It’s about time Mr. Spanos answer for his rantings, which have now cost the city money.

What does this “community activist” have to show for his years of “work?”

Every town has their idiot, ours just happens to dislike O’Hare (and the Olympics — ask him).

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we said, it could have been worse.

Bright but sad little souls looking for attention. There’s a handful in every town, and Spanos’ has just undermined his own position — again. Kudos to the 6th ward alderman for attending the meetings. But please, Pubster, stop with the “their political masters” — unless you wanna acknowledge that some of the elected officals you list are ardent Republicans. And throughout Bush’s reign and that of other Republicans, O’Hare was the most sacred of cows, because local human quality of life is never allowed to get in the way of international commerce. It’s the American way, Gene. So don’t blame the Democrats — at least not exclusively.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Stop your social worker hand-wringing about “international commerce” trumping “quality of life.” No Democrat in this state gives any more of a rat’s derriere about that than any Republican, least of all the Rahmfather (and the Evil Dwarf before him – who, by the way, was tres cozy with Bush II), especially given that the Dem-dominated Chicago City Hall owns and runs O’Hare.

We listed U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and Ill. Rep. Mike McAuliffe, both of whom ARE Republicans – although we aren’t about to vouch for their ardor.

Spanos is an egomaniacal twit. It’s too bad there isn’t some penalty for filing false complaints, such as reimbursing the city for the costs the city has incurred defending against him. I guess we should be grateful that this time it’s a relatively modest sum.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Twit” may be a bit harsh.

Hysterical!!!! Let’s all grab our torch and pitchfork and go after Mr. Spanos for exercising his rights and participating in the process. He was VERY misguided and VERY wrong but he put himself out there and made his voice heard which is rather novel in a town that can’t even get a respectable number of people to show up, take 15 minutes out of their day a few times a year (if that), and vote.

Yes he cost the taxpayers 1500 in the process so let’s challenge our elected officials and city staff to make that amount up (and more). There has to be way more that 1500 in waste in our existing city budget. This expense involved paying a lawyer so let’s start with a review of ALL our legal expenses. I have to believe there are 1000’s to be saved there.

While I agree that Mr. Spanos was way off base, I am grateful that a citizen has recourse when they have concerns or want information. It is like FOIA requests. There are many times the taxpayer pays for the costs associated with what is little more than a fishing expedition. The alternative is less transparency in government.

If we deny Mr. Spanos his right to be very wrong, that means we deny someone in the future who might be very, very right and identify a real problem.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody’s denying Spanos’s “right to be very wrong” – just like nobody’s denying your yours – but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point out how boneheaded, petulant and worthless his “ethics complaint” really was.

Which is why we your applauding of Spanos and contending that we should “challenge our elected officials and city staff to make up” the $1,500 that Spanos foolishly cost the taxpayers is pretty darn boneheaded in its own right.

Personally, I’m kind of an antisocial worker, but you don’t have to be any kind of bleating bleeding-heart to grasp that commerce trumps quality of life. We’re just annoyed when it happens here in the northwest suburbs, and I’m just annoyed when somehow what is a truly international op is boiled down to the knee-jerk blame of those fiends in Chicago — i.e., those Dems. So you don’t need to get quite so — what was your word? — petulant. Not everything that’s wrong in the world is the fault of Chicago. And what’s your beef with Rahm? If anybody’s a DINO, he is. Should be right up your well-swept alley.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Illinois, and Chicago/Crook County in particular, is so corrupt and mismanaged it is virtually impossible to be “petulant” about.

Rahm’s just a different flavor of the same fraud that the Evil Dwarf worked on the taxpayers of Chicago for decades. And Chicago/Crook County runs Illinois.

As for the Dems, we’ve been paying attention to Illinois government and politics for the past 50 years, and we’ve watched as Illinois has been driven into the sewer over the last 30 years under the iron fist of Speaker Madigan and his Dem sock puppets, ably aided and abetted by RINO governors “Big Jim,” “Slim Jim” and “No. 16627-424.”

Mazzuca is the least liked elected official on the council, at least by other elected officials and city staff. As a guy who wastes council time and is completely condescending it’s frustrating that the city has him as a representative. He is a hindrance for progress and open discussion.

He’s happy to give $3000 to maine township because it’s “frivolous” to him but will waste $8000 of taxpayers money to rebid an item approved by our own experts. Just to prove a point.

However, arrogance and condescension aren’t unethical, just poor representation of taxpayers. Even his “purchasing policy” display was awful. Pulling a terribly explained stunt like that would get him disciplined by a private company. But this is government, so the appearance of caring gives him a thumbs up from the “we are getting screwed” crowd. His demand for new procedures seemed purposefully hard to follow (just like him).

His goal seems to annoy and prove a point versus actually get something accomplished. I look at it this way. Mazzucas arrogance provoked a fringe taxpayer to waste our money.

EDITOR’S NOTE: An elected official being disliked by “staff” is probably a good thing, at least in the public sector, given that most “staff” at every level of government has about as much tolerance of oversight of any type as Saddam had for WMD inspectors.

Giving away $3,000 of taxpayer money to another taxing body is bad policy and just plain stupid, but until we know who you are referring to as “our own experts” we won’t indict Mazzuca for that yet.

We suspect that if most of City “staff” didn’t treat competitive bidding like the red-headed stepchild who needs a wedgie on the way home, there would be less of a reason for Mazzuca – or us, for that matter – to beef about it. If Mazzuca’s “stunt” would get him disciplined by a private company, rest assured that same private company wouldn’t even hire some/much of City “staff.”

The only thing that “provoked a fringe taxpayer to waste our money” is the self-aggrandizement of that fringe taxpayer.

During last night council meeting a resident brought up the possibility of fining Spanos under the ethics ordinance. It seems in a local trib interview he admitted he had no basis to think a violation occurred but submitted a “complaint” anyways. In addition to the language in the park ridge ethics ordinance allowing for a fine, it seems Spanos actions would also fall under:

Park Ridge municipal code:
14-5-2 Disorderly conduct

K. Acts with intent to annoy another, makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues;

N. transmits in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense has been committed;

14-5-4 Penalties. Any person convicted of violating Section 14-5-2, entitled “Disorderly Conduct Prohibited”, of this chapter shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than 500 dollars for each offense.

EDITOR’S NOTE: These provisions don’t apply. Mr. Spanos has already cost the taxpayers $1,581.24 with a boneheaded claim – no need to run that bill up on any more such claims.

The bean-counter is always the least-liked, and usually the most condescending, guy in any room. Except when there’s a litigator on the premises, that is. Michael Korda, nephew of the legendary director and author of two popular ’80s business books, “Power” (pretend that’s italicized, not quoted) and “Success” (ditto), observed in one of these that (rough paraphrase), we hire lawyers and accountants for their picky-ass way of looking at things, and then revile them in front of the rest of the staff for those very qualities for which we hired them. We need at least one or two such folks on any governing body to ask the questions the rest of the officials don’t know to ask or are sheepish about asking — and we also need them to keep staff on the square, because they might have to justify or explain a “professional” decision. Call it quality control.

I still fail to see the uproar about the airport. We live next to the airport. We’re gonna hear planes!

We also live next to a forest preserve and there are a lot of stinky skunks. Why are people in park ridge complaining about the skunks?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why is the sky blue?

Correction: why aren’t people complaining about the skunks.

EDITOR’S NOTE: They are, but it’s easier to trap skunks than divert planes.

Thank you, Watchdog, for pointing out how Mr. Spanos was trying to trade on his former military and public safety positions to somehow enoble his foolish and costly complaint against Ald. Mazzuca and Commissioner Argionis. It’s like when a panhandler on the street wear an (their?) old Army jacket or holds a sign claiming to be a Vietnam vet, as if that somehow legitimizes or excuses their situation.

Spanos was cheapening any military or public service he may have performed by using it to deflect the well-deserved criticism from the former judge. While I wish the City could assess Spanos for Etchingham’s fees, I agree that we should just chalk it up as something stupid and move on.

“It’s like when a panhandler on the street wear an (their?) old Army jacket or holds a sign claiming to be a Vietnam vet, as if that somehow legitimizes or excuses their situation”.

This may very well be the stupidest analogy I have ever heard. 6:48….is that what you really think as you walk past a homeless person “claiming” to be a vet?? They are simply trying to “legitimizes or excuses [sic] their situation”. Oh my freakin’ god!!!!

Has it ever dawned on you that they might actually be a veteran?? Has it ever dawned on you that the incidence of homelessness is dramatically in the veteran population compared to the population at large?? Studies will vary but, in general, do you understand that approximately 20% of the homeless are veterans???

I guess in your mind they must just be faking it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We hate to rain on your parade, anon, but it appears that your reflexive high dudgeon blinded you to the central point of the comment and our “Update” to this post: the shameless USE of the “veteran” (or, since 9/11, the “first responder”) status to leverage support for an otherwise meritless opinion, foolish act, or unfortunate circumstance, or to “guilt”/intimidate, as Spanos seemingly has tried to do in his letter to judge Etchingham.

Do you really think that Spanos’s former military or public safety service entitles him to a pass on this kind of clearly unfounded and boneheaded conduct? Because, if not, then the ONLY reason Spanos invoked it would be to “guilt” Etchingham into some sort of retraction – which would be a shameless misuse (in our opinion) of that status and service.

You missed the central point of my reply. It was not in defense of Spanos, although I will stick with my “grateful he has a right to be stupid” (as do I) theory. I completely agree that his status as a veteran has NOTHING to do with validity of his complaint.

My reply was about the way a 6:48 chose to make that point. My reply was about a person who would use an analogy about a homeless person dressed as a veteran. My reply was about a person is willing about talk about it in such terms (legitimizing their situation). That is clearly what the poster thinks when he/she sees a homeless person wearing military clothing.

I understand the intent of the poster was to take a shot (deserved) as Spanos but I find it amazing that a person could type that on the screen with out that little voice in their head saying “do I really want to say that” prior to hitting the submit comment key. Thoughts like that do not just pop into our minds. The poster revealed what he/her thinks when the walk across that bridge over the Chicago river and see the homeless vet as is a normal occurrence for anyone who goes to the city on a regular basis.

I will stick with my original comment. This may very well be the stupidest analogy I have ever heard.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Okay, are you saying the guy wearing the fatigue jacket holding a sign that says “Help a Vietnam vet” is more entitled to a handout than the guy sitting next to him with in a Ferris State sweatshirt with a sign that says “I’m not a bad person, I just made bad choices”?

Would you understand the shamelessness better if we used the good old priest-sticking-his-Roman-collar-on-his-dashboard-in-case-he’s- stopped-for-speeding-on-his-way-to-the-Cubs-game analogy?

PD:

Again I have to say Oh my freakin’ god!!! Do you walk around with your eyes open?? If so you have to have noticed that MANY veterans (of the not homeless variety) PROUDLY wear hats/shirts/pins representing their branch of the service. I am not a veteran but it is obvious the connection and passion that many veterans they feel for this time in their lives.

So now take this fact in light of what we also know about veteran homelessness and mental illness related to the population as a whole. Does it not make sense that a person who is homeless would not cling to their military pride as well??

For a person to see that and sum it up by writing….”then the “Vietnam vet” status is what that guy is trading on, or trying to “guilt” passersby on. And we think that’s shameless abuse of that status, assuming that claimed status is legitimate in the first instance”.

So first let’s assume status is not legit and if it is they are using it to guilt us. Wow!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: “OMFG”? Seriously?

Nobody but you is talking about the vast majority of Vietnam veterans who take justifiable pride in their service and wear their colors proudly – and not just for personal advantage or to add weight to a flimsy argument. But if you really think you can get any mileage out of challenging our street cred on what this country – and all of us – owe our veterans, read our posts of 11.11.11, 11.11.12, 05.26.13 and 11.11.13 and then get back to us, Valley Girl.

OK…I’ll bite. So you are not talking about the vast majority of vets. So we all see people on the street panhandling and wearing things that would indicate that they are veterans. You know the stats on the number of vets that are homeless. A significant number of them have mental issues (I believe you referenced them as not all wounds are visible in one of your posts). A significant number of them panhandle.

So how do you tell the difference between the ones to whom we owe a debt of honor and the ones we can look down or noses at for “shamelessly” trying to guilt us or using it to “legitimizes or excuses their situation”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We owe a debt of honor to ALL of them.

But if we had to choose to whom to give our last dollar, and our two choices were a known vet in his jacket and his sign or a known vet with jacket and no sign, we’d choose the latter.

You don’t have to give your last dollar. Just don’t vote for candidates who wave the flag but refuse to fund veterans’ services. Very, very simple. Never mind what they say. Watch what they do.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since veterans’ affairs is primarily a federal concern, we would note that the Democrats appear to have simultaneously controlled both chambers of Congress for 38 of the past 60 years – including as recently as 2007-11 – yet have not proposed a bill that would fully fund veterans services at the level they deserve to be funded.

And to the extent the states get in on the action, how is deep Blue Illinois doing with all its veterans’ programs?

Wait, is Spanos panhandling for O’Hare now?

Talk about burying the lead.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We tend to go where the commentators take us. It’s more spontaneous that way.

The complaimt concerning Mazzuca was not his attending a FAIR meeting.
The problem is the fact that he serves on three committees for a Chicago group while NEVER meeting or responding to the people he was elected to represent. Why shouldn’t people in his ward be upset at getting an arrogant cold shoulder from him while he works for Chicago INSTEAD?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Whether his constituents are upset isn’t the issue. The issue is whether there was an ethics violation, and the independent investigator determined that not only was there no violation but that the charge itself was ridiculous.