Tonight (September 8, 2008) at 7:00 p.m. the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”) will once again meet at Emerson Middle School in Niles to review and consider City Staff’s proposed homeless shelter Text Amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that would enable the issuance of special use permits for homeless shelters like the one PADS wants to run out of St. Paul of the Cross School. 

Prior to August 25th, Staff proposed its original draft of the Text Amendment that included only the most minimal requirements for the applicant seeking a homeless shelter special use permit.  On August 25th, P&Z held a three-hour hearing to obtain public testimony about what additional considerations and requirements might be included in the process for a shelter obtaining a special use permit.  Much of that “testimony” was opinion rather than fact, but a number of facts were presented.

One might expect that Staff might find something in that three hours of resident testimony to justify even some minor adjustments to the original Text Amendment.  But, amazingly enough, Staff’s post-public hearing version of the Text Amendment is exactly the same as the original.  

In other words, Staff derived nothing from those three hours of citizen input that caused it to re-think and revise any aspect of its original draft Text Amendment.  Is Staff just so good that it doesn’t even need citizen input, or was that citizen input just so poor that Staff was justified in disregarding it?  We believe neither.

We have annotated the September 8, 2008, Text Amendment memorandum [pdf] from Acting Director of Community Preservation and Development Carrie Davis to point out just how shallow, incomplete and undocumented Staff’s “analysis” of the Text Amendment is.  Frankly, it’s little more than a collection of Staff’s (or somebody else’s?) substantially unfounded opinions and conclusions that pretty much ignore the nine “Standards” for zoning text amendments found at Table 1 to Section 4.8.E of the Zoning Ordinance – including the crucial criterion of whether this proposed Text Amendment “will benefit the residents of the City as a whole, and not just the applicant, property owner(s)…or other special interest groups.”  We include an annotated Table 1 with the September 8th memo.

Carrie Davis should be ashamed of releasing such a piece of fluff under her name, but we’re guessing she’s just playing typical bureaucrat and following somebody’s orders.  Over the years we’ve observed that half-baked bureacratic “work product” from Staff usually signals that some kind of “Fix” is in, for some special interest or another at the expense of the rest of our community. 

But we encourage you to read the relevant materials, form your own opinions, and show up at Emerson tonight to see whether those P&Z members – all of whom we understand to be either appointments or re-appointments by our pro-PADS Mayor Howard Frimark – will rubber-stamp Carrie Davis’ fluff or actually stand up for “the residents of the City as a whole”?

As usual, we’re not holding our breath.

Update (9/9/08):

By a final vote of 7-2, P&Z last night forwarded the proposed Text Amendment to the Park Ridge City Council, but with one significant addition: No homeless shelter shall be located within 500 feet of a school.  By the slimmest 5-4 margin, Commissioners Anita Rifkind, Aurora Abella-Austriaco, Lou Arrigoni, Cathy Piche and Milda Roskiewicz stressed public safety in advocating and voting for this requirement, while chairman Alfredo Marr and commissioners Joe Baldi, Tom Provenchar and Mary Wells voted against the requirement.

The conduct of the meeting often seemed like Roberts Rules of Order meet the Marx Brothers, especially when the 500-foot requirement was being discussed: Chairman Marr put off a vote on it as long as possible, first taking a break to privately huddle with City Attorney Buzz Hill and Acting Director of Community Preservation and Development Carrie Davis, then inviting more discussion, then asking for a show of hands (which reflected the final 5-4 majority) before finally asking for a motion and calling the formal vote. 

The Text Amendment now moves on to the City Council, six members of which were in the audience for at least part of the meeting: P&Z liaison Dave Schmidt (1st) and Aldermen Don Bach (3rd), Jim Allegretti (4th), Robert Ryan (5th), Tom Carey (6th) and Frank Wsol (7th).  

Like our previous pieces on the Taste of Park Ridge – both the event and the private not-for-profit corporation (“NFP”), Taste of Park Ridge, Inc. (“Taste, Inc.”) – our post “After the Taste: The Culture Of Secrecy Continues” (September 3) got no responses that could clearly be identified with any officer or director of Taste, Inc.

We did receive a few comments, however, which suggest some clarification of our position may be needed. 

For example, we wrote that Taste, Inc. is not legally permitted to make a “profit,” a short-hand explanation of NFPs which at least one reader may have interpreted as meaning that Taste, Inc.’s income cannot exceed expenses, or that it cannot accumulate assets.  What we should have said is: an NFP like Taste, Inc. cannot have shareholders and cannot distribute its profits (or its assets) to its members, directors or officers other than as reasonable compensation for services rendered, or as reimbursement for contributions made for the NFP’s benefit. 

But the one point we continue to stress is that there is something just not quite right about a community organization like Taste, Inc. making such an effort to downplay or conceal its corporate status.  We also can’t help but wonder why Taste, Inc. doesn’t post its IRS Form 990 (or 990-EZ) on its fancy website so that anybody interested in the finances of Taste, Inc. can see them without having to request those reports from Taste, Inc.?

Maybe Taste, Inc. president Dave Iglow (Pine’s Mens Wear of Park Ridge), or vice-president/secretary Albert Galus (Academic Tutoring Centers), or treasurer Jim Bruno (Chase Bank), or directors Dean Patras (Broadway Livery Service), Sandy Svizzero (Parkway Bank & Trust Company), Barb Tyksinski (All on the Road Catering) and John Warnimont (Activision Electric), would like to explain all the secrecy?  Why aren’t they interested in giving the community that keeps their NFP in business a look inside its finances and how it operates?   

While they’re at it, maybe they could tell us why Taste, Inc. gave $1,000 to then-Taste, Inc. vice-president Bob Dudycz’s campaign fund last September?  And if they’re really in an open and honest mood, maybe they could try answering some of those questions we posed in Time For A Transparent “Taste” – Part 2 

After all, if there’s no Culture of Secrecy, why are they hiding?

Last week’s edition of the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate contained a self-promotion/group-hug letter (“After the Taste: a bright recovery,” August 28) from Niles politician Bob Dudycz and local merchant/Morton Grove resident Dave Iglow, two of the head honchos of Taste of Park Ridge, Inc. (“Taste, Inc.”).

As previously noted on this site (Time For A Transparent “Taste” – Time For A Transparent “Taste” – Part 2 – Hooray For Us), Taste, Inc. is the private, not-for-profit corporation (“NFP”) that was quietly formed by Dudycz, Iglow and a few others in 2005 to take over the operation of our annual Taste of Park Ridge festival.  But don’t expect to see any mention of Taste, Inc. in their letter: all you’ll find are four references to the “Taste committee,” an innocuous way to camouflage the fact that the Taste is a private enterprise with Iglow as president and Dudycz as vice-president.

We’re unabashed fans of Taste, the event.  And, frankly, we wouldn’t care one whit about who runs the Taste if not for two factors: (1) the effort Taste, Inc. seemingly makes to avoid any mention of its existence or role in the event (kind of like “The first rule of Fight Club is – you do not talk about Fight Club.”); and (2) that Taste, Inc. appears to be using a lot of taxpayer-paid resources of the “city of Park Ridge, the Park Ridge Fire, Health, Police and Public Works departments…the Park Ridge Park and School Districts…[and the] Park Ridge Library staff” – without any indication that Taste, Inc. is paying for them.

As we saw from the City’s financial report [pdf] on our most recent 3rd of July fireworks show, the cost of just the services provided by City and Park District employees exceeded $26,000 for what basically was a one-night event.  So we have reason to wonder what the costs were for those services provided to Taste, Inc. by the listed governmental bodies over the three-plus days of the Taste event – and whether Taste, Inc. paid for any of them. 

Our concern also relates to the unique nature of NFPs.  Although not legally permitted to make a “profit,” its officers and directors are able pay themselves, hire and pay employees, and contract with vendors.  But because NFPs don’t have shareholders who expect a return on their investment, there’s really nobody with a sufficient stake in the venture to keep an eye on officer and director compensation, expenses, or if those officers and directors are making money as not-quite-arm’s-length vendors to the corporation.  Hence, you get things like Taste, Inc.’s $1,000 contribution [pdf] to Dudycz’s campaign fund last September.

So when Dudycz’s and Iglow’s letter trumpeted the “consistently improved” Taste website as containing a “complete list of the volunteers,” along with “countless Taste snapshots, sponsor and vendor lists, and much more,” we checked that site in the hope that “much more” might include a full financial report that disclosed Taste, Inc.’s revenues, expenses, officer/director compensation, the identities of its vendors and what it paid them for the various goods and services used in its operations.

But as of 10:00 p.m. last evening, our search found nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Under these circumstances, we aren’t going to hold our collective breath waiting for Taste, Inc. to embrace transparency and accountability by making its financial records public.  If it were inclined to do so, it wouldn’t keep hiding behind its “Taste committee” facade and publicizing everything but its financial information. So we expect Taste, Inc. will continue to enjoy its unofficial monopoly on using our streets, our park (Hodges), and the services of local government and hundreds of volunteers while keeping its finances concealed from the taxpayers and customers who keep Taste, Inc. “in business.”  

And the Culture of Secrecy continues.

As reported in both local newspapers this week, the annual July 3rd fireworks display at Maine East High School is safe for at least another year, thanks to a donation from local website design firm Americaneagle.com, Inc.  And Americaneagle’s Tony Svanascini says next summer’s show will be bigger and better than ever.

Chalk up one very visible example of how a successful local business can give back to the community above and beyond the taxes it pays.  And even above and beyond – in Americaneagle’s case – the 140 or so people it employs. 

When we wrote about the petty politics that was threatening our annual pyrotechnic tradition (“When Politicians Play With Fireworks”, August 13, 2008), we noted that certain Park Ridge Park District commissioners reportedly were miffed that the City of Park Ridge seemed to be getting all the credit for that event.  So those commissioners – who readily turn a blind eye toward the red ink pouring out of other Park District facilities or programs, like the $80,000 or so each summer from the dead pool leaking at Oakton – became born-again fiscal conservatives and targeted the rockets’ red glare for a trimming.

But if we have our information straight, even though the Park District actually wrote the check each year for the cost of the fireworks portion of the show, the Park District was being reimbursed for that cost by the City of Park Ridge.  One way or the other, adding Americaneagle.com, Inc.’s donation to the equation means that either the City or the Park District just found $18,000 more in next year’s budget. 

Meanwhile, Americaneagle’s private contribution to this event – along with the contributions of our tax dollars by the City, the Park District and School District 207 (through Maine East), and an $8,000 contribution (public/private?) from the Park Ridge Fine Arts Society – causes us to inquire once again about why the Park Ridge Kiwanis Clubs purportedly gets an “exclusive” food concession deal for the event, especially without any known contribution by them to the cost of the event?

We reiterate that we’ve got nothing against the Kiwanis, but if the taxpayers continue to fund a substantial part of the fireworks show that enables the Kiwanis to fundraise on an “exclusive” basis, we think that, at the very least, the Kiwanis owes those same taxpayers answers to the following questions: (1) How did they get an “exclusive” deal?  And (2) What kind of profit, if any, do they make off the show?  We also think it would be a fine gesture for them to produce a financial report documenting the revenue and expenses they generate from this event.

We suspect that these questions and request will provoke comments similar to those raised in response to our August 13 posting: that the Kiwanis does so much good for the community that it’s an insult to ask them such things.  

But before anyone talks about insults, maybe they should first explain why the Kiwanis Clubs appear to be the only net “takers” from among the array of net “givers,” both public and private, each Independence Day?

We’re still hearing about the City of Park Ridge Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Monday night at Emerson Middle School (in Niles), which reportedly was attended by as many as 350 residents. 

The main event of the evening was a public hearing on what requirements should be built into the new Special Use Permit being created to permit temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge, like the PADS shelter currently planned for St. Paul of the Cross School’s gymnasium.

You might think that this issue itself would have enough substance to satisfy all of the interested parties without the need to resort to sideshows and gimmicks.  If so, you would be wrong, as the supporters of the PADS shelter decided to add a fashion statement to the proceedings.

By pre-arrangement, those supporters arrived in white shirts – perhaps because they couldn’t collect enough white 10-gallon hats to effect the “Western” cliché of the “good” cowboys versus the bad ones.  These “white shirts” seemed intent on presenting a show of force to the P&Z members, most of who looked like they never bargained for this kind of “heater” issue or this much public attention when they sought their appointments or re-appointments to P&Z from Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark.

For the record, Frimark – a PADS supporter – was observed in the audience wearing a suit, the coat of which he soon doffed to highlight the white shirt underneath.

We question the wearing of partisan garb of any type – in this case, white shirts – in the context of local government proceedings like the P&Z hearing Monday night.  When used as they were at Emerson, the shirts clearly served to visually divide the audience while at the same time claiming for the pro-PADS contingent the “good guys” persona – and providing a subtle form of intimidation as well.

Ironically, throughout the PADS shelter debate, it has been the pro-PADS forces who have chided the opposition for creating “divisiveness” in the community, and it has also been the pro-PADS forces (including Mayor Frimark) who have repeatedly questioned the “Christianity” of the members of the opposition – under the self-serving but legally erroneous view that this is a “religious” rather than a civic issue.

Although these shirts were white, the concept harkens back to a more troublesome political paradigm from 1930s Germany and the wearing of shirts of a different color – in that case, brown – to identify a particular political faction and intimidate its opposition.  One of the tactics of those “brownshirts” was to attack their opponents (principally, the Jews) as morally inferior.  Sound familiar?

The debate over the Special Use Permit requirements is a serious one with far-reaching implications for the entire community.  It should be conducted and decided on the merits of the competing policies and ideas, not on shirt color or the sturm und drang it encourages. 

But if either side wants this matter settled by raw numbers of supporters or opponents rather than by policy considerations and ideas, then the best way to get accurate numbers is to put the issue to advisory referendum on the April 2009 ballot.

Any takers? 

In what appears to be an unprecedented move, the City of Park Ridge’s Planning & Zoning Commission will meet tonight in Niles(!) to take up the matter of text amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance in order to permit and regulate temporary homeless shelters. 

The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at Emerson Middle School, 8101 N. Cumberland Avenue, Niles, Illinois, presumably in anticipation of an overflow crowd of residents wanting to be heard on this matter, which has generated a lot of heat and light on how this community views its obligations toward the homeless – not just the homeless with ties to Park Ridge, but the homeless from other communities as well.

Although PADS supporters have argued that churches like St. Paul of the Cross, whose school is the planned site for the PADS shelter each Sunday night from October through April, should not have to comply with City ordinances for such a shelter because it purports to be a religious “ministry,” the City Council disagreed – based on two recent local federal court cases – and it referred the matter to Planning & Zoning to come up with appropriate standards for permitting such a “special use” of those premises. 

One of the issues debated by aldermen and residents alike is whether PADS needs to be a co-applicant with St. Paul.  In one of those recent court cases involving a shelter in Elgin, the court noted that PADS was not only a co-applicant, it was the applicant.  The Elgin version of a special use permit limited PADS “clients” from staying at the shelter more than three days unless they could demonstrate that they had a “connection” to Elgin, based on any one of four criteria:

• a mailing address in Elgin within past two years;
• established employment in Elgin;
• residence in Elgin of the person’s immediate family; or
• current attendance in an Elgin school by the person or the person’s child.

According to many St. Paul parishioners, church leadership has disregarded their legitimate safety and health concerns about running a PADS shelter in the school’s gymnasium every Sunday night.  Consequently, they are viewing the City Council as their last resort for making sure that the interests of their children and of the community as a whole are respected and protected at least as much as the interests of PADS and the homeless. 

Here’s hoping that the City does its job in that respect, and that tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is a productive first step in a process that properly recognizes the fundamental principle of separation of church and state.  Because contrary to what PADS shelter proponents contend, this is every bit as much of a civic matter as it is a religious ministry.

We encourage everyone with an interest in this important issue to attend tonight’s meeting so that the Planning & Zoning Commission can consider the views of the broadest cross-section of our community in making its recommendations to the City Council.

We here at PublicWatchdog have complained regularly about the Culture of Secrecy that often keeps the voters and taxpayers in the dark – or at least the twilight – when it comes to what our local governments are doing.  So the release of The Ekl Report to the public Monday was a step in the right direction.

But it didn’t come off without a couple of hiccups, courtesy of 5th Ward Ald. Robert Ryan and 3rd Ward Ald. Don Bach.

Ryan asked City Attorney “Buzz” Hill if it was legally permissible to issue the report publicly because City employees were named in it.  This is a typical “Culture of Secrecy” tactic, which plays on the fact that the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) does permit – but does not require – “personnel” discussions to be held in closed sessions.

Buzz said that he thought it was appropriate because there was a consensus of the Council (although not a unanimous one) that The Ekl Report should be released to the public that was paying for it and that has a clear interest in those results.  Good for Buzz.

Undeterred, Ryan asked Hill whether, because of the names in the report, releasing it to the public was the “right thing” to do?

Once again, Buzz said that he thought it was okay.  Good for Buzz, again.

Apparently hoping that the third time would be the charm, Ryan then asked City Mgr. Jim Hock the same question, adding “From an H.R. perspective…is it the right thing to do?”

Hock replied that there was no official action to be taken in terms of personnel and discipline in connection with the report; and that it seemed in the Council’s best interest to release it because it had assured the community that it would do so. Good for Jim.

Then Bach briefly took up the secrecy cudgel, asking City Attorney Hill if there was anything in the report the city could be sued for?  That’s another Culture of Secrecy ploy which has been used in the past by Bach and also 4th Ward. Ald. Jim Allegretti who, as an attorney, should know that the City enjoys governmental immunity from much of the liability to which ordinary people and corporations are subject. 

Buzz replied that he saw nothing about the release of the report that would subject the City to liability.

So at least for today we’re giving Buzz Hill and Jim Hock a “well done” for striking a blow against the Culture of Secrecy.  And we offer them our hearty encouragement to keep it up.

Special Note: The PubDogs want to offer belated “Happy Birthday” wishes to the “PRU Crew” at Park Ridge Underground, which celebrated its first year of operation yesterday.  Thanks for your “irreverent and unrepentent satire and irony.” 

It’s here!  The anxiously-awaited “audit” of the Park Ridge Police Department – we’ll call it “The Ekl Report”[pdf] for its author, attorney Terry A. Ekl – has been released to the City Council and the public (although some City officials reportedly wanted a “private” sneak peek before its public release).

As predicted on this site on several prior occasions, it points an admonishing finger at former Police Chief Jeffrey Caudill for, in a nutshell, not having been as good a chief as he had been a detective, and as he is a person.  Beyond Caudill, the report is dominated by three main topics: The divisiveness in the department related to Cmdr. Lou Jogman; the Jayne Reardon arrest; and the problematic conduct of Officer Matthew McGannon.

Ekl begins his report with the warning that he “will not make findings of a factual nature unless [he has] been presented with credible, first-hand evidence of misconduct.” (Page 2)  That’s fine in concept, but the report ends up with – in our opinion – a lot of conclusions and recommendations that don’t seem to have findings of fact to back them up. 

The report states that Ekl and his staff interviewed “80 individuals” (Page 11), but  only 18 of 61(?) sworn officers (Page 10); and we can’t tell for sure how many residents beyond the 40 reported at Pages 6-7 were interviewed, or whether that 40 included all of the various City elected and appointed officials that were interviewed.  This would not seem to be the basis for much in the way of findings of fact or conclusions/recommendations.  Nevertheless, Ekl liberally salts his report with recommendations that would appear to go beyond the scope of his factual investigation and that require law enforcement and labor management expertise seemingly beyond Ekl’s credentials.

For example, the report states that “[t]here are many officers who are unhappy with the direction of the department” (Pages 14 and 24) without quantifying how many is “many” and without explaining what that “direction” is.  Similarly, Ekl reports of there being “a significant portion” (Page 4) and “a vocal portion” (Page 18) of the community that lacks confidence in the department, without even attempting to quantify how substantial a “portion” that is, or identifying the specific evidence supporting that conclusion.

A glaring omission of “fact” relates to the intrusion of elected officials into the day-to-day operations of the police department. (Pages 30-32)  Frankly, the lack of any identification of those officials smacks of a cover-up that has no justification if Ekl did, indeed, find evidence of such intrusion.

The last nine pages of the report contain Ekl’s “Recommendations,” many of which involve labor and employment matters – progressive discipline (Page 40), promotions (Page 41) – which implicate the police officers’ rights under their union contract and also involve management policy on which Ekl may not even be qualified to opine. 

We encourage you to read The Ekl Report with a critical eye toward what it says and what it doesn’t say; and then judge for yourself whether the Police Department, the City, and the taxpayers are well-served by it.

Last week we wrote about how Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark was again characteristically off-base in his view of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) because IOMA does not require that anything discussed in closed session be treated as “confidential” or kept secret. (Frimark’s Secret Land Deals No Bargain For Taxpayers, August 14) 

Today we discuss why there is no need for confidential dealings with property owners when the City needs to acquire private property.

The State of Illinois’ eminent domain laws give municipalities like Park Ridge the power to buy private property necessary for a legitimate public purpose at its fair market value (“FMV”) – defined as what a purchaser “willing, but not obligated, to buy the property, would pay to an owner willing, but not obliged, to sell in a voluntary sale.” 735 ILCS 30/10-5-60.  Before a city can use eminent domain, however, it has to make a good-faith attempt to negotiate with the property owner by offering to pay the property’s appraised value.  

So if the City has the right, by state law, to force the owner of any private property necessary for the public’s purpose to sell it to the City at the property’s FMV, why do Frimark and his Alderpuppets keep running into closed sessions to discuss those purchases in secret? 

The first excuse is that the City must act secretly to keep the price from being jacked up.  As Frimark wrote in his letter to the Herald-Advocate last week: “Once the marketplace learns that a government entity is even interested in acquiring a particular property, the price is driven upward.”  In other words, our mayor is claiming – without any supporting data, or course – that someone who was not even interested in the property or who was unwilling to pay FMV for it, will run right out and offer the owner of that property more than the FMV the minute the City’s interest becomes known.

For that theory to work, however, the property owner would have to be willing to accept less than FMV for his property from the City, while at the same time knowing that he can get more than FMV from private buyers.  That’s just plain goofy to us, but if you think it makes sense then you probably are qualified to be a Park Ridge alderpuppet…or even the mayor! 

The other excuse kept at the ready by Culture of Secrecy schemers is that the people of Park Ridge don’t like eminent domain.  But we checked around and nobody seems to remember the last time the City actually used eminent domain to acquire land for a public necessity.  So we suspect that what people may be remembering are the times the City talked about using eminent domain to help out a favored/connected developer acquire property for its own private purposes and profit.

For example, the public rallied against the City’s talk of condemning the Shell gas station at Greenwood and Dempster so that Bredemann Auto Group could redevelop that property.  It also objected to the City’s threat to condemn Fair Play Sports and the Happy House restaurant at Meacham and Northwest Hwy. in order to get that parcel into the hands of Uptown developer PRC.  There were also complaints when Joseph Freed & Associates was trying to redevelop Summit Mall and sought the City’s help to acquire the Pancake House because Freed wasn’t making enough headway with the owner.

In each of those cases, however, the public’s concerns appear to have been about losing those established businesses to redevelopment, not about the use of eminent domain to acquire them. 

But when the city negotiates private deals, FMV seems to be more like a starting point for negotiations instead of the end point.  The City sold the reservoir block – without even getting a formal appraisal – to PRC for what’s been suggested as at least $5 million below that property’s FMV.  Just last year, Frimark requested a new appraisal on 720 Garden when the City’s appraisal (after being adjusted upwards to compensate for a square footage error) came back at a few hundred thousand dollars less than the owner was asking for.  And let’s not forget how the City was eager to pay Owen Hayes II a full $200,000 more for the Foot and Ankle Surgeons building on Busse Hwy. than Hayes himself had just paid for it.

The history of City real estate “deals” negotiated in closed session suggests that while the City might get to “yes” quicker through a private deal than through eminent domain, it will almost certainly pay more (or in the case of the reservoir block, receive less) than the FMV for the property, thereby wasting a good chunk of the public purse to fatten the wallets of the owners/sellers.  

Anyone who says that government bureaucrats can bargain effectively against private property owners or developers is either delusional or an outright liar.  And the sooner the folks at 505 Butler Place figure that out, the better off the taxpayers of Park Ridge will be.