Today we’re giving our inner-curmudgeon a well-deserved rest and offering a big Watchdog bark-out to those folks over at the Kalo Foundation for winning Park Ridge’s most recent Governor’s Hometown Award for its efforts to save the Alfonso Iannelli home and studio at 255 N. Northwest Hwy.

Not only did they perform a grand community service by saving that historically-significant building from the wrecking ball and replacement by several townhomes, but they did it without…wait for it…a handout of taxpayer dollars from City government.

Huzzah!  Huzzah!  Huzzah!

For those who might not remember, we had our doubts about whether the Kalo Foundation would go the way of so many other not-for-profit private corporations which wrap themselves in the mantle of “community group” and then expect to get a substantial portion of their funding each year just by showing up at City Hall with their hands out – usually with a few former aldermen or other former elected officials in tow for the appropriate winks and nods.  In our 11.26.07 post with a subsection titled “Hello, Kalo”, we sounded a critical note when the newly-established foundation started making sounds like it was heading to the public trough.

But the Kalo folks strapped it on, going on a fundraising quest that generated in excess of $300,000, including a six-figure matching-type challenge grant from an anonymous donor.

There’s still a ways to go before the Kalo Foundation realizes its goal of completely restoring the Iannelli building and turning it into a fully-operating museum.  But we’re not about to bet against Betsy Foxwell, Anne Lundy, Dennis Van Mieghem, Judy Barclay, Marcia Burgis, and all the rest of those intrepid Kalo Foundation volunteers and arm-twisters who pulled the nails out of that building’s coffin at the eleventh hour.

And they’ve provided a shining example – for whatever other local private-corporation community groups want to watch and learn – of how private taxpayers will support community groups and projects perceived by those taxpayer as both providing valuable services to the community, and making a genuine effort to generate the revenue they need instead of resorting to big-dollar City handouts.

And that deserves a hearty Watchdog “Well done!”

To read or post comments, click on title.

Most of us have heard the old chestnut about how you know when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. 

Sadly, we’ve almost come to expect a certain lack of integrity from our state and federal officials – most of whom we never have met and with whom we are unlikely ever to have any meaningful discussions.  Nevertheless, folks generally still seem to believe their local government officials are different, perhaps if only because they are more visible and approachable.  

So when those officials play fast and loose with the truth, or speak disingenuously about public policy, it often feels like more of a betrayal than when state and federal officials do likewise.  And when that happens, we often try to blame it on a mistake by those local officials rather than on a lack of integrity.

Today we discuss two examples of this phenomenon.

The first relates to a story in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park Ridge aldermen postpone purchase of emergency equipment,” 01.21.13) about our City Council’s postponing the purchase of 5 replacement cardiac monitors/defibrillators commonly known as AEDs.  That purchase was deferred until the new fiscal year (beginning in May) because an expected federal grant that was to provide most/all of the amount budgeted for the new AEDs ($153,000 per the H-A story, $137,814.05 per Fire Chief Mike Zywanski’s 01.14.13 Agenda Cover Memorandum) did not come through. 

As best as we can tell, that’s the right fiscal decision by the Council.  The Fire Department can budget for that amount from its regular FY2013-14 funding rather than from OPM (“Other People’s Money,” in this case federal funds) and make the purchase when the new FY begins a few months from now. 

So why, then, does Chief Z seem to be trying to create the impression that even a short delay poses an irresponsible threat to public safety, while giving nary a thought to the fiscal considerations? 

In both his cover memo and as reported by the H-A, he notes that AEDs were used on nearly three-fourths (73%, to be exact) of all emergency medical service calls last year.  That sounds like a lot.  But why didn’t Chief Z choose to include the total number of “emergency medical service calls” in his cover memo or in his H-A comments, so we can’t tell how many calls that three-fourths figure actually represents?

Chief Z’s cover memo also makes it look/sound like the current AEDs are failures waiting to happen, pointing out that they have been “out of warranty for three years and are beginning to experience increasing rates of downtime due to repairs.”  In the H-A story, he ominously states: “Obviously, I can’t predict a breakdown.”

That sounds like classic panic peddling, made more troubling by Chief Z’s failure, again, to explain or quantify in any meaningful way how much “downtime” and what kinds of “repairs” he is talking about, as well as whether the safety and operation of “out of warranty” AEDs is any more problematic than the safety and operation of out-of-warranty automobiles, appliances, etc.

But from just a little quick research it appears that, irrespective of the warranty, many/most AED manufacturers publish an “expected useful life” of their AEDs of 10 years.  And the actual useful life of an AED appears to be virtually indefinite so long as the AED passes its daily self-tests designed to ensure that all of its components are functioning properly; and so long as the battery and other components are replaced as needed.

Of course, those kinds of details – along with the other missing details we’ve pointed out above – might not be nearly as effective in stampeding the herd (i.e., a majority of aldermen and their constituents) into dipping into the City’s General Fund as are Chief Z’s generalizations about percentages and risks.  And holding the Fire Department accountable for its FY2012-13 budget (which included the federal grant money the City never received) rather than providing a General Fund-based bailout might be a “first” in City fiscal management.

All in all, that’s misleading by omission – the omission of the relevant information both Chief Z and the Council should have had in order to make a well-informed decision on this issue.  Whether that kind of misleading is the product of negligence/a dumb mistake, or intentional deception, remains an open question.  But, either way, it’s fundamentally bad government.

Our second example relates to a story in last week’s H-A, “Park Ridge voters to decide Youth Campus purchase,” about the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District’s issuing of $13.2 million of bonds to purchase the 11-acre site previously occupied by a non-profit provider of supervised residences to troubled youths, and to develop that site into a park and recreational campus.

The H-A story reads like a puff piece written by the Park District’s own public relations person – or by Park District commissioner Mel Thillens, who is the District’s point man and head cheerleader for that project.  And the foremost factor making it a puff piece is that there’s no mention (or even a hint) of the fact that the Park District is going to referendum on this project not because it wants to, but because it HAS to: the District doesn’t have sufficient non-referendum bonding power to do this project without a popular vote.  

That’s a significant missing detail that becomes even more problematic when (as reported in the H-A) Thillens figuratively wraps himself in the American Flag by grandly proclaiming: “I think empowering the citizenry to make that decision is important.”  This, from the same Park Board member who didn’t give one whit about “empowering” that same citizenry to provide advice, via an advisory referendum, on whether or not the District should borrow $6.3 million over 15 years to build a third-rate water park that will dominate a good chunk of Centennial Park for the next 30-40-50 years.

Not to be outdone, Commissioner Mary Wynn Ryan echoed Thillens: “I don’t think we can say we should keep this [Youth Campus referendum] from the public because a handful of people said they don’t like the idea.”  This, from the same Park Board member who voted to proceed on the new Centennial aquatic project without an advisory referendum because a handful of people said they like that idea.

Rest assured that if Thillens, Ryan, and their fellow travelers on the Park Board could legally have gotten away with doing the Youth Campus project without a referendum, that deal already would be signed, sealed and delivered – the voters/taxpayers be damned by a lack of governmental and political integrity.

Two different local governmental bodies, two different lessons about local governmental and political integrity, and two more reasons to be skeptical and suspicious.

Next stop: pessimistic, misanthropic, or cynical?

UPDATED (01.25.13):  A commentator correctly pointed out that what we termed “AED”s are, instead, cardiac monitors/defibrillators.  The former are the heart jump-starters readily available in most public buildings, while the latter are more elaborate, multi-functional and expensive devices.  All information about useful life, maintenance and repairs related to the AEDs should be disregarded for now; and we apologize for our error. 

Subject to that correction, however, we stand by the rest of our post. 

To read or post comments, click on title.

Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt caught some aldermanic flak over his hiring of Acting City Mgr. Shawn Hamilton last summer after the Council sent then-city mgr. Jim Hock packing by unanimous vote. 

The flak came primarily from Alds. Sal Raspanti (4th ward) and Marty Maloney (7th), and it was directed toward the process Schmidt employed – because it didn’t include Council involvement other than to approve Hamilton’s hiring.  Those were legitimate criticisms, especially about a process employed by a mayor who not only has talked but also walked “transparency” line for the past four years he has been mayor. 

From the moment Hamilton’s hiring was confirmed by the Council – over Raspanti’s and Maloney’s “no” votes, as we recall – the primary question was whether Hamilton could do the job well enough to keep it beyond his May 1, 2013, contract end date.  His performance also would be a significant test of Schmidt’s theory that a city manager with a strong private-sector background could do a better job than the traditional public-sector bureaucrat. 

So the Council’s solid endorsement of Hamilton at last Monday night’s Council meeting was a significant achievement for the Acting City Manager.

Leading the cheers for Hamilton was Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st), who suggested dropping Hamilton’s “acting” status and making him the regular City Manager – in part because of Hamilton’s efforts in hiring new personnel and executing the Council’s cost-cutting agenda.

Unfortunately, Sweeney promptly left the reservation and began witlessly advocating for a one-year contract extension for Hamilton, insisting that Hamilton was just one Council meeting away from termination; and that he deserved “job security” because the City is “taking [from Hamilton] and not giving.”

Say what?  Since when did a six-figure salary and benefits become all “taking,” Ald. Sweeney?

But we probably shouldn’t expect more from a guy who voted to give Hock his 18-month contract with a $130,000 severance – even while acknowledging that it was a great contract for Hock but not such a great one for the taxpayers.  Apparently Sweeney doesn’t subscribe to the aphorism: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Fortunately, Raspanti nailed it when he reminded Sweeney that job “security” is not a right or an entitlement in the real, non-governmental, world: “Maybe the public sector works a little different…but anybody who works for a living is one bad move away from losing their job.”

Exactly!

While the other aldermen didn’t go as far as Sweeney, it was clear from their comments that most of them approved of Hamilton’s job so far.

Ald. Marty Maloney (7th Ward) said Hamilton has done a “fantastic job,” but noted that the Council “owe[s] it to the taxpayers” to put the right person in the job, and at the right price – pointedly referencing the sweetheart contract the previous Council (including Sweeney and Ald. Rich DiPietro) gave Hock in December 2010…for reasons that make no more sense today than they did back then: “I’m not interested in putting together a sweet deal like you guys did for Jim Hock.”

Despite how well Hamilton’s interim appointment appears to have worked out so far, we believe a more formal search process – even at the $20-30,000 cost being discussed – is the right approach for a position as crucial to City government as city manager.  In our form of government, the city manager is the CEO and COO rolled into one.  Which might explain why the City’s current financial problems and questionable infrastructure can be attributed in large measure to the bumbling and dissembling of the City’s two most recent city managers – Tim Schuenke and Jim Hock – aided and abetted by compliant, complicit, rubber-stamp City Councils.

Meanwhile, the biggest test for Hamilton so far will be the 2013-14 budget process. 

If he and new finance director Kent Oliven nail it, Hamilton might have an inside track to losing his “acting” status when the formal search is commenced after the new Council is seated in May.

If not, however, his honeymoon may well be over.

To read or post comments, click on title.

When anybody mentions “essential government services,” we think in terms of sewer, water, police, fire, streets and sidewalks. 

The problem with water and sewer, however, is that they are buried under the ground.  Consequently, they tend to remain out of sight and out of mind – the easier to neglect without a hue and cry of protest – until a sewer collapses or a water main breaks.

So an article in last week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Dry summer meant tough break for water mains,” Jan. 4) caught our attention because it reported 65 water main breaks in Park Ridge during the first half of FY2012-13.  That’s 10 to 15 more than is customary for an entire year.  And that doesn’t include 22 water service leaks during 2012.

Worse yet, that also doesn’t include the winter months when most breaks tend to occur. 

This situation becomes even more problematic given that the City’s Public Works Department already has spent its $50,000 overtime budget.  So Public Works will likely need to use money from City’s the construction fund to address future water main breaks between now and the beginning of FY 2013-14 on May 1.

That got us thinking and looking for any comprehensive information about the City’s sewer and water systems. 

Unfortunately, we could find no such information on the City’s website.  That’s a problem for several reasons, the first and foremost being that it suggests the City itself doesn’t have such information – or at least not in a sufficiently user-friendly form that it could be posted on the website for all to see.  That lack of transparency is a dis-service to the taxpayers, especially when boatloads of tax dollars are spent on a variety of other things that those taxpayers may not consider as “essential” as sewer and water. 

What we would expect is a map showing the entire network of sewers and water lines, with clearly-marked date(s) when each particular section or feature (e.g., a pump) was last inspected, when it was last repaired, and when it was last replaced.  That way, residents would have real-time knowledge of the condition of our unseen infrastructure…and a better idea of whether some portions of that infrastructure are ticking time bombs that shouldn’t be neglected further.

According to the H-A article, Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim correctly notes that a water main break is “something you can’t let run [because] people need to have water,” but that the City’s efforts at replacing older, less-durable piping have been slowed by the cost involved. 

The apparent lack of a comprehensive sewer and water map with accurate up-to-date status reports on the condition of those systems’ components would seem to leave the Public Works Dept. with an inability to develop a comprehensive, systematic multi-year process of inspecting, maintaining, repairing and/or replacing those components.  And it also makes sound budgeting decisions almost impossible.

But perhaps the worst part of having no such comprehensive analysis available to the taxpayers is that it prevents them from understanding a significant portion of the City’s infrastructure needs, including those needs that directly affect each individual taxpayers’ sewer and water systems.  Which means that, come budget time, those taxpayers are unable to provide their aldermen with any meaningful, informed input or feedback about how much money is being budgeted for those “essential” services – versus how much is being budgeted for discretionary spending.

The more the taxpayers remain in the dark on matters such as this, the easier it is for their elected representatives and the City’s bureaucrats to set the City’s spending agenda and manipulate public opinion.  Until a few more water mains break, or a few more sewers collapse.

And the City has already spent that money on discretionary items.

To read or post comments, click on title.

To the chagrin of some of our critics, we didn’t get coal in our stocking this Christmas. 

But we also didn’t get one of the things we asked Santa for: some specific details about what mayoral challenger Larry Ryles would actually do about the various significant issues facing the City – the ones Ryles has spent the past few months making broad, nebulous pronouncements about without one lick of specifics as to what he personally would do if he were mayor.  Like the union and non-union employee wage increases Mayor Dave Schmidt vetoed, or the 2.15% real estate tax levy increase that the Council passed with Schmidt’s approval. 

Ryles acts like a throwback to the empty candidacies of almost a generation of folks running under the banner of the now-defunct Homeowners Party (the “HOs”).  The HOs degenerated from the dynamic political organization founded by Marty Butler into a vapid social club once Butler left City Hall for Springfield and turned the party over to his mayoral successor, Ron Wietecha, and a collection of milquetoast hangers-on who viewed themselves as Park Ridge’s “in” crowd and would rubber-stamp without question anything Wietecha wanted. 

So we read with interest the Christmas Eve “special” to the Chicago Tribune by freelance stringer Gail-Tzipporah Saunders titled “Park Ridge officials urge residents to make their opinions known about O’Hare expansion,” which contains comments from two “Park Ridge leaders” – the City’s O’Hare Airport Commission (“OAC”) members James Argionis and Pay Ryan – about the City’s attempt to get the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to do an updated environmental study in response to the new East/West O’Hare runway that opened in November 2008 and added as many as 400 flights a day over Park Ridge airspace. 

Interestingly, the article doesn’t quote any other OAC members or OAC’s City Council liaison, Ald. Marty Maloney (7th).  Nor does it quote Schmidt (who promoted the creation of the OAC) or any other aldermen.  Instead, it quotes Ryles, who isn’t even on the OAC.  And Ryles doesn’t disappoint, offering more of the non-specific mush that is becoming his trademark:

“I keep telling [residents], don’t surrender.  There are some things that can be done.  Don’t quit.  Don’t give up on the folks that are fighting the good fight.”

Frankly, we generally like those sentiments, which sound almost Churchillian.  But where old Winston had a plan – actually, many plans – to go with the stirring rhetoric, Ryles seems to be plan-less.

So we think Mr. Ryles owes the voters of Park Ridge answers to the following questions about his O’Hare rhetoric:  What specifically are those “things that can be done”?  How many Park Ridge tax dollars are you willing to commit to the effort over how long a period of time?  What specific results do you expect from those efforts, and why?

The Tribune article points out that further O’Hare expansion will involve closing down certain runways over Arlington Heights.  Park Ridgians who wish to learn something from our City’s mistakes of the past should be reminded that Arlington Heights’ mayor, Arlene Mulder, jumped on then-Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (“ONCC”) bandwagon immediately after it was created in 1996, while then-Park Ridge mayor Ron Wietecha and the HO-dominated City Council chose instead to continue spending millions of our tax dollars on fighting Chicago, the FAA, and some of our neighboring communities, and on a $650,000 “investment” in a new Peotone airport that went the way of Enron stock even quicker than Enron stock. 

That waste of money continued from 1990 through May, 2003, when the Council, finally realizing that both the State and Federal governments had totally bought into the O’Hare expansion plan, voted to stop throwing good money after bad.

Make no mistake about it: we oppose further O’Hare expansion and any more runways that will bring more air traffic over our community.  But we also know – because we have watched and learned from what has happened over the past 16 years – that Chicago has too much money and political capital invested in that project to let itself get pushed around by our 37,000 resident community; that a complicit Federal Aviation Administration has been decidedly unsympathetic under both the George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama administrations; and even our neighboring communities seem happy to see Park Ridge get hit with extra air traffic.

So when candidate Ryles decides to play politics with his no retreat, no surrender rhertoric on this issue, it’s only fair for us and all other voters to ask him to explain exactly what he means and how much of the taxpayers’ money he’s willing to spend.

What would Ryles do about O’Hare expansion?

Your guess is as good as ours.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Today is the last day of City employment for Finance Director Allison Stutts. 

She arrived at City Hall two years ago with the City’s finances in disarray, with over $1 million of ignored City fees and fines, with a budget “process” undeserving of that term; and with an Uptown TIF whose financial condition was so arcane the Rosetta Stone was needed to decipher it.

She leaves behind major improvements in every single one of those areas, with a budgetary process so much more disciplined, detailed and transparent that it should be basically fool-proof for her successor and the rest of City staff – assuming they don’t find a way to screw it up.

Stutts is, without a doubt, the single best hire by former City Manager Jim Hock – although he seemed to have tried his best to bungle that: he held off making a decision for almost a year after he interviewed her, until Mayor Dave Schmidt demanded that Hock hire a finance director as the 2010-11 budget cycle was about to commence, and it was clear that neither Hock nor the rest of the City Staff were up to the task after the previous year’s debacle.

Stutts, a CPA, proved that she knew her stuff right out of the blocks.  She jumped right in and made the budget process her own, overcoming interference and impediments from Hock and various special interests who were completely content with the City’s dysfunctional, deficit-producing financial system.

Her no-nonsense approach to City finances and overall management was like an Arctic blast to many of the City’s too-complacent staffers.  She also quickly demonstrated that she suffered fools not at all, which took her out of the running for Miss Congeniality even before the first round cut was made. 

For someone responsible for a municipality’s finances, however, that’s a good thing: the ability and willingness to take a hard-eyed look at every pet project, frill and outright waste that some special interest or another wants to label a “necessity” at the taxpayers’ expense, is a virtue rarely found in government.

And she was willing to go toe-to-toe not only with Hock but with Mayor Schmidt and the City Council, most notably this past September when she dressed them all down for sustaining Schmidt’s veto of the ICOPS contract, which nixed raises for five of her department’s employees whom, she noted, were doing the work of ten.  That, too, is a virtue rarely seen in the go-along-to-get-along, put-in-your-time-to-get-your-pension parallel universe of government. 

Stutts is leaving to start up her own financial planning business, a goal she already had in mind when she took the City job – and for which she recently earned the necessary credentials, despite working yeo-woman’s hours at City Hall while commuting from her home in Glen Ellyn.

She may not have been the all-time best City employee…but we’ve never seen a better one.  And the City and its taxpayers are so much the better for her all too short, but so very productive, tenure. 

Hail and farewell, Ms. Stutts!

To read or post comments, click on title.

Tonight the City Council is scheduled to vote (7:00 p.m., 505 Butler Place) on adopting the 2012 property tax levy, which City Staff and the Council’s COW (Committee Of the Whole) reduced from an anticipated 11% to a modest 2.15% – the lowest percentage increase in at least the past 10 years.  

The levy increase could have been reduced down to almost zero had the Council sustained Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the questionable $290,000-plus expenditure for Phase I of the cop shop expansion/renovation.  But it didn’t, and that’s the Council’s lawful prerogative.

As a result, however, the passage of the 2.15% increase presents an interesting question of City finances that will be central issue in the upcoming mayoral race between Mayor Dave Schmidt and his only announced challenger: Larry Ryles.

According to Ryles’ website, taxes are his No. 1 issue.  He claims that he “will take the lead on getting annual tax increases down below the annual rate of inflation or CPI” – which he identifies as the 2% purportedly forecast by the Federal Reserve.  So when it comes to the 2.15% levy increase that will be voted on tonight, we are compelled to ask: “What would Ryles do” about this tax levy? 

Would he deem the 2.15% unacceptable because it is 0.15% above the forecast CPI?  If so, what would he cut from the budget – or what additional revenues would he raise – in order to cut the levy down to his 2% benchmark?

Good questions.  Too bad Ryles isn’t answering.

Which is interesting, because Ryles has repeatedly emphasized his “leadership” learned during 24 years in the military and 18 years in the insurance industry as another of the four main issues of his campaign.  He actually has a special “leadership” page on his website that notes how “Real leaders lead from the front.”  

Yet while this levy issue has been discussed by Schmidt and the Council for months, Ryles has been stone cold silent.  At a time when the Council and the taxpayers might benefit from whatever ideas or strategies Ryles might harbor on this issue, forget about leading “from the front.”  Ryles is MIA from the front, the rear, and the sides.

So we ask again: What would Ryles do? 

If this tax levy issue is any indication, the answer would appear to be: remain mute.

And hide.

Update (12.18.12)  The man who would be mayor, Larry Ryles, finally showed up at City Hall for last night’s Council meeting.  Actually, it seems that he showed up only for the “coin flip” (actually, a drawing) to determine whether his name or that of Mayor Dave Schmidt would be first on the ballot in April.  Schmidt won, and Ryles left – without sharing any of his thoughts or views on the 2.15% tax levy increase that was approved following his departure…or on any other City business on last night’s agenda.

This from the guy who claims he wants to be a “full-time” mayor?

To read or post comments, click on title.

Beginning under former city manager Tim Schuenke and continuing under his successor, former city manager Jim Hock, it became a kind of game for city managers to try to conceal important information from our elected officials in City government (i.e., the mayor and/or the City Council).   

A prime example of that is the annual Taste of Park Ridge event (“TOPR”).  First Schuenke, and then Hock, aided and abetted the leaders of private corporation Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) in keeping the Taste Inc.’s and TOPR’s financial information concealed from the taxpayers for several years after that event was handed over to Taste Inc. by then-mayor Howard Frimark and a rubber-stamp City Council on a no-bid, no contract, no accountability basis in June 2005.

So when the City of Park Ridge finally decided, earlier this year, to put TOPR out to bid, we were heartened that the City would finally start getting the tens of thousands of dollars of annual expense reimbursement – and the profit sharing – that its taxpayers had been denied for the seven years that Taste Inc.’s operations had been cloaked in such secrecy that its legal status as a “for profit” corporation masquerading as a non-profit one wasn’t even acknowledged until 2009.

Despite then-city manager Jim Hock’s best efforts to make a farce out of the bidding process – which ended up attracting only two conforming bids – we welcomed the fact that the winning bidder would, for the first time, actually have to sign a contract governing its and the City’s rights and obligations, two of which were expense reimbursement and revenue sharing.  And even though the TOPR contract approved by Hock and the City Council foolishly allowed winning bidder Taste Inc. to defer any revenue sharing obligation for TOPR 2012 until Taste Inc. earned enough profit to push its bank account over the $100,000 mark, we looked forward to a first-ever true accounting by Taste Inc. of its revenues and expenses – which it was contractually obligated to deliver to the City within 90 days of TOPR. 

By the time TOPR 2012 was held, Hock had been sacked; and by the time Taste Inc.’s accounting was due, Shawn Hamilton had been appointed Acting City Manager. 

Taste Inc. claims it submitted the required TOPR accounting to Hamilton back in September.  For some as-yet unexplained reason, however, Hamilton kept that accounting secret: as we understand it, he didn’t provide a copy to Mayor Dave Schmidt or the Council until the delivery of the Council agenda packet for tonight’s meeting, barely in advance of the January 1, 2013 deadline for a no-bid extension of Taste Inc.’s contract that is scheduled for discussion.  But even a cursory look  at that “accounting” suggests that the folks at Taste Inc. are back to their old Three Card Monty tricks again – with Hamilton seemingly an aider and abettor in the time-dishonored tradition of Schuenke and Hock. 

One of Hamilton’s duties as ACM is to ensure that Taste Inc. complied with its contractual obligations for an accounting.  And Hamilton’s Agenda Cover Memorandum accompanying Taste Inc.’s accounting fails to point out any compliance failures, just as it fails to explain why Hamilton kept the accounting secret for the past couple of months during which clock was ticking on that January 1, 2013, contractual deadline for the City and Taste Inc. to agree on whether to extend the 2012 contract on a no-bid basis for TOPR 2013 – something Taste Inc. covets notwithstanding that it claims to have lost in excess of $11,000 on TOPR 2012, presumably due to rain.

If that smells a little kinky to you, there’s no need to contact your ENT physician.  And the stink of kink becomes even stronger when one examines the types of non-compliance Hamilton overlooked…or is trying to conceal.

Let’s start with Page 2, Para. 1.E of the TOPR Contract, which requires that Taste Inc. provide the City with its “certified financial records for the event.”  Not only are the financial records comprising Taste Inc.’s “accounting” not “certified,” but they don’t even identify who prepared them.  And even though each page of the accounting advises the reader to “[s]ee independent accountant’s compilation report,” no such report is included nor the name of that “independent accountant” disclosed.

That same contractual provision mandates that “[c]ompensation of any kind whatsoever to officers or families of the Contractor shall not be deemed an Event Expense.”  Yet none of the information in the accounting enables the City (or the taxpayers) to determine whether “officers or families” of the folks running Taste Inc. received any compensation, either as service providers or as vendors.

Hamilton has had almost three months to review this accounting, yet he apparently did nothing to obtain the kind of detailed financial information that Taste Inc. was obligated to provide – other than to recently request a Taste Inc. balance sheet.  Whether that’s because of negligence, incompetence, or collusion with that Taste Inc. honchos is unclear at this time.  Seeing how previous city managers played footsie with Taste Inc. to keep secret the details of how it runs TOPR, however, we tend to lean toward the third of those three unacceptable  alternatives. 

When Hamilton was hired as the ACM, we expressed hope that his “varied background in banking and management consulting” obtained in the private sector might create a “new paradigm for how the City is managed and City services administered.”  But it only took a couple of months for Hamilton to demonstrate his own ability to act secretively and play politics to the taxpayers’ detriment. 

This latest bit of game-playing by Hamilton again reflects poorly on his management ability, and raises a red flag about his integrity.  That’s not a good thing under any circumstances, but it’s extra bad if he harbors any reasonable expectation of removing the “Acting” from his job title.  

To read or post comments, click on title.

Tonight’s Park Ridge City Council meeting agenda has at least on item worthy of some taxpayer interest. 

The first scheduled item is the Council’s vote to sustain or over-ride Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the $290,170 purchase order for the design and construction of “Phase I” of a police station improvement plan – which we understand consists of a 1,500 square foot “outbuilding” (at a cost of approximately $165,000, not counting the allocable “soft” costs, furniture, equipment, etc.), a parking lot to hold 18 cars ($69,000) and a 600 square foot bike corral ($12,000).  According to Chief Kaminski’s report, the entire cost of Phase I will be approximately $360,670, but only the $290,170 P.O. was vetoed.

In his veto message given at the 11.19.12 Council meeting, Schmidt rightly pointed out that “the City currently has well over 6,000 square feet of vacant space in other [City-owned] buildings, the majority of which is in the former Public Works Service Center” at Greenwood and Elm that, until a few years ago, had been leased and operated by NICOR.  But, in our opinion, Schmidt let the Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force off the hook way too easily for exploring only “one possible solution” to certain problems with the current cop shop.

Since that Task Force was established in February 2010, ostensibly to assist Chief Kaminski in community reach-out to improve the reputation of the Police Department in the wake of the Ekl Report, the Task Force members have focused much of its attention on the cop shop’s physical plant.  And in the same way everything looks like a nail to a hammer, the Task Force seems to view construction as the solution to almost every “problem” with the PRPD. 

As best as we can tell – and despite Chief Kaminski’s claim that “I think the Task Force really spent a lot of time looking at the alternatives other than building a new facility or buying new property” – we can find no shred of evidence that the Task Force ever seriously looked at the City’s other available space before recommending the $1.1 million construction plan that will begin with Phase I.  For example, we can find no mention whatsoever of any evaluation of other available City space in the 75-page report produced by the Task Force last year, “Cost Effective Strategies to Address Risk Factors at the Police Facility.”    

Irrespective of the soundness of Schmidt’s arguments for using space the City already has instead of building new, we don’t expect three aldermen on this Council to sustain his veto. 

Which brings us to the second scheduled item of interest: the property tax levy increase.

The Council is scheduled to pass the new property tax levy increase which, at 2.15%, will be the lowest increase in at least 10 years – by more than an entire percent!  The irony is that the levy increase could drop all the way down to around 0.4% by the Council’s sustaining that veto and saving the City’s taxpayers the additional $290,000. 

But we’re guessing that’s way too radical for aldermen who seemed to be so mesmerized by the plans for Phase I that they could barely manage any questions of Chief Kaminski or the Task Force members each time this project was discussed, like: “Have you thoroughly evaluated all of the available space the City currently owns?” and “If not, why not?” 

With 6,000 square feet of space already available, spending $290,000+ (actually $360,000+) on 2,100 square feet of what amounts to storage space – and 18 parking slots – seems like both bad tax policy and bad management.

Or just another hammer looking for another nail.

To read or post comments, click on title.

That’s the front page headline of today’s Park Ridge Journal, and it appears to corroborate recent rumors that former Park Ridge Mayor Howard P. Frimark has been circulating announced mayoral candidate Larry Ryles’ nominating petitions. 

The taxpaying voters of Park Ridge should welcome this announcement because it adds some much-needed “meat” to the rather sparse “bones” of Ryles’ mayoral campaign to date – which had us asking “What Would Ryles Do” (“WWRD”) because the candidate had not articulated his views on current City policy and issues beyond the handful of warm and fuzzy tropes on his website.

According to the Journal article, Frimark is helping Ryles on his campaign because Frimark considers Ryles “a good man.” 

We don’t doubt that Ryles is “a good man” in the same sense that the vast majority of Park Ridge residents are “good” men and women.  But we also note that, historically, the term “a good man” has been a kind of political code in Crook County for “he’s an empty suit, but he’s our empty suit.”  The original “Boss” of Chicago, Richard J. Daley, used the embellishment “a good family man” to praise and eulogize his political lackeys – presumably because they were good at enriching their own families (and Daley’s) by helping the Boss shake the shekels out of the average Chicago taxpayer.

By branding Ryles “a good man,” Frimark also implies that his political nemesis, Mayor Dave Schmidt, is the converse: a “bad man.” 

In Frimark’s cockeyed view of City government, that’s probably true – going back to when then-ald. Schmidt repeatedly blew the whistle on, and publicly challenged, then-mayor Frimark’s brazen attempts at wasting multi-millions of tax dollars on buying land and building a new cop shop without a referendum, and at giving away millions of tax dollars to buddies like Bill Napleton even as Cadillac was closing down his dealership, and at exempting the PADS carpetbaggers from the City’s zoning ordinance, etc.

We’re also pretty sure that certain of Frimark’s (and Ryles’?) friends and acquaintances consider Schmidt a “bad man” for how he has frustrated all those private special interests who for so long had reaped the benefits of the perversion of the City’s power to squeeze involuntary tax-funded “donations” out of the same taxpayers from whom those special interests couldn’t coax voluntary contributions (Center of Concern, Meals on Wheels, Maine Center, etc.); or who had enjoyed lucrative no-bid monopolies on City events (Taste of Park Ridge NFP); or who had pocketed tax dollars for private property enhancement (through the façade improvement program and the Uptown underground parking garage). 

Knowing that Frimark is a Ryles campaign advisor, however, adds some clarity to Ryles’ heretofore vague and squishy “platform.”  It suggests that Ryles, no matter how he might spin it, is singing from the same “Let’s Make A Deal” political hymnal as Frimark – the one that gave us the financial black hole known as the Uptown TIF, and an overburdened but more easily-manipulated 7-person City Council, and several years of deficits totaling millions of dollars.

And Ryles already seems to be learning those tunes, as he demonstrated (according to another article in today’s Journal) by proclaiming the wasteful $300,000 “Phase I” of the planned $1.1 million cop shop upgrade as “an economical way to do it” – “it” being knocking down the City-owned house on Courtland and building a 1,500 square foot bike corral and evidence storage area.  Ryles went on to criticize Schmidt’s veto of that Phase I expense – which Schmidt based in large part on the current availability of over 6,000 square feet of existing City building space – as showing “a total lack of teamwork between the aldermen and the mayor” – “teamwork” apparently meaning mindlessly going-along-to-get-along.

Ryles’ also defended the cop shop upgrade plan recommended by the Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force, of which Ryles is a member, because “we worked really hard on this plan.”  “Working really hard” and similar terms (like “spending a lot of time” and “studying it at length”) are standard political code terms for “we know it’s a dumb idea, but give us props for our time and effort” – the government equivalent of a “participation” trophy.

Obviously, neither Ryles nor Frimark understand or subscribe to legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden’s maxim: “Don’t mistake activity for achievement.”  That’s just one of the reasons that the alliance of Frimark and Ryles portends an “interesting” mayoral campaign between now and April.

As in the Chinese wish: “May you live in interesting times”?

To read or post comments, click on title.