lists “Member, Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force” and “School District 64, Community Finance Committee” among the “Volunteer Contributions” on his website; and his wife’s volunteerism as “Member, Park Ridge Citizen’s Patrol” and “Member, Park Ridge Parent Patrol.”
Frankly, we think community volunteerism is a good thing. But we also think there’s a big difference between the mere “joiners” and the actual “doers.”
The whole campaign of Ryles is fishy. I think mayor Schmidt would crush him in a landslide. It is almost as though Ryles is getting on the ballot so that nobody else will face mayor Schmidt. Campaign on the internet, have a few inconsequential sound bites, and let the mayor win with a mandate. Does Ryles even really exist? Could the mayor be creating this fictitious character Mr. Ryles? Stay tune to this blog and be sure to read the comments until this mystery is unravelled.
EDITOR’S NOTE: One never knows what voters will do, and there’s plenty of time between now and April for a variety of things to happen which could affect the election. Ryles is a real live person, but you raise an interesting point: Ryles as a faux-candidate put up by Schmidt to keep everyone else out of the race. Kind of like what Madigan and the Illinois Dems have been doing for years.
We actually were thinking Ryles might be a stalking horse for some other anti-Schmidt candidate, perhaps of the old Homeowners crowd that might tap into that $15,000 sitting in a campaign fund just waiting to be spent.
Creating his own fictional character?
Please!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree, Mike, especially since a lot of people seem to know him.
Most of the people who volunteer for community service are doing *something*. Good for them. Sure, there are probably a few people who just “join”, as you put it, but that’s got to be a minority. Who cares? It only matters when you’re evaluating a candidate, which is where this post started. Sure, ask Mr. Ryles what he’s accomplished in these various roles. No need to damn the other volunteers, though.
Meanwhile, much more importantly, District 64 is cooking up a new teacher’s contract: http://parkridge.suntimes.com/14998827-781/no-agreement-yet-on-district-64-teachers-contract.html When are the taxpayers going to get a chance to hear about it, and offer opinions?
Ryles criticizes — correctly — increases in property taxes driven by city government, but he’s dead wrong on those driven by the school boards. On a dollar basis, those increases have been huge over the last three years.
I enjoy the speculation about April’s ballot as much as anyone, but what the school board and teacher’s union are doing behind closed doors right now will affect us all much more deeply.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We consider volunteerism as part of a citizen’s duty. So, by that definition, we don’t hand out extra credit for doing one’s duty, although we might hand out criticism to people who don’t do theirs – or who sign up but don’t show up, or who show up but then screw up. Some of the biggest mistakes the City, School Districts and Park District governments have made over the years can be laid at the feet of “volunteers” who either had their heads stuck in a warm dark place or who were actually recruited for their penchant for going along to get along. Can you say “Uptown Advisory Task Force”?
Ryles criticizes – ignorantly, or foolishly – increases in property taxes driven by City government, because the City government got totally jackpotted by a an ill-conceived, poorly-planned, rush-to-judgment Uptown TIF and fiscally boneheaded redevelopment plan that sold off the reservoir property for a pittance without even a professional appraisal, and cut a “deal” with the developer that would have required the project to be a walk-off grand slam for the City to get dime one of “revenue sharing.” That foolishness has cost the City approximately $6 million in deficits so far, with more projected.
As for D-64’s secret teacher contract negotiations, we’ve been writing about that with very little citizen comment. So either the taxpayers are asleep, or they don’t care. We’ve called Heyde, Fioretto, et al. on the carpet repeatedly for these secret negotiations – just like we have repeatedly called out past school boards (those folks who presided over the District’s irresponsible management from 1997 to 2007, when the ISBE was preparing to take over the District’s finances), but where has the rest of the citizenry been hiding?
And who’s going to run for school board in April to try to end the insanity?
In one of the first news articles about Ryles’s entry into the mayoral race, he described himself (pompously, I thought) as a “professional volunteer.” That raised a red flag for me.
I feel like the actual “doers” don’t trumpet their work quite so much, maybe because they’re busy focusing on the tasks at hand.
In any case, to the person who asked if he was real, I can assure you that he is. And he seems to have nothing but negative things to say about Mayor Schmidt, which raises yet another red flag for me. It’s easy to trash the opposition. It’s much more challenging to come up with sound ideas and I have yet to see any evidence of those from Mr Ryles.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve noticed those red flags ourselves. But we don’t think there’s anything wrong with trashing the opposition if the opposition deserves to be trashed – SO LONG AS you’re proposing your own alternatives at the same time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ryles already seems to be running plays from the Howard Frimark Politician’s Play Book, as is evidenced by his attribution to Schmidt of an 11% property tax increase this year that Schmidt not only has NOT endorsed but which he has, instead, repeatedly warned about in arguing against unnecessary expenditures.
I hope Ryles makes this an issues campaign and not some lame personality contest like it sounds he is trying to do with the emphasis on his military background and his wanting to be a full-time mayor. Have you received any contact from him or Mr. Sheehan?
EDITOR’S NOTE: So do we.
Nope, haven’t heard “boo” from either of them.
Yo! You and your readers are onto something here. Ryles has been overheard in public venues talking to voters about how important it is to “treat City employees like human beings” and lamenting the cruelty of “blaming Jim Hock for everything.” Your good buddy Howard Frimark was also seen cheek by jowel with Ryles, teaching him the ropes. Even if Ryles’ intentions are good, which I cannot imagine if Howard (Get Schmidt Somehow) Frimark is in the picture, Mr. Ryles is on a collision course with himself if he purports to be a cheapskate but also wants to improve our pampering of City staff. Chances are they’ll seek evidence of our regard by asking for raises, not hugs. And there are already some aldermen who let the wrong thing happen so as to not go against staff wishes. As to Mr. Sheehan, he’s known as a volunteer but not for his financial management talents. Maybe being Campaign Treasurer doesn’t require them. And for your info, 80 percent of the value/work in any board or group of volunteers is done by 20 percent of the people. You’ve heard of the 80/20 rule. So your stats are sad but not unique to Park Ridge.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second report we received today of Ryles and Frimark exchanging PDAs. Not surprising, but a little sad nonetheless because it suggests that Ryles’ campaign will be as empty as Frimark’s was.
Why is Frimark still grinding an axe over Schmidt? And why is Ryles joining him?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Our best guess to your first question: Frimark can’t accept losing, especially to somebody who he considers an interloper who didn’t pay the “dues” Frimark paid through all his pseudo-community/primarily-business activities for the past 30 years, which was the basic measure of candidate-worthiness for the post-Marty Butler Homeowners Party.
Our best guess to your second question: Ryles subscribes to that same “culture” – which is reflected in Ryles’ highlighting his volunteer activities on his website (as currently listed):
In addition to being a Roosevelt School “Lunch Mom” most days during the school year, Larry is pleased to serve with the following organizations:
* Lieutenant Governor Kiwanis – Illinois/Iowa Region
* Distinguished Past President – Park Ridge Kiwanis Club
* Member, Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force
* School District 64, Community Finance Committee
* Coach, Park Ridge Baseball and Softball
* Member, Cub Scouts Pack 201
* Member, Light Park Ridge Committee (Uptown Christmas Lights)
* Serves on Volunteer Staff at South Park Church, Park Ridge
* Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars
* Named “Illinois Hometown Hero”, November 2011
* Member, Disabled American Veterans Association – http://www.dav.org
* Leader of Annual Veterans Recognition Program for School District 64
* Member, 101st Airborne Association – http://www.screamingeagle.org
PW, have you seen this? http://www.facebook.com/#!/OurParksLegacy Seems some residents are getting behind a Park District acquisition of the Youth Campus before the plan is even developed. Either that, or they already know the plan before the rest of us. Hmmm…at least one name on this FB page is one of the Tastees…
EDITOR’S NOTE: This will be interesting, but at least it’s going to referendum so the taxpayers will get to vote on it.
Speaking of candidate Ryles, did anyone attend the Meet the Candidate! event that was listed with Events in America?? Was there a large crowd? Did he rake in tons of money?? Did the candidate discuss his positions and ideas about what ails Park Ridge???
http://www.eventsinamerica.com/events/meet-the-candidate-larry-ryles-for-mayor-of-park-ridge/ev501b78932243f/
EDITOR’S NOTE: We weren’t even aware of it. Did it even take place?
Re Meet the Candidate!… word is that it was very quiet over at by Community Center on Saturday night when the Meet the Candidate! event was to be taking place. So maybe it didn’t happen, or nobody showed up or it was moved without notice. Any way you cut it not a great first event.
On an unrelated but related note, seems candidate Ryles has been absent from Council meetings for the last few weeks / months. Wonder why? It might seem that some first hand knowledge of what’s happening at 505 would be in order for a guy who wants to be a full time Mayor… otherwise where are we to presume he’s getting his knowledge of what’s going on? The HA and the Journal? That’s some pretty light coverage. From Howard at the farmer’s market? That’s lighter yet!
Weird way to begin a campaign…
EDITOR’S NOTE: If Ryles wants to run against Schmidt solely on certain limited issues (e.g., that he wants the City to donate $250,000 annually to certain private corporation community groups, no questions asked), he doesn’t have to go to another Council meeting.
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>