We here at PublicWatchdog don’t make the approx. $200,000 (all in) City Manager Jim Hock is paid each year to be the City’s chief operational officer.  Or the approx. $120,000 Assistant City Mgr. Juliana Maller receives.  Or the approx. $115,000 paid to Community Preservation & Development Director Carrie Davis.  Or the approx. $130,000 paid to each of Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim, Acting Police Chief Tom Swoboda, Fire Chief Craig Gjelsten and Finance Director Diane Lambesis. 

(Frankly, we don’t make anything running this blog.  The only good thing about that sad fact is that it’s harder to accuse us of having a conflict of economic interest.) 

Throw in the $12,000 paid to Mayor Dave Schmidt, and the $1,200 paid to each of the Alder-dunces, and we’re talking about almost $1 million a year in payroll for the people who, in one way or another, are responsible for balancing the City budget – which means they are being paid pretty big bucks, collectively (and even individually), to saddle us with the $2 million deficit budget the City Council recently passed. 

And despite the demand from Mayor Schmidt that they come up with amendments to get the budget in balance, the occupants of this financial clown car recently added to that deficit by giving away even more handouts to a bunch of private organizations which – as a matter of public policy – have no business sucking public tax dollars out of the City’s coffers while legitimate City infrastructure needs are neglected for lack of funding. 

Because the folks paid to balance the budget have yet to display the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude needed to get the job done, we’re going to give it a try – secure in the knowledge that we can’t do worse, and that we’re costing the taxpayers nothing.  So here we go:

· Implement a pay-as-you-go policy for every fee-based service, starting with water.  Just passing through the entire 2009 water rate increase [pdf] charged Park Ridge by the City of Chicago will not only take a big bite out of the deficit, but it just might encourage more water conservation, making it a win/win. 
  Reduction: $400,000. Deficit remaining: $1,600,000.

· Freeze wages at 2008-09 rates. And when the employees (and the union) beef, remind them of the 570,000+ private-sector workers in Illinois who are currently jobless and the fact that a “flat” paycheck is better than no paycheck at all, especially when it comes with a great pension and all the other benefits that most of the people paying the bill for them don’t themselves enjoy. 
  Reduction: $800,000. Deficit remaining: $800,000.

· Chop two-thirds of the $900,000 budgeted “to complete construction of the streetscape on Summit, Touhy to Prospect.” [pdf]  Once again, folks, it’s a question of priorities. During a recession/depression, things like appearance need to take a back-seat to necessities. Frankly, given the sad state of the City’s finances, we have to question the sanity of the City even commencing this project in 2008.
  Reduction: $600,000. Deficit remaining: $200,000.

· Rescind the $39,000 over-budget “welfare” payments to local community groups [pdf].  It’s just plain bad public policy for City government to funnel tax dollars to private organizations, at least unless and until there is an official determination by the City that: (a) each such organization receiving City tax dollars provides services that the City itself must/should provide; (b) each organization provides those services at a lower cost than that at which the City could provide them, or provides better services at the same cost; and (c) each organization provides the same degree of financial and operational transparency that is required of the City.   
  Reduction: $39,000.  Deficit remaining: $161,000.

· Eliminate the “original” (pre-increase) $34,000 contribution to the Park Ridge Senior Center.  The Senior Center is already gorging at the public trough to the tune of the $159,740 in tax dollars the Park District has budgeted for it in 2009 [pdf].  And last we heard, the Center has less than 1,200 members, many of whom aren’t even Park Ridge residents/taxpayers. That means we are paying $130+ a year for each member to belong to this little club – if not more, depending on whether any public money makes up that “miscellaneous” revenue source that is supposed to provide an additional $97,445 of revenue in 2009.
  Reduction: $34,000. Deficit remaining: $127,000.

· Eliminate the “noise abatement” funds [pdf], which are supposed to go for the rental of noise monitors to tell us what we already know; and about what nobody in a position of authority seems to give a rat’s derriere about: That we’ve got high levels of air plane noise over Park Ridge.  Unless and until somebody with any clout – the FAA, either of our two U.S. senators, or any members of our state’s congressional delegation – assures us in no uncertain terms, and in writing, that they will actually do something about the situation if, and just as soon as, they are provided with specific noise readings, we’re just chasing our tails with noise monitors and decibel levels.
  Reduction: $25,000. Deficit remaining: $102,000.

· Eliminate the funds that have been earmarked for training ($9,000), tuition reimbursement ($12,000) and new carpeting ($40,000) in the Library [pdf].  If police training is being cut back, there’s no reason to spare the training of library staffers.  And why are we giving anybody “tuition reimbursement”?  As for new carpeting: not this year.
  Reduction: $52,300. Deficit remaining: $49,700.

And for that last $49,700, we’re going to let Ald. Don Bach – who has been whining about too many City employees for months – put his money where his mouth is: we invite him to recommend which single City employee should lose his/her job; and we promise to publish his selection should he finally demonstrate that he has the cojones to actually make one.

Tick tock, Bach.

On Monday the traditional Park Ridge Memorial Day Parade will step off from South Park (Cumberland and Talcott) and end after passing the reviewing stand at City Hall.

The Parade is always a festive occasion, with the typical blend of elected officials, political organizations, community groups and various and assorted other participants mixing in for an entertaining event that brings the community together in a Norman Rockwell-esque sort of way.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But Memorial Day is really not meant to be a celebration.  It is a national holiday intended to commemorate and honor our fallen heroes, the men and women who have died in service to our country.  Unfortunately, that purpose seems to be increasingly lost among both the parade marchers and the parade watchers.

So we have two suggestions for those of you marching in this year’s Memorial Day Parade:

First, every group marching in the parade should invite one or more veterans, or current servicemen/women, to lead the group.    

Second, every individual marcher, adult and child alike, should buy a poppy from the folks selling them on the street corners and shopping areas all over town, and wear that poppy proudly as you march on Monday.  The same goes for those of you watching the parade.  And when you do, think of the poppies that inspired Canadian Army Lt. Col. John McCrae to write the words to “In Flanders Fields”:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below. 

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

At tonight’s Park Ridge City Council Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting, one of the agenda items is the approval of the appropriation of $187,000 to 13 private or quasi-private organizations or entities [pdf], all of which are “non-profit” and/or “charitable” in nature.

We here at PublicWatchdog are great fans of many of these groups, and can testify to their respective utility and desirability.  Every one of them contributes something positive to our community.  But these harsh economic times and the millions of dollars of budget deficits our City has been running give us an opportunity to revisit the all-too-common practice of local government taking the money confiscated from the taxpayers and doling it out to these private organizations.

In the case of this $187,000 appropriation being debated tonight, not only does it represent the City Council assuming the authority to pick our charities for us when it can’t even balance the City’s budget, but it is giving that money to entities who appear to be even less forthcoming and accountable about their own finances than the City government which is bestowing our funds on them.

For example, not one of the five organizations getting the most money – the Center of Concern ($55,600), the Senior Center ($34,000), the Park Ridge Teen Center ($21,300), the Fine Arts Society ($12,800) and the Civic Orchestra ($12,800) – posts its finances on-line, even though each of them has its own website and could easily do so.  If you want to get their financial information, you have to go to www.guidestar.org, where you will find copies of the IRS Form 990s (some of which are outdated) for all but the Senior Center, which technically is an arm of the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District, a public taxing body separate and apart from the City of Park Ridge.  That fact raises a serious issue about the propriety of the City’s contributing its funds to an unrelated governmental entity and taxing body.

So if, for example, you want to know exactly where the Center of Concern’s $708,422 in “government contributions” came from in its 2007 fiscal year, you won’t find it in the Form 990 or anywhere on the COC’s website.  In fact, the closest thing to financials you’ll find on the COC’s website is a list of its “Major Donors” [pdf] – but from fiscal year 2005-2006.  Unfortunately, the amount donated by each of the COC’s 8 governmental donors is not identified.

The same lack of information applies to the various governmental sources of funding for the other organizations except for the Senior Center – which has its financials included in the Park District’s budget.  That 2009 budget [pdf] indicates that the Senior Center is costing the taxpayers of the Park District (the boundaries of which are not the same as the City’s) almost $200,000 in 2008, and another $155,000 in budget year 2009.  

Rather than expound on our reasons for opposing the City of Park Ridge’s making charitable contributions with our tax dollars, we instead offer the comments of the late Rep. David S. Crockett, otherwise known as the legendary “Davy Crockett,” who represented Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District from 1827 to 1831.  When confronted with a bill that would have appropriated money as a charitable contribution for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished U.S. naval officer, Crockett said the following from the House floor:

“We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

The full text of Crockett’s speech, and a biographical account of how he came to make it, can be found here [pdf].   

Whether or not one agrees with the principles espoused by Davy Crockett over 170 years ago, one thing should be beyond contestation: Any organization which receives public money should provide the same kind of transparency and accountability as is required of the public body providing that money.

And by that standard, the organizations whose handouts will be debated tonight come up woefully short, especially with the City facing its worst financial crisis in memory.

Some bon mots, vignettes and quick hits from the just-completed election season:

·         Did Mayor Frimark really spend a good part of Election Day encouraging people to visit an anti-Schmidt website while in the same breath stating that he doesn’t condone that sort of thing? 

·         Didn’t anybody ever tell Frimark’s political propagandist, Linda “Linda Ski” Szczepanski, that sour grapes (i.e., claiming Schmidt ran “a negative race”) make for bad whine?  

·         Speaking of sour grapes, Wednesday’s Park Ridge Journal quotes a “shocked” Frimark thusly: “[Schmidt] put out four negative pieces portraying me as a crook.”  After looking at all four of those pieces, we think “ethically challenged” would be more accurate than “crook.”

·         Speaking of ethical challenges, how will newly-elected Park Board Commissioner Richard Brandt avoid a conflict of interest in connection with the District’s relationship with the Service Employees International Union that effectively sponsored Brandt’s candidacy?

·         Did Rosemary Mulligan really tell some Maine Twp. Republicans Tuesday night that newly-elected mayors Marty Moylan (Des Plaines) and Dave Schmidt (Park Ridge) are Daley plants who will try to turn their respective communities into “Chicago’s 51st Ward”?

·         Speaking of more sour grapes from Frimark (also as reported by The Journal): “The city of Park Ridge, you’ll have to deal with him.”  Wasn’t Frimark referring to all things Park Ridge using the term “we’ll” just a few days ago?

·         After losing his seat on the Park Board and his sponsor at City Hall (Frimark), whither goest Nick Milissis?  Maybe he should have spent less time trying to kick candidates off the ballot and more time actually campaigning.

·         How soon before newcomer and top Dist. 207 vote-getter Margaret McGrath becomes a real force on that board?  

·         We’re still having a hard time deciding which of Frimark’s answers to the questions posed at The Journal’s debate contained the most inaccurate information.  One thing that seems pretty clear from the videos of that debate, however, is that City Council meetings should be televised (or at least video-recorded).

·         Where will Frimark lap dog Jim Allegretti (4th Ward) curl up after May 4th?

·         Did Sam Spiros Markos’ $17,000 in contributions to Frimark come with a money-back guaranty?

·         We can’t wait to see how much of all that campaign dough Frimark actually spent, and where it went.

·         How will Alderpuppet Frank Wsol (7th Ward) spin the fact that his confusing, misleading, dishonest and unnecessary referendum question still lost by 53.20% to 46.80%?  We’re betting he’ll compare it favorably to the citizens’ referendum losing 83.39% to 16.61%, and then come up with a lame excuse for yet another new cop shop plan.

·         Now that Frimark is out of the way, when will the new “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections” start flexing its political muscle – using the $15,000 “start-up cash” it got from the defunct “Homeowners Party” – to begin fielding its aldermanic candidates for 2011?

Our endorsements:

Mayor of Park Ridge:            Dave Schmidt

Park Ridge Park District:      Rick Biagi
                                          Scott Duerkop
                                          Pawel Matula

School District 64:               None of these

School District 207:              Marijo Bustos
                                          Eric Leys
                                          Margaret McGrath
                                          Edward Mueller

Police Station Ref. No. 1:      No

Police Station Ref. No. 2:      No

Irrespective of whether you accept or reject these endorsements, make sure you vote!

Polls close at 7:00 p.m. 

Park District Provides Real Choices

The Park District is providing a contested race, with six candidates – Rick Biagi, Richard Brandt, Scott Duerkop, Pawel Matula, incumbent Nick Milissis and Steven Vile – seeking four seats.

Brandt is the last man standing of what was originally a slate of candidates promoted by the Service Employees International Union that represents a number of Park District employees.  The other three SEIU candidates, however, weren’t able to figure out how to file their nominating petitions correctly, so they were bounced off the ballot.  Kind of makes you wonder about the competence of the SEIU, doesn’t it?

Even if we discounted his SEIU affiliation, Brandt has shown us nothing that qualifies him for a seat on the Park Board.  But it’s that SEIU affiliation that is troublesome, especially because the Park District has been in ongoing negotiations with the union.  Putting Brandt on the Park Board sure seems like letting the fox into the hen house.  That’s enough to get a “No” from us.

As for Vile, the only thing we know about him is that his signs often appear in tandem with Mayor Howard “The Liar” Frimark’s, proclaiming either “Vile” “Frimark” or “Frimark” “Vile.”  While we concur with both sentiments, that’s not a sufficient qualification for the election of Mr. Vile to the Park Board.

That leaves Biagi, Duerkop, Matula and Milissis, who are running as a “ticket” under the tutelage of Frimark cronies Dick Barton and Bob Dudycz.  That alone is a reason to be wary of what agenda(s) these fellows might be bringing to the Park District, especially given the lightweight nature of their “4 the Parks” campaign literature.

As for Milissis, we keep hearing rumors that he is being groomed by Frimark and Friends for a spot on the City Council, which would explain Frimark’s appointment of him to the City’s civil service and fair housing commissions within the past few years. That’s not enough to disqualify him from the Park Board.  

His Park Board meeting attendance record since his appointment to the Board a little over a year ago, however, has been nothing to write home about.  And, so far, his most notable accomplishment as a Park District commissioner seems to have been his leading the charge in kicking the SEIU candidates off the ballot. That suggests he’s a lot more of a politician than a public servant – which is reason enough for us to give him a “No.”

We don’t know a whole lot about Messrs. Biagi, Duerkop and Matula – as we said earlier, their campaign literature re-defines “vanilla” and doesn’t give us a lot to go on.  But when compared to their competition, they end up being the tallest midgets in this particular circus.  Let’s hope they grow into the job.  

District 207 Provides “Hobson’s Choice”

Unlike for the District 64 election, the General Caucus of District 64 and 207 occasionally doesn’t stand in the way of a contested race, and this is one of those years – with 6 candidates vying for 4 seats.

But unlike with District 64, which draws the vast majority of its students from the friendly confines of Park Ridge, District 207 draws from a much larger territory, the majority of which is outside our boundaries. That adds another dimension to this race: provincialism, primarily a Park Ridge v. Des Plaines celebrity death match.

Many people we have heard from insist that Park Ridge needs to maintain dominance of this 7-member board “or else.” Or else what?  Those barbarians from D.P. will gerrymander the district so as to require at least one-half the starters on the state champion Maine South football team to attend Maines East or West?  Or do the same with the Maine South Constitution team and the Hawkettes?

Puh-leeze!

On the other hand, after attending a few District 207 school board meetings, we can’t totally discount some level of bizarro behavior from people who seem to have a chip on their shoulders – and maybe deservedly so – about the emoluments of growing up in “Pleasantville.”

Carrying the Park Ridge banner this year are incumbent board member Ed Mueller and newcomer Margaret McGrath.  Both are attorneys, but we won’t hold that against them. At least not yet.  But, unfortunately, neither one has given us a whole lot to get excited about, at least not judging by their campaign materials.

Mueller has sent around a mailer [pdf] that, to put it gently, underwhelms – especially for a guy who has sat on this board since 2001.  Okay…frankly, it’s pretty damn pathetic!  After 8 years on this board, is this the best “case” this guy can make for re-election?  Eddie, you’re a high school board member, not the heir to the House of Windsor. Do you really think the voters are going to hand this to you just because you live in Park Ridge and bear the Mark of the Caucus? 

As for Ms. McGrath, we saw her at the Park Ridge train station the other morning, so we’re giving her some bonus points for that effort.  We also got one of her flyers [pdf].  100% better than Mueller’s, but also not overwhelming – platitudes instead of principles, and devoid of anything substantive on finances and academic performance. 

She believes “That the entire community benefits from providing the best education possible to all children” and “That a great education system helps define and strengthen a community.”  Sorry, Ms. M, but that’s the kind of stuff that comes out of a can, like artificial cheese.

Looking at the rest of the field, there are incumbents Eric Leys and Marijo Bustos, and newcomers Eldon Burk and Jerry Kellogg, all of (shudder!) Des Plaines. 

We think that District 207 has its flaws, but it appears to be much better run, and has higher achievement levels when adjusted for its varying demographics, than District 64.  That suggests keeping incumbents Leys, Mueller and Bustos in office.  And of the three newcomers, we give the nod to McGrath, despite the Cheez Whiz, because (a) we see a whole lot of potential there, and (b) she is, after all, one of “us.” 

So go ahead and call us “provincial.”  But leave our Hawkettes alone!

It’s no secret that we here at PublicWatchdog love contested elections because they provide an opportunity for candidates for public office to show why they deserve your vote…or don’t.  So we were looking forward to the upcoming Park Ridge Park District board of commissioners election, which initially looked to be a real horse race.

Back in January it looked like there would be 10 candidates vying for the four board seats coming vacant.  Four of those candidates – Richard Brandt, Nicholas Giordano, Walter Mizialko and Peter Wachowski – reportedly were being backed by Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), which represents more than 30 Park District employees and has been locked in contract negotiations with the Park District for almost two years.  To some people, including a few current Park Board members, it looked like the union was trying to pack the Board to get the kind of contract it hadn’t been able to achieve through negotiations.

That became a moot point, however, when the candidacies of Giordano, Mizialko and Wachowski, along with SEIU-unaffiliated candidate Meredith Wisniewski, were successfully challenged by current Park Board commissioner and candidate for re-election Nick Milissis and candidate Rick Biagi.  Those four were kicked off the ballot for petition errors (Wisniewski) or the failure to file the required “Statement of Economic Interest” (Giordano and Wachowski, both attorneys, and Mizialko). 

Another unaffiliated candidate, Stephen Vile, overcame a challenge to his candidacy and will be on the April 7 ballot.

Some people, including the editorial board of the Herald-Advocate, have branded those challenges as dirty pool and a petty way to deprive the voters of choice.  And in some ways they are.  Some of those same people have raised concerns that Milissis, Biagi, and candidates Scott Duerkop and Pawel Matula, are running as an “alliance” that is rumored to be  backed by retiring Park Board president Dick Barton and former Maine Township honcho Bob “The Dude” Dudycz.  

But we don’t have much sympathy for people who want the voters to entrust them with multi-million dollar budgets, multi-million dollar bonding power, and stewardship of substantial civic assets, yet who can’t follow simple candidate petition rules: how tough can it be to bind your petitions, to file a statement of economic interest, or to identify the correct number of years of the term of the office you’re seeking?

So while we might not be getting that 10-candidates-for-4-offices race that looked so promising back in January, it looks like we’ll still have six candidates battling for four spots on the Park Board.

And that’s two more choices than the General Caucus is giving us for the District 64 School Board.

We here at PublicWatchdog are firm believers in contested elections – where competing candidates can present, advocate and defend their qualifications and their ideas on those issues of importance to the voters.

That’s one reason why we oppose the General Caucus of School Districts 64 and 207, which acts like a de facto political party and so dominates school board elections, especially for District 64, that Caucus endorsement is tantamount to election.  Since 1997, when 7 candidates vied for 4 Dist. 64 Board seats, the voters have been able to choose among a mere 20 candidates (only 2 of which were not Caucus endorsees) for 18 District 64 Board slots.  During that same time period, the Park Ridge Park District Board had 30 candidates contesting 21 Board seats, even though the last two elections (2005 and 2007) provided no voter choice.

So while it looks like, barring some last-minute challenger, the Caucus once again has pre-empted the voters in choosing District 64 Board members, we are encouraged by reports that the Park Board will give the voters contested races.  

Although incumbent Board member Dick Barton has already announced his retirement, and incumbents Sal Raspanti, Nick Millisis and Steve Hunst have yet to disclose their plans, three candidates have already filed their petitions for four Board seats; and we have heard that other candidates are collecting signatures to get on the ballot by today’s filing deadline. 

We sure hope so, both in the interest of voter choice and because, in this instance, the three candidates already on file – retiree Richard J. Brandt, attorney Nicholas Giordano and restaurateur Walter Mizialko – are reportedly members of a slate endorsed by a special interest that could be viewed as being at odds with the common interest of Park District taxpayers: Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), the collective bargaining agent for approximately 36 Park District employees.

We wish to make clear that we have a healthy respect and appreciation for unions.  Most of the decent working conditions we take for granted today – including workplace safety, health, welfare and pension benefits – were brought about by unions.  In the private sector, where unions began, they have always provided some measure of bargaining equality between management and labor that has fostered what still is the highest overall standard of living in the world.

In the public sector, however, unionization of the workforce has tended to create an imbalance in favor of the employee, in no small measure because bureaucrats and politicians lack the same degree of interest, incentive and competence for guarding the public purse that their private sector counterparts display in looking out for their own pocketbooks and/or for providing a reasonable return on investment for their shareholders.

Maybe that’s why, while most taxpayers working in the private sector worry about whether the plummeting value of their 401(k)s will permit them to retire at 65 or 70, unionized teachers and other government workers look forward to earlier retirement with defined pension benefits effectively guarantied by those very same taxpayers who can’t themselves afford retirement.  And many of those same taxpayers face the constant prospect of their employers down-sizing or closing completely, or their jobs being outsourced to Mexico, India or China – a concern that is foreign to most public sector employees.

So we feel justified in tempering our healthy respect for unions with an equally healthy skepticism upon hearing that the members of this reported SEIU-backed Park Board slate showed up to file their candidate petitions last week accompanied by an SEIU representative, especially at a time when the Park District has been bargaining with the SEIU for more than two years over wages and benefits. 

And we note that one of the key sticking points in those negotiations has been the union’s demand that the Park District abolish merit pay in favor of cost of living increases.  The union’s complaint about merit pay?  As reported in last week’s Herald-Advocate (“Parks workers want new pay raise system,” Jan. 22) and as can be heard on the videotape recording of the Park Board’s January 15, 2009 meeting (from minute 2:07 to 5:46), the concept of “merit” gives management too much discretion in determining pay raises.

Welcome to the real world. 

But if Candidates Brandt, Giordano and Mizialko get elected to the Park Board and turn out to be SEIU sympathizers, that real world at the Park District soon might become a brave new world where compensation based on “merit” – albeit with some perceived inequities – is replaced with compensation by entitlement. 

Update (1/27/09)
It looks like we’re going to have a real horse race for the Park District Board.  In addition to the three candidates who appear to be part of an SEIU-backed slate, we understand that six more candidates filed nominating petitions for the four open seats on the Park Board: current Board member and Homeland Security attorney Nick Milissis, attorney Peter Wachowski (who, like Brandt, Giordano and Mizialko, reportedly filed his petitions accompanied by SEIU vice-president Tim McDonald), attorney Richard Biagi, real estate leasing agent Scott Duerkop, Pawel Matula, Meredith Wisniewski and Steve Vile.

Too bad we can’t report the same for Dist. 64 – but if somebody has heard of any challengers to the latest crop of the Caucus’ usual suspects, feel free to submit a comment.

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?

The annual July 3rd fireworks display at Maine East High School is a grand tradition which Park Ridgians young and old eagerly await each summer.  The shows are spectacular, and they entertain not only the crowd at Maine East but also the crowds that gather at nearby locations such as North, Northwest and Woodland Parks.

But from the sound of things we might soon be seeing a less spectacular kind of fireworks from some of our local officials.

As reported in the July 23, 2008 edition of the Herald-Advocate (“District 207 wants chance to raise funds at fireworks, too”), School Dist. 207 Board member Jeff Bergen wants the District to be able to fundraise at the event in return for its donating the Maine East facilities.  We hear worse ideas from politicians and government bureaucrats almost every day, so we aren’t about to beef about District 207 getting a little quid pro quo for providing a venue for the fireworks.

But Dist. 207 isn’t alone in its discontent.  The Park Ridge Park District reportedly will be discussing at its August 21st meeting whether to pull out as one of the main sponsors of the fireworks – allegedly because it doesn’t believe it’s getting enough credit for helping to sponsor the event.  Assuming the report is true, that could be an entertaining discussion next Thursday night.

These two items got us interested enough to look into the money side of the fireworks show, because when it comes right down to it money is usually at the heart of most of these intergovernmental dust-ups.  And frankly, when its our money, we don’t mind a little frugality.

What we found was not one but two financial reports on this year’s fireworks show: One by the City of Park Ridge Public Works Department and the other by the Park Ridge Park District. Oddly enough, they don’t seem to quite match up, but they may satisfy the cliche: “Close enough for government work.”

The City’s 11-page report [pdf] reports, at page 11, “Total Program Costs” of $37,813.10, and another $22,299 for the cost of City employees.  The Park District’s 1-page report [pdf], on the other hand, shows $26,683.30 in “Total – Expenses.”   

We may be missing something, but if those two governmental bodies can’t seem to come up with the exact same accounting for such a relatively small project and dollar amount, we wonder what might be happening with the multi-millions of dollars in revenues and expenses they handle each year.  But that’s an issue for another time.

We also wonder about the “exclusive” deal the Kiwanis Clubs appear to have for all the food concessions at the fireworks (City report, page 4) – without any evidence that they are contributing anything toward the cost of the show.  We’ve got nothing against the Kiwanis, but so long as the City, the Park District and District 207 are using thousands of our tax dollars to make this event happen – and even the Park Ridge Fine Arts Society is kicking in $8,000 for the musical program – we see no reason for anybody to get a monopoly on anything unless they’re willing to pay for that privilege.  

Meanwhile, it’s time for the City, the Park District and School Dist. 207 to sit down together and exercise a little intergovernmental cooperation to make sure the burdens, the benefits and the kudos for the fireworks show are fairly allocated among all three bodies – and among the taxpayers of their overlapping but not identical territories. If private sponsors can be found to underwrite all or part of the event, so much the better.  

Because when it comes to as traditional a community event as our July 3rd fireworks display, the show must go on!