What do the Park Ridge Park District and the Park Ridge Library have in common?
Freeloaders. That’s the shorthand term this blog has adopted to describe Park Ridge residents who look to take unfair economic advantage of their fellow taxpayers.
Most folks don’t remember that back about 10 years ago the Park Ridge Park District’s “Community Center” (n/k/a the “Fitness Center”) had a “freeloader” problem: private personal trainers were running their for-profit training businesses out of that facility on the taxpayers’ dime.
The Park District’s solution was simple: personal trainers had to register with the Park District, book training sessions through the District, and have their customers pay the District, which would deduct a fee and remit the balance to the trainer.
And when too many of those trainers became adept at gaming that system, the Park District banned private trainers altogether and started running its own training program from which it – and its taxpayers – have modestly “profited”: the District’s 2014 profit on those trainers is currently estimated (pending the final audit) at approximately $15,000, on gross revenues of approximately $50,000.
That’s $15,000 of Park District expenses that its taxpayers don’t have to cover out of their own pockets.
That may not matter to those folks who view “government” as some sort of bottomless wellspring of money to be spent on whatever suits their fancies, but it matters to us. And we believe it matters to the vast majority of Park Ridge taxpayers who keep getting squeezed tighter and tighter every year for the disproportionate benefit of certain special interests, including the freeloaders.
Now the Park Ridge Public Library has a freeloader problem similar to the Park District’s: private tutors are running their for-profit tutoring businesses out of the Library. And at its August 18 meeting, the Library Board listened to several of those freeloaders, along with one non-freeloader tutor, speak to that issue.
Not surprisingly, the freeloaders defended their free “offices” with a collection of warm-and-fuzzies that repeatedly invoked some variation on the “for the children” theme. Their comments and anecdotes got so gooey and cloying at times that, if you closed your eyes, you might have sworn you were at a D-64 School Board meeting – like the one and only public discussion of Supt. Laurie Heinz’s recent $250,000-plus contract extension and $10,000(?) raise that Board president Tony Borrelli couldn’t steer into his beloved secretive closed sessions because the Illinois Open Meetings Act wouldn’t allow it.
Not one of those freeloaders attempted to explain exactly why they should be entitled to free “office” space to conduct their for-profit businesses at the taxpayers’ expense. Nor did any of them attempt to justify the competitive advantage and additional income they were enjoying from having their “overhead” covered by Park Ridge taxpayers, thereby letting a larger portion of their tutoring fees fall down to their personal bottom lines.
They also didn’t want to discuss how the Library might have trouble accommodating tutoring if ALL of our local tutors decided to become freeloaders and effectively turn the Library into one big Huntington Learning Center – only with the profits privatized (i.e., going into the tutors’ pockets) and the expenses socialized (i.e., pulled out of the taxpayers’ pockets).
Those kinds of reality checks were left to non-freeloader Jim Giovannini of Academic Tutoring Center, which has been in business for 25 years and occupies office space at 120 Main Street, a mere block from the Library. That means that, unlike the freeloaders, ATC pays rent to a building owner who, in turn, not only pays taxes to the City but also to School Districts 64 and 207, and to the Park District.
ATC employs approximately 300 tutors, roughly 50 of which regularly work in Park Ridge. So besides questioning the fairness of the Library giving his competitors what amounts to free rent, Giovannini also pointed out that “[t]here simply would be no room at the inn for anyone else” – a/k/a ordinary citizen patrons – if his firm and the other non-freeloader tutoring businesses that serve Park Ridge students were to join the freeloaders and make the Library their base of operations.
Only one of the current freeloaders – Laura Denver – said that she would be willing to pay a fee for the use of the Library. That deserves a Watchdog tail wag, both because it’s the right thing to say/do and because she was unique in that regard.
The others tap-danced their way around that question, babbling predictable nonsense like tutors attracting students and their family members who generate sales tax by spending money in Uptown (totally unverifiable and, at best, likely to be insignificant); tutors could make voluntary donations in lieu of being charged for use (as if the Library already has been inundated with voluntary donations from tutors); the old reliable “I’m a taxpayer so I already pay for the Library” (not unlike all those taxpayers who don’t leech free “office” space off their fellow taxpayers); and our personal favorite, from a tutor named Karen, who employed the “There goes Elvis!” gambit by comparing tutors to those “nannies” who bring their charges to the Library and its programs and thereby earn their income off the Library.
Tutors are like nannies? Seriously?
Nice try, Karen, but nannies on duty are caregivers/babysitters who effectively stand in loco parentis – which doesn’t mean “crazy parents” but, instead, “in place of the parents” – and bring kids to the Library, or to Panera, or to Oberweis, as if the parents were bringing them there.
As the Library trustee who first raised this issue, my only goals were to stop the freeloaders from exploiting a limited-size taxpayer-funded facility, and to level the playing field so that all local tutors can compete on as equal a cost footing as possible.
There may be more than two ways to achieve those goals, and I’d love to hear them. Meanwhile, however, I think either of the following could do the job:
1. The Library can take the Park District approach and require each tutor to register, book his/her tutoring sessions through the Library, and pay an hourly fee for the use of the Library; or
2. The Library can adopt the Winnetka-Northfield policy and prohibit the “[c]onducting [of] for-profit business between two or more persons (including, but not limited to, sales, interviews, and tutoring).” Because if the Library is going to ban for-profit tutoring it should also ban any freeloading attorneys, accountants, insurance agents, etc. who want to conduct their for-profit businesses on the taxpayers’ dime.
That howling you may already be hearing is likely coming from the freeloading tutors, while the wailing is likely coming from the parents of the kids being tutored by the freeloaders – in anticipation of any hourly fee under Alternative 1 being passed down to them.
In an indirect and limited way, that might make those parents “freeloaders,” too.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and publisher
Member, Park Ridge Library Board
To read or post comments, click on title.
19 comments so far
Another cogent analysis of a situation that amounts to welfare for a group of people who have not shown any real need for it.
When I see things like this pop up here in our small town, the thought of how widespread various forms of “freeloading” on much larger scales are ripping off the taxpayers both here and on the county and state levels is scary.
EDITOR’S NOTE:Thank you.
That scares us, too, especially because the class warriors have succeeded so far in focusing attention only on the abuses by the “1%” or whatever their current bogeyman may be – and ignoring the abuses by the other 99%, or 47% or whatever % of the people they claim to represent and defend.
One other point: did you know that the Park Ridge Citizens Online Facebook page has become a “Closed Group”?
If so, do you know whether that is because this blog has over the past few months criticized comments on that page in posts here on June 25, August 5 and August 11?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We heard that and confirmed it directly.
There are more than a few “gentle” and “delicate” souls that prefer a blog/forum site where never is heard a discouraging word, so that might be a possibility. Apparently our praise of that site in our 01.02.15 post didn’t get us enough props with their management.
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: IDENTIFY YOURSELF!!! – so we know whose lawn to avoid.
The mission of the Park Ridge Public Library is to provide the community with access to information, recreation and enlightenment by promoting materials, programs and services.
The vision of the Park Ridge Public Library is to be a community resource that dynamically provides fresh formats, materials for personal growth and stimulating programs, accomplished through a friendly and professional staff in an enhanced building with up-to-date and accessible technology.
If tutoring is so profitable, why doesn’t the Library hire tutors and offer this service?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If tutoring wasn’t profitable, we find it hard to believe that so many tutors would be in the business.
But riddle us this, Mr./Ms. Anonymous: Why should the Library compete unfairly – as an almost entirely taxpayer-subsidized operation – when the market seems to already be very well served by the private tutors, albeit a number of which are freeloaders?
Wow. Thank goodness you are protecting the citizens by trying to ban those bothersome tutors. Push them off to another library ours is bursting at the seams with residents trying to find a place to read. You really are getting desperate in trying to find something to complain about -I am starting to see the what GOML means when he/she posts it about you.
You are right let’s not ban the nannies -unless they do a mary poppins and heaven forbid start tutoring a child in the library or in the park even. Let’s ban the tutors from all public park benches too! That should may your tenant based tutor buddy happy?
I have the next blog topic for you. I discovered a horrible freeloading situation- use of a public facility for individual making a private profit -hang on to your undies dog these one will get them in a bunch for sure:
http://www.parkridge.us/park_ridge_police_department_offers_facility_to_be_used_for_online_social_media_transactions/
EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor was first introduced to Mr. Giovannini at the August 18 Library Board meeting, so your “buddy” characterization is about as valid as the rest of your comment.
A 2-minute hand-off of cash and merchandise in the cop shop lobby isn’t even close to the equivalent of an hour (or several hours) running a business out of the Library. That being said, however, we don’t see why the P.D. needs to get involved in providing security for e-commerce – but apparently Chief K is more concerned abouy fitting into this particular “broader trend which has been gaining traction over the past couple of years” than in answering FOIA requests about P.D. foul-ups at Hinkley Park last summer, and Devon/Cumberland several months ago.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here dawg. The true freeloaders are the parents who pay the tutors. Tutoring would be more expensive to park ridge parents if the cost of the real estate/rent was built into the tutoring price; but instead, the free rent is a subsidy to the parents. it’s basic economic theory – park ridge parents are externalizing the cost of tutoring with a free rent subsidy from the library.
Which then leads us to the next question: How awful of a job is D64/214 doing that so many parents need to pay for tutoring for their children? Maybe we should be directing the viterol towards the school boards!
I get angry about the school district, especially the lack of an all day K that most families would gladly pay for out of pocket. My life partner suggested I run for the school board, which I’m seriously considering, just to stir things up over there.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There’s no need to conflate freeloading tutors (and the parents who benefit) with D-64’s/D-207’s performance.
And we question your contention that “most families would gladly pay for out of pocket” all-day kindergarten, which is not the sense we get from comments on the Full Day Kindergarten for District 64 Facebook page.
A quick search of tutoring policies seems to have winnetka-northbrook in the minority. Seems many public libraries allow and others encourage and heaven forbid support private tutoring at a safe public library especially where as our library it is not overcrowded or disruptive to others:
http://deerfieldlibrary.org/library-policies/tutor-policy/
http://www.aurorapubliclibrary.org/about-the-library/policies/tutor-policy/
http://ygtrt.stcharleslibrary.org/contact/policy/tutors.htm
http://www.sfvpld.org/stickney/documents/tutoring%20policy.pdf
https://www.gailborden.info/services/for-parents/private-tutors
https://mppl.org/index/tutor/
http://www.yhpl.org/wp-content/themes/cutline-3-column-split-11/images/400-10-Tutor-Guidelines.pdf
Many other similar examples too many to post.
Don’t various sports groups/travel teams use our public parks for free?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Just because a lot of other libraries selectively subsidize some for-profit private tutors doesn’t make it wise or fair. Most libraries and the folks who run them are so obsessed about remaining relevant that they would hand out free iPads and Jimmy Johns sandwiches to jack up their attendance figures if they thought they could get away with it.
And, no, to our knowledge “various sports groups/travel teams” do not use our public parks for free.
“. That being said, however, we don’t see why the P.D. needs to get involved in providing security for e-commerce –”
Really??
How about because it keeps citizens safe and since the police station is open anyways doesn’t cost anything to do. Just like an otherwise empty or near empty library should not turn away citizens meeting with their paid tutor, visiting with their caretaker (you dog will soon need a caretaker to take you around since you will be paying that person will they be banned from the library if they decide to take you there to read to you), a teacher volunteering time to help a student etc. are we really going to spend resources having library staff police such a policy just to give some other business help. Isn’t that using public resources to help a private business? You are turning into one of those liberals who feel government is here to give handouts – what next let’s give the land based tutoring business a break on taxes to spruce up his windows?
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Library is already “using public resources to help a private business” – the business of all those freeloading tutors – that already gives them “a break on taxes” that their non-freeloading competitors are paying. We’re just looking to level the playing field (by banning tutors and other for-profit businesses) or, alternatively, bring in some needed revenue for the Library (by charging the freeloaders some “rent”).
We don’t think e-commerce folks deserve any more safety than regular shoppers, notwithstanding the PRPD’s latest public relations gimmick. Since the police don’t hang out at Jewel, Subway, the Hallmark store, etc. in order to keep THOSE shoppers safe, we don’t see any reason for the police to babysit e-shoppers. Let the e-shoppers do their deals at the Starbucks on NW Hwy, which is open from 5:30 am to 10:00 pm. Heck, maybe they’ll buy something while they’re waiting and generate a couple of pennies of sales tax for the City while helping Starbucks pay its RE taxes.
How about the e commerce sellers using the library once you throw out all the tutors the place will have plenty of room for it and for your caretaker to take you there and read you a story before giving you your night time geritol.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ouch!
Leave it to the freeloaders to conflate tutoring with e-commerce. Maybe they should just do e-tutoring and then the problem is solved, because they would not need the library but could meet to exchange money at the police station at 2:00 a.m.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sure, why not.
Didn’t this blog conflate (fancy word) park district services with library services? Yet if police services are brought up by someone other than the blogger and his bobble head coolaid drinking followers it is somehow inaccurate.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Just because you don’t know what it means doesn’t make it a “fancy word” – otherwise about 3/4 of the dictionary would be “fancy” to you.
And if you’re going to mimic/borrow/steal our terms, they are “bobblehead” or “bobble-head” (one word, or hyphenated) and “Kool-Aid.”
Actually the noun is one word
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bobblehead
But adjective bobble-headed as in bobble-headed pundit followers don’t recognize the hypocrisy of his posts when they add comments
And I guess your lack of response to the question as an admission
EDITOR’S NOTE: One word down, several hundred thousand to go. Keep up the good work.
Now try “conflate.”
There’s a D64 Facebook page?
*rubs hands in gleeful anticipation*
Do they allow taxpayers who don’t send children to their indoctrination centers?
EDITOR’S NOTE: https://www.facebook.com/d64parkridgeniles?fref=ts
Knock yourself out.
What’s the difference in paying someone to tutor a kid who then uses the library vs paying someone to babysit a kid who then uses the baseball field at the park. The PD charges teams for use. Are they both freeloaders?
EDITOR’S NOTE: A babysitter acts as a surrogate parent, so the babysitter taking a kid to the Library – or to the baseball field – is like the parent doing so.
I am in full-throated agreement with your premise: kick out everyone who is abusing tax payer dollars to forward their own, private interests.
However, I think your analysis of the tutors as being distinct from nannies is incorrect. Much as any tutor could work with their “clients” in their own homes (either the tutor’s home or the child’s home), so could the nanny. In fact, I find the idea that ANYONE earning an income from “free-loading” off the Library offensive, including nannies, day-traders, lawyers, accountants, etc.
And frankly, counselor, I believe your in loco parentis analysis is flawed. Under the law, in loco parentis requires the caregiver (the nanny, in your example) to have legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent. Although I don’t know for certain, I imagine most (if not all) instances of nannies who use the PRPL as a free baby-sitting provider do not have such legal power or authority over the children under their charge.
I regard nannies as no different from all other free-loaders: they are consuming library resources while being paid. Again, the Park Ridge tax-payer is supporting a for-profit enterprise and creating a competitive advantage over their competitors: bricks & mortar day care facilities in and around Park Ridge.
Which makes the “loophole” in your thinking on this more puzzling. Why do you think it inappropriate for the Library to provide a competitive advantage over Academic Tutoring Center but completely ok to harm Christie’s Carousel of Learning or Sugar Plum Tree Day Care Center? Is your issue really with children?
Even worse, I doubt most of the nannies who frequent the PRPL are even residents of Park Ridge, and so do not even have the argument that they are tax-paying residents to support their presence.
I see you as being very inconsistent only with regard to nannies, which cheapens your argument.
Tighten up your position; throw ALL the bums out!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong, wrong, wrong – although apparently never in doubt. You sound like you might be one of those “freeloader” tutors (assuming you’re a Park Ridge taxpayers), or a “parasite” tutor if you’re a non-Park Ridge taxpayer.
Tutors are not like nannies because tutors provide their student customers with only one particular service, tutoring, while the nannies provide pretty much the full panoply of parental services – e.g., babysitting, transportation, feeding, dressing/changing, administering medications, recreation, etc. in what effectively amounts to an “in loco parentis”-like role. And, unlike Christie’s Carousel, etc., the nanny is based in the child’s home, with the discretion to stay there if the child is ill – an in-home option not available from Christie’s, et al.
And so long as the parents are Park Ridge taxpayers, the nanny effectively stands in those shoes as well, at least while he/she acts in a nanny capacity.
I like your description of me, so I’ll take it for a handle. However, I wish to rebut some of your faulty logic.
I agree that, by formal definition, “tutors” offer a different set of services from “nannies”. So what? The same is also true for the lawyers, day traders, etc. who free-load off the PRPL. However, the issue is not with roles, responsibilities and definitions, but with ANYONE using the library for a for-profit enterprise when they are receiving an unfair competitive advantage over local business that pay taxes (you call them “free-loaders”, to which I agree, inclusive of nannies). I think that you would agree that Park Ridge’s taxpayers ought NOT to have to support free-loaders of all stripes, particularly if they did not vote for it and especially because it hurts organizations like Academic Tutoring Centers and Christie’s Carousel, which (presumably) pay taxes and are otherwise drivers of local economy.
But you attempt to explain you lack of consistency regarding nannies by hedging your phrasing. You state that nannies are playing a part that effectively amounts to an “in loco parentis”-like role. Seriously? Kinda-like? Sorta-effectively? What weak language to support your weak and inconsistent position. I hope you don’t lawyer your clients’ cases with such poorly constructed arguments. I think that, during an in-library tutoring session where the parent is absent and only a tutor-student relationship exists, an opponent could successfully argue that a tutor demonstrates at least an “effective in loco parentis-like role.” So what? Tutors and nannies are both conducting illicit for-profit enterprise on public grounds. The in loco parentis status of either tutors or nannies, although arguably substantially similar, is irrelevant. By your definition, both are free-loading and both are profiting from the public purse.
And your argument that nannies are based in the child’s home means ….. well, what, exactly? I don’t think your response on this item makes any sense. The clear “WatchDog” position should be that residents of Park Ridge are free to conduct whatever enterprise they want in their homes: day trade, lawyer, account, employ a nanny, hire a tutor, take music lessions. But DON’T bring it to the PRPL where the taxpayer has to support it. Don’t you agree with that? PLEASE tell me you do, or I believe the public will doubt your sincerity (and perhaps your sanity).
On your final point, that a nanny stands in the position of a taxpayer because she is employed by Park Ridge homeowners/taxpayers actually makes a stronger case for the free-loading tutors, most of whose students live in homes owned by Park Ridge tax-paying parents. So now you’ve made the case that, so long as the child receiving a free-loading benefit in the PRPL lives in a PR home, it’s ok because their parents pay taxes? That is exactly WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, because both tutors and nannies provide benefits to children of property tax-paying Park Ridgers! And further, my point that at least most of the tutors are paying property taxes to PR but probably none of the nannies are damns your stance even further; by your own definition, every nanny is a “parasite” and you’re ok with that?!? You need to pause and re-think yourself.
So I am RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT! (Not always, but at least in this instance.) I believe you are letting your weird animus toward tutors (and strange love for nannies) to cause to you miss the larger picture and undermine your own arguments.
So I ask you again, why are you so inconsistent on this issue?!? The only logical WatchDog position is to support THROWING OUT ALL THE BUMS (tutors, nannies, day-traders, accountants, etc.)! And please post a sensible correction/re-statement of your position, or I will believe that some free-loading nanny has stolen the password to your blog!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Too bad for you that verbosity doesn’t equal value, and that the obvious doesn’t fit your freeloader tutor/customer narrative.
First, nannies who obviously provide the full panoply of child-care services (supervision, feeding, clothing, transportation, etc.), while tutors don’t offer any “set of services.” They offer only one service: tutoring. So there is no more of a rational basis for comparing tutors to nannies as there is comparing piano teachers to nannies.
Second, nannies obviously don’t “compete” with Christie’s Carousel because Christie’s is drop-off daycare at one fixed location where the employees – unlike nannies – don’t haul the kids in its charge to Park District programs, the pools, music lessons, or even to the Library. That also explains why parents who choose home-based nanny service tend to pay more for it than what Christie’s charges.
Third, we used the “effectively” qualifier to reflect the broad parental-like scope of services nannies provide, mindful of the fact that “in loco parentis” is a technical legal status that usually does not apply to nannies.
Since these three points totally debunk your arguments, we won’t waste any more time or electrons addressing the rest of your ramblings. But please show up at a Library Board meeting – the next one is October 20, at the City Council chambers – and see how many trustees you can dazzle with your silly arguments.
Never in Doubt posting! Well Watch Dog, at least no one can say you aren’t good for a laugh.
Sorry if my “verbosity” is challenging you, but I have laid out an argument that takes you apart, piece-by-piece, point-by-point. You would be wise to consider my points, rather than lazily dismissing every position that is counter your iron-clad predispositions. I had thought people might read your blog for serious discourse on meaningful issues, not short-shrift and insults.
I am pleased that you at least have admitted that you incorrectly used the phrase in loco parentis and accepted my position that it was not applicable in this situation. You’re welcome! Even an old WatchDog can be taught a new trick.
My “narrative” to this point, consistently stated, is that you should be advocating the ban of all free-loaders, but you want to leave nannies out of the conversation and are twisting your arguments in ever more complex geometric forms to support your failed logic. I’m sure that, put to the issue, you would also allow anyone who is not a tutor (e.g. – attorneys, accountants, day-traders, etc.) to continue their free-loading without check. After all, I asked only one question: Do you support banning private enterprise on public soil (the Library in the instant case)? Admittedly, I find it harder and harder to view your backside during your cowardly retreat from this question. You admit as much by your refusal to even entertain rebutting my positions. How shameful, but probably face-saving on your behalf, lest you be taken to school on more in loco parentis-type issues. But further embarrassment saved is not honor earned.
You latest attempt at building a Mobius strip of illogic is your comment that nannies should be exempt from the tutor ban because they offer a “set of services” vs. only one service. So, the next will be a tutor offering tutoring + a drink + some supervision (I’ll help you with the math: more than one service). Nice work, WatchDog: now the tutors have a perfect loophole to exploit in order to dig into their free-loading lifestyle and you will be helpless to deny their legitimacy. You have thoroughly undermined the power of the very Library Board you are supposed to be supporting. Hope the tutors paid you an up-front retainer for your services, because my guess is that their incentive payment would evaporate as soon as they no longer need you to carry their water. Et tu, Brute?
I think my point about Christie’s Carousel vs. nannies only confused you about the microeconomics of the situation, for which I apologize. Let me simplify: Christie’s Carousel and Academic Tutoring Centers both pay taxes in the community. Oddly, you are only upset about the competition with ATC, but not CC. Nannies and tutors are both “free-loaders” (by your definition) in that they consume a taxpayer-funded, unfair, competitive advantage over local businesses that pay taxes and compete for the same clientele. If you want to make this argument: “if nannies were banned from the Library, their clientele would be unlikely to turn up the next day at Christie’s Carousel”, I’m sure I can find an equal number of tutoring students who would not go the Academic Tutoring Centers if you are successful in your tutors-only ban. Another argument you have made that undermines the cause of taxpayer justice and give succor to the Tutors. Nice going.
As regards your invitation to attend the next PRPL Board meeting: I’m so very flattered that you want to meet me so badly! (Gosh, I’m blushing!) But frankly, I prefer to socialize with those who actually have the best interests of Park Ridge taxpayers and our Library at heart, not those who toothlessly blog about injustice but then foolishly give their opponents the exact arguments and loopholes they need to win the day. And who make a mockery of the PRPL Board and our institutions in the process.
So, no thanks. I will seek the community of those who support banning all private commerce from our public institutions. I had thought you serious about defending the taxpayer, but you’re really only serious about using the heavy hand of government to bully a small group of citizens while hypocritically bestowing your blessing on nannies, day-traders, accountants, lawyers (and anyone else who is not a tutor) as they defraud the Park Ridge taxpayer.
With your arguments on this page, you’ve elevated inconsistency to incoherency. If you have any sense, you’ll quit digging the hole you’ve put yourself in, or you might as well give the keys to the Library to the tutors.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You truly have a gift for bloviation.
Had you spouted this kind of drivel about physics in Wolfgang Pauli’s class, you could have earned his “Das ist nicht einmal falsch” (“That’s not even wrong”) ridicule. Too bad you weren’t born about 100 years earlier.
Ok, so your readers will read your response and see that you have conceded in the most cowardly manner possible. This is my final post on this thread, as you have proven your intent to drive the Library into the ground over one issue. Rather than foster intelligent discourse, you resort to snark and name-calling. I had hoped you might use your influence on the Board to motivate positive change at PRPL, but it appears you are completely powerless. How sad.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Nameless commentators have ZERO credibility calling anybody else “cowardly.” And your next attempt at “intelligent discourse” will be your first.
AMF.
Academic Tutoring Center has provided tutoring and test prep services to Park Ridge, the surrounding areas, and nationwide for 25 years. In that time, we have helped well over 100,000 students increase their skills, confidence, and test scores. Most of our test prep students end up receiving tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships because they successfully completed one of our test prep programs. We look forward to many more years of successfully serving the Park Ridge community.
Recently there was a change.org petition that brought more public scrutiny of this issue. I support everyone’s right to express their opinion, but not when that opinion is full of flat out lies. I quote from the petition: “The single complaint that started this debate was raised by a local businessperson who employs tutors and is seeking an opportunity to weaken competition to his business. This businessperson has a buddy on the Park Ridge Library Board who is pushing through this personal agenda in an act of political cronyism to advance this attempt at a market share grab.
The woman who started this petition, Caroline Vengazo, is either a flat our liar or at best a person who does not fact check very well. To Ms. Vengazo and the Board (although the board already knows this), I was NOT the person who raised this issue. It was brought to my attention when a reporter for the Park Ridge Herald Advocate called me AFTER the board first raised this issue. Additionally, Ms. Vengazo, I do not have a “buddy” on the board. I believe you are referring to Bob Trizna, seeing as he initially brought the matter up to the full board. (I believe Mr. Trinza runs this site as well.) I do not know Mr. Trizna personally – in any capacity. The first time I ever laid eyes on Mr. Trizna was at the first Library Board meeting I attended a few weeks back. I have never even had a conversation with him. I’d like to thank the board for telling the truth on this matter and for bringing it to light, and I caution Ms. Vengazo to use her words, both spoken and written, more carefully.
As the board moves forward on this issue, I welcome whatever decision they come to, and I am glad they’re discussing it. If they should decide to not put a policy in place restricting or controlling for profit tutors from using the library as their personal office, I will be sure to take advantage of the free rent, free utilities, and free resources.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Apparently Ms. Vengazo and the truth about this situation have not been formally introduced, judging from the wholesale tripe that is her change.org petition.
As this editor pointed out during the 10.29.15 Library Board meeting, he was the one who initially raised this issue – without any input from you. And he never laid eyes on you until the August 18, 2015 Library Board meeting. But since such facts don’t serve Ms. Vengazo’s favorite special interest – her personal pocketbook – they were omitted from the fictional/deceitful narrative in her petition.
Meanwhile, she continues to feed at the public trough – as a “Reading Specialist” at the Elmwood Park Community Unit School District 401’s “Early Childhood Center” – while moonlighting for the past four years as a “Professional Literacy Tutor” thanks to the “free” office space at the Park Ridge Library she’s been freeloading off City taxpayers.
This editor can’t encourage you to reduce your overhead by giving up your private offices and joining your competitors – our resident freeloaders and non-resident parasites – who continue to avail themselves of the “free” office space at the Library. But we can understand why you would consider it.
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>