With the announcement that the Park Ridge Youth Campus is closing down, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District has expressed interest in acquiring all or part of the almost 12 acre parcel for as-yet unspecified recreational purposes.

That brings back memories of November 1996, when the Park District attempted to acquire another large parcel of non-profit land: the 14-acre Edison Park Home property along Canfield south of Talcott.  The District needed approximately $8 million to buy the land from Cambridge Homes, which already had acquired it from Lutheran Social Services but admirably put its development plans on hold until the bond-debt authorization referendum could be held.

Such a referendum was needed because the Park District had foolishly used up all its non-referendum borrowing ability a few years earlier to build the Community Center on land it acquired from the YMCA after that organization decided to close down its Park Ridge facility.    

Unfortunately for the Park District and its referendum, the City wanted the extra tax revenue that would come from the 50+ single-family homes that were contemplated for what is now Brickton Place – which would come with virtually no additional costs to the City, as Cambridge would be installing all the needed infrastructure; and no additional police or fire personnel were expected to be necessary.

Supporters of School District 64’s April 1997 “Yes/Yes” referendum to build a new Emerson Middle School didn’t want the passage of an $8 million referendum by the Park District in November 1996 to jeopardize the success of D-64’s $20 million+ plans, even though adding all the homes planned for that site was projected to generate more than $100,000 a year in operating deficits for D-64, based on the number of students those homes would add and the cost of educating them compared to the tax revenue they would generate for D-64.

So the Park District was left to sell that referendum on its own, using a “Keep the ‘Park’ In Park Ridge” slogan.  And it failed, costing the District the 2 baseball fields, 2 soccer fields, 1 football field, and the tennis, volleyball and basketball courts that were included in the plans devised by the District’s consultant.

Despite the current recession, we have to believe that the price for the Youth Campus will be higher than the $8 million Edison Park Home went for 16 years ago, especially given the Youth Campus’ “Country Club” location.

Which leaves us unsurprised to hear that the Park District may be looking into partnering with a private developer – Mark Elliott? – to split up the Youth Campus land, with roughly half of it being privately developed into single-family homes while the remainder goes for parks and recreation.  That could be a win-win situation: converting half of a currently tax-exempt property into taxable property, while at the same time reducing the community’s shortage of park and recreation land.

But although the District can always use more acreage – according to generally accepted standards, Park Ridge arguably is scores of acres short of the parks and recreation space recommended for a community its size – any major capital expenditure like this deserves to go to referendum in order to ascertain and enlist the support of the taxpayers, even if the District has sufficient non-referendum bonding power to do the deal without voter approval. 

This is especially important in light of the recent discovery that Centennial Pools are in need of imminent replacement after 60 years of faithful service.  With Oakton Pool gone, the District is no longer over-saturated (pun intended) with outdoor water for a community our size in a northerly climate such as ours. 

It’s with that last point in mind, however, that we hope the Park District seriously considers a design and/or features for any new Centennial pool complex that would permit the new facility to operate for at least double the customary 3-month outdoor pool season. Perhaps some form of indoor/outdoor facility (such as is available from companies like the Berndorf Baderbau Group) might be the answer, although it will require a little outside-the-box thinking and greater initial expense.

But it beats committing several million dollars of capital, or issuing an equivalent amount of bonded debt and then servicing it for 5-15 years thereafter, for a facility usable a mere 3 months per year.

That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, even for government.

To read or post comments, click on title.

One of our favorite quotes is: “In a contest between the shameless and the spineless, the shameless always win.”  That might be because it applies to so many situations, especially ones involving local government.

It sure seems to describe the case certain Park Ridge senior citizens have against the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District.  And we do mean “case,” as in lawsuit: Teresa Grodsky, Trustee v. Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, et al., Case No. 12 CH 2032, currently pending before the Hon. Peter Flynn in the Circuit Court of Cook County, involving competing claims to an approx. $330,000 bequest by deceased Park Ridge Senior Center member Betty Kemnitz to “the Park Ridge Senior Center.”

Until now, “Park Ridge Senior Center” was commonly used to describe the Park District-owned building at 100 S. Western Avenue, not its “membership” of between 800 and 1,000 “seniors” at least 55 years of age.  Presumably because of a relationship Grodsky developed with Kemnitz through Grodsky’s many years as the Park District’s manager of the Senior Center – until she resigned at the end of last year, under pressure – Kemnitz named Grodsky the trustee of the trust from which the bequest is to be made.

We suspect it is due to competing claims to the money (as can be seen from the Park District’s “Answer” to the Complaint) that Grodsky is asking the court to tell her who to give it to – although we understand that Grodsky already may have distributed a good chunk of that cash to one or more entities other than the Park District.

So who are the shameless and who are the spineless?

The “shameless” undoubtedly are that vocal minority of Senior Center members who want to retain the Park District’s (a/k/a the taxpayers’) building as their semi-private clubhouse while continuing to pay their paltry annual dues of only $45 – even as annual Community Center memberships are several times that, and Park District-affiliated kids sports programs are double that price for only a 3-4 month season. 

Depending on the day and the circumstance, those seniors might claim to be members of Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc., a private 501(c)(3) corporation (“Seniors Inc.”) that isn’t even legally affiliated with the Park District.  Or they might claim to be members of something called the “Senior Senate” (the “SS”), to which the Park District seems to have given an unofficial advisory voice in Senior Center affairs even though, as Helen Roppel insisted in last week’s Park Ridge Journal, “we are not part of the Park District.” 

And now, seemingly in order to gain extra leverage in the lawsuit, the Senior Inc/SS folks reportedly are claiming to be an unincorporated association called…wait for it…“Park Ridge Senior Center” (the “Association”), which has hired its own attorneys (using Kemnitz funds?) and will reportedly ask Judge Flynn to declare that the Kemnitz bequest belongs to…wait for it…Seniors Inc.  

Irrespective of whatever they choose to call themselves, however, what these seniors appear to be is just plain greedy.  And decidedly ungrateful to the taxpayers.

As we’ve written in many previous posts, these seniors seem to share the mindset that because they are older and have been paying taxes for years, they somehow have accrued an entitlement to taxpayer subsidization of their semi-private clubhouse free from interference by the very Park District which owns the building and squeezes those subsidies out of the taxpayers.  Again, quoth Roppel (per the Journal): “We set the dues, we set the programs, we enter into lease agreements and any kind of contracts.”  Or, in case that isn’t clear enough:

“It’s not their place,” says Roppel, referring to the Park District. “[T]hey are not the Park Ridge Senior Center.”

Which, by process of elimination, makes the folks at the Park District the “spineless” ones for having allowed this ridiculous charade to continue for the past 18 months – if not for the past several years that the Senior Center has been booking $150,000-plus annual operating deficits that the Park District taxpayers have subsidized.  We have tracked those deficits back to at least 2005, and since then they total approx. $1 million.  Since those deficits first became publicized a couple years ago, the Senior Center dues have been raised from $22 to the current $45, generating as much as an additional $23,000 annually, or approx. $127,000 less than the average annual Senior Center deficit.

Big whoop.

For the past 18 months Park District management – both Board and Staff – has diddled itself silly while responding fecklessly to Seniors Inc./SS/Association demands, as it once again demonstrated just last Wednesday night at a “special” meeting called for the purpose of….well…um…er…making a motion to make another motion at this coming Thursday night’s “regular” meeting to create a Senior Center Advisory Committee to replace the SS as the District’s advisory body for the Senior Center.

Feel free to laugh in lieu of crying.  

Worse yet, that feckless Park District management has begun throwing good tax dollars after bad in litigating with Grodsky, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (who, by law, must be named in suits involving charitable trusts), Seniors Inc. and perhaps the Association over the diminishing Kemnitz bequest.  Sad to say, there’s no reason to believe that the shameless won’t defeat the spineless in that litigation, either, even if the shameless’ “victory” does nothing more than consume a substantial portion of the Kemnitz bequest in legal fees.

So here’s an idea, Park District: throw in the towel now rather than later.

Let the greedy seniors have the Kemnitz dough, irrespective of what Betty K may have wanted.  No need to spend tens of thousands of additional tax dollars litigating when you know Grodsky is going to testify against the Park District’s getting it, and this situation is sufficiently bollixed, both factually and legally, that there’s no telling how the judge may ultimately rule.   

Instead of litigating, do what should have been done at least 7 years ago: figure out the fully-loaded cost to operate the Senior Center and start charging annual membership dues that can be expected to cover that cost.  If the greedy seniors don’t want to pay those higher dues, let them join one of those neighboring communities’ senior centers they’ve been bragging about as being so much cheaper and better than this one.

Or let them start their own “Senior Center.”  As Roppel was quoted in last week’s Herald-Advocate story: “We can take our Senior Center and move it any place we want.”

Vaya con Dios, Helen.

But while you’re at it, Park District, you also might want to re-visit the rules and regulations for your “affiliated” organizations – at least some of which are private 501(c)(3) corporations like Seniors Inc. – to make sure those organizations are paying their fully-loaded costs; and to prevent what happened with the Kemnitz bequest from happening with any future bequest to one of those affiliates.

Because when it comes to taking advantage of government, the “shameless” come in a variety of packages besides “seniors.”

To read or post comments, click on title.

We normally don’t comment on what other local blogs are publishing, if for no other reason that we don’t know of any other local blog besides Ken Butterly’s “Butterly On Senior Issues.”  

But his post dated 01/18/12 so clearly demonstrates just how dysfunctional and perverse the operation of the Park Ridge Park District’s Senior Center may have become that it virtually demands discussion here.

For those unaware of Butterly’s blog, it’s written by a Senior Center member who is part of what appears to be a small but vocal faction of that facility’s roughly 800-person membership.  That faction acts and sounds as if it believes that the Senior Center was officially handed over to private corporation Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“SSI” or “Seniors Inc.”, our preference) around 30 years ago, but with some kind of understanding that the Park District (a/k/a, the taxpayers) would nevertheless still foot the bill.

Butterly’s post criticizes an anticipated request at tonight’s Park Board meeting by vice-president Rick Biagi that a $300,000+ bequest by the late Betty Kemnitz to “the Senior Center” be included as revenue in the District’s 2012-13 budget.  Butterly asserts that “the Kemnitz bequest money are [sic] dollars presently in the hands of Senior Services, Inc., the legal and financial arm of the Senior Center membership.”

Think about that for a minute: Seniors Inc. is the legal and financial arm of the Senior Center membership. 

Assuming that Mr. Butterly isn’t talking through his hat, how did the Park District get to the point where users of one of its facilities have a private corporation serving as their “legal and financial arm” seeking to keep control of that facility away from the Park District?

Remember, folks, that the Senior Center is a building owned by the Park District (i.e., the taxpayers).  For at least the past six years the Park District (i.e., the taxpayers) has poured almost $1 million of public funds into subsidizing the operations of that facility because Seniors Inc.’s leadership claims that the Center’s members shouldn’t have to pay more than the $45/year “dues” currently charged by the Park District – even as Seniors Inc. sits on a private treasury of over $240,000.

We’ve addressed this situation in several posts since December 2010, including those of  12/28/11, 12/12/11, 08/02/11 and 07/29/11.

But apparently even $160,000/year in taxpayer subsidies isn’t enough for Butterly and his fellow Seniors Inc. members.  Despite acknowledging that the Kemnitz bequest “was made to the Park Ridge Senior Center,” he seems to argue that it effectively belongs to Seniors Inc., which he describes as having “run” the Senior Center until January 2011, and which currently holds those funds as the result of conduct by the “trustee” of that bequest.

And who might be the “trustee” of that bequest who put the funds in the hands of Seniors Inc. in the first place?

If you guessed former Senior Center supervisor Teresa Grodsky – until 01/01/12, a Park District employee bound by the well-established legal duty of loyalty to her employer and its taxpayers – you’d be right.

From information recently revealed through Biagi’s whistle-blowing about Grodsky’s previously secret “retirement” deal – engineered by the District’s Exec. Director, Gayle Mountcastle, and apparently approved in secret by the Park Board, including Biagi – it looks and sounds as if Grodsky’s unauthorized handing over of the Kenmitz bequest to Seniors Inc. was one of several reasons why she “retired.”  

But in all fairness to Grodsky, her shall-we-say divided loyalty to the Park District wasn’t a solo act. 

That’s because, as also was disclosed by Biagi, she may have been assisted in her conflicted activities by Park Board member Stephen Vile, who also is a member of…wait for it…the Senior Center.  Vile himself seems to have had some difficulty deciding whether his loyalty belongs with the Park District, to which he swore his oath of office in May 2009, or to Seniors Inc, a conflict displayed in some e-mails that Biagi shared with the Herald-Advocate, the Journal, Butterly’s blog, and this blog as part of his whistle-blowing.   

For example, in an e-mail to Grodsky on 05/03/11, Vile (clearly speaking as a Seniors Inc. member rather than a Park Board member) observes that “we’ll be able to do [nothing] other than withhold any donations to the park board” [emphasis added].  And in a 05/15/11 “for your eyes only” one to Grodsky, Vile refers to Seniors Inc. as “we” and “our” when he writes: “We have tentetively [sic] agreed to relinquish our claims for previous investments” in the Senior Center.

Vile’s and Grodsky’s ambivalence is not just of recent vintage, either: it dates back almost a year earlier, as can be seen from a Grodsky e-mail exchange with Vile on 08/23/10, in which they both appear to be referring to Seniors Inc. as “we,” “our” and “us” while referring to the Park District or Park Board as “they’re,” “they” and “their.”

Not surprisingly, Butterly and Seniors Inc. are beating up on Biagi for outing both Grodsky and Vile.  And we wouldn’t be surprised if Biagi feels a bit of a chill over at the Maine Leisure Center (Park District HQ) when he arrives for tonight’s meeting, since neither Mountcastle nor his fellow Board members have expressed any public support so far for Biagi’s candor.  Which is not unexpected, considering how badly the District botched the Senior Center issue even before it totally mishandled the Grodsky “retirement.”

This bizarre saga, however, does provide several object lessons for how not to run a Park District (or any other branch of local government, for that matter), including:

(a) how the Park District allowed private corporation Seniors Inc. to effectively take over the Senior Center for its semi-private clubhouse;

(b) how Seniors Inc. took that opportunity to bleed the taxpayers, with the District’s acquiescence, and then shamelessly claim to be disrespected by the District when it wouldn’t agree to continue that status quo;

(c) how a trusted long-term employee (Grodsky) and a sworn elected official (Vile) seem to have lost track of their duty to all the District’s taxpayers, not just to 800 Senior Center members; and

(d) how a sworn appointed official/employee (Mountcastle) and sworn elected officials (the Park Board members) could somehow think that giving Grodsky a sweetheart “retirement” deal at the taxpayers’ expense, and then trying to keep it secret from the public, was somehow in the public’s best interest.

But perhaps the most notable lesson provided by this mess is how a “house” – in this case the Park District – can so easily become divided against itself when special interests combine with bad judgment and secrecy.  Hopefully, the folks who run the Park District for us taxpayers will learn a valuable lesson from this perverse experience.

Starting tonight.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Some scholars trace the concept of “transparency” in government to Jefferson’s famous quote:  “Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.”

For a concept with such a noble origin, however, transparency sure has taken a long time to catch on with the political class.  In recent years, it has become almost a cliche with public officials at every level, most of whom act like they would rather conduct the public’s business from a secret bunker.  In Nepal.  Which is why, at the local level, there are a few – make that a very few – public officials who actually walk their “transparency” talk.   

At the City level, Mayor Dave Schmidt, while still an alderman, outed then-mayor Howard Frimark’s attempts (in closed session meetings, naturally) to finagle the City’s purchase of 720 Garden, ostensibly for a new police station that hadn’t even been approved by the Council, at a price hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than the City’s own appraisal valued it.   More recently, Ald. Dan Knight (5th) led what is believed to be the first-ever defeat of a City Council motion to go into closed session.

At Elementary School District 64, only Board member Anthony Borrelli has shown signs of both understanding transparency and legitimately supporting it.  That’s in marked contrast to his fellow board members who do nothing more than pay lip service to it until it’s forced on them, as when D-64 began videotaping its meetings only after resident Marshall Warren began creating cinema verite with his own camera.  And we’ve seen no push for transparency at High School District 207.

But on January 3, 2012, Park Ridge Park District commissioner Rick Biagi kicked the concept of “transparency” up another notch when he issued his own press release blowing the whistle on a secret exit deal for recently-“retired” Senior Center supervisor Teresa Grodsky.

As can be seen from our recent posts (Dec. 12 and 28) about the Grodsky situation, we took what the Park District and Grodsky were saying about her “retirement” at face value.  We even scoffed as certain members of the Senior Center were claiming Grodsky was forced out. 

Silly us. 

According to Biagi’s press release, Grodsky was “strongly encouraged” to “retire” back in October/November for conduct which may well have justified her outright termination.  But in typical “it’s not our money” government style, PRPD Supt. Gayle Mountcastle allowed Grodsky to stay on the job until year-end, earning both her salary and enough pension credits to push her into a higher pension benefit bracket.  And, also in typical government style, that exit deal’s only discussion by the Park Board was in one or two…wait for it…closed sessions, out of public view.

Shame on them…especially given the contentiousness of the Senior Center issue and the “cult of personality” that had sprung up around Grodsky through the efforts of Senior Center members like Barbara Ingolia, Helen Roppel and Millie O’Brien, and which was only exacerbated by the Park District’s concealment of the exit deal.

And shame on them again for letting themselves be pushed into the deal by the Park District Risk Management Agency (“PDRMA”), the District’s insurer that would rather see the District bribe Grodsky with an exit deal funded by our tax dollars than run the risk of a lawsuit by her that, no matter how frivolous it might be, PDRMA would be obligated to defend on the District’s behalf, using some of the hefty premiums the District pays.

Another interesting twist to this tale is how Commissioner Steven Vile may have aided and abetted Grodsky’s alleged misconduct by, among other things, distributing Park District attorney-client privileged internal communications to certain officials of private corporation Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.” or “SSI”), which has been battling the Park District for control over the Senior Center for more than the past year – and on whose board Vile sits.

Can you say “conflict of interest,” Mr. Vile?

The point of this post, however, isn’t just to criticize the foolish Grodsky deal.  It’s to point out how so much of that deal appears to have been done by Mountcastle and the Park Board under the radar.  That, in turn, causes us to wonder how many other such deals, or worse, have been concocted by the Park District, or by the City, or by School Districts 64 and 207, with at least the tacit approval of our elected officials after one or more closed session discussions, leaving the taxpayers none the wiser?

Frankly, we wish that Biagi had just said “no” to those closed sessions during which this whole Grodsky exit deal was hatched, like Ald. Knight did to the closed session motion at City Hall; and that, like Schmidt, Biagi had blown the whistle on the deal immediately after he found out about it.  But the bottom line is that Biagi, and only Biagi, blew the whistle on it.  And he did it big-time. 

Curiously, Biagi’s candor may have provoked the proposal for a new Park District ordinance that would impose a $1,000-per-violation fine for each disclosure of closed session information.   Fortunately, four of the five commissioners present at last night’s Park Board meeting reached a consensus not to pursue such an ordinance – which would violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) because, according to Page 28 of Atty. General Lisa Madigan’s Guide to IOMA, no sanction against a public body member is permitted for disclosing information or issues discussed in a closed meeting. 

Ironically, that’s the very same lesson that all local public officials should have learned – but apparently didn’t – from the “Frimark” City Council’s failed attempt at sanctioning Schmidt’s whistle-blowing four years ago.

Can anybody lend Biagi a Telestrator?

To read or post comments, click on title.

The New Year is a time of both goodbyes and hellos.  So without further ado, here are our thoughts on what things from 2011 we want to say goodbye to, and those things we hope to say hello to in 2012.

* Goodbye to Mayor Dave Schmidt’s vetoes of City Council actions that he viewed as fiscally irresponsible.  We applaud Schmidt for saying “no” even when he pretty much knew that the weak sisters on the City Council would over-ride his veto and say “yes, yes” to more irresponsible spending.

* Hello to more Schmidt vetoes in 2012 – if this Council continues to be as clueless as its predecessor and fails to realize that the U.S. Congress and the Illinois General Assembly aren’t models of fiscal responsibility.  The City already is increasing its share of the property tax at a rate that exceeds inflation, so it has to continue to work on figuring out how to wring more services out of what it’s taking in.

* Goodbye to giving Fire Chief Mike Zywanski authority to do anything more than manage Fire Dept. staff.  Because as a labor negotiator he was simply awful, starting with those ridiculous “Ground Rules” he proposed without even consulting the Mayor or the City Council, and which locked the City into a gag order preventing it from commenting on the firefighters union contract negotiations – and then didn’t even have the stones to admit to doing so when questioned by the Mayor. 

* Hello to what we hope will be a new era of openness in the labor negotiations for all branches of local government, starting with School District 64’s upcoming teachers union negotiations.  No negotiations should be commenced until the unit of local government decides, in meetings open to the public, how much it can afford to spend on those employees.  Whatever “negotiations” might still be needed after that exercise also should occur in meetings open to the public, so the taxpayers can see and hear for themselves whether their elected representatives or the employees – both unionized and non-unionized – are being unreasonable.

* Goodbye to closed session meetings generally?  We can only hope that the Ald. Dan Knight-led City Council’s recent rejection of a closed session discussion of City Mgr. Jim Hock’s goals and objectives helps all our other elected officials finally realize that there is nothing – NOTHING – that the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) requires be discussed in closed session, or anything discussed in closed session that IOMA requires be kept secret.  The question that should be asked and debated before any closed session is voted on is: “What harm to the taxpayers will occur if this matter is discussed in open session?”  And if the answer isn’t “a lot,” accompanied by a clear description of exactly what that harm consists of, the vote on closed session should be “no.” 

* Hello to the City starting to take some action to address the long-term power outages that seem to occur with virtually every storm that hits anywhere between the Wisconsin border and Kankakee.  Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim was designated as the City’s liaison with Com Ed to hold the utilities’ feet to the fire on its promises – until now, purely hollow ones – to upgrade the City’s power grid.  Good luck, Zinger!

* Goodbye to a Senior Center run by a small group of seniors, for a small group of seniors, subsidized by all the District’s taxpayers.  Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.” or “SSI”), that private corporation accountable to nobody but its own operators, has built up a $240,000 treasury while feeding at the public trough.  After 30 years, it’s time to change that perverse paradigm.

* Hello to a Senior Center that either attracts a larger number of seniors and/or expands its role to serve other segments of the District’s population, while at the same time eliminating – or at least substantially reducing – those six-figure deficits the Senior Center has been posting for too many years.  And the District should look to do the same thing with all its other facilities and programs.

* Can we say “goodbye” to School District 207’s financial problems for the foreseeable future, compliments of the new Rivers Casino in Des Plaines?  As reported in the November 9, 2011, edition of the Park Ridge Journal (“Casino A $40M Value For Dist. 207”), the District’s assistant superintendant for business, Mary Kalou, is quoted as saying that the Crook County Assessor’s office “is estimating the casino’s 2011 valuation at about $12 million…[which] translates to $40 million additional assessed value for the district when the equalized multiplier is factored in.”

* Hello to a new and improved City Mgr. Jim Hock?  If he takes seriously the City Council’s direction to up his performance to a level that warrants his approx. $215,000 in annual compensation, Park Ridge will take another big step toward becoming one of the better-managed municipalities in the Chicagoland area, especially considering its lack of commercial property to bolster its tax base.  If not, then it should be “goodbye” to Mr. Hock.

* Goodbye to hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncollected City fines and fees, thanks to the diligent work of the City’s new finance director Allison Stutts, who was hired by the City in November 2010 and has been nothing short of outstanding in her short time on staff.  Not only did she blow the whistle on the uncollected funds, but she also is implementing a new budget process.  And her efforts, combined with Mayor Schmidt’s relentless pursuit of fiscal responsibility, helped the City post a $2 million surplus for FY 2010-11 – only the second surplus in more than a decade, and the first since former mayor Howard Frimark’s cut-the-council referendum chopped the Council from 14 to 7 aldermen.

* Hello to the likelihood that Park Ridge someday will have a showcase for its artistic tradition, thanks to the Kalo Foundation’s successful efforts to save the building at Elm and Northwest Highway that once housed the studio of artist Alfonso Iannelli.  The members of that organization deserve a big shout-out for their efforts, which raised the funds necessary to purchase that property from a broad range of residents…and from an anonymous donor who agreed to provide the matching fund which sealed the deal.    

* Goodbye to Oakton Pool, which had served this community well for 41 years but fell victim to cultural and economic changes that substantially reduced the demand for a traditional outdoor swimming pool in a climate that permits such swimming for only a few months a year.  We won’t miss the $80-100,000 annual deficit that Oakton had become accustomed to posting; and, hopefully, the Park District will find another, better use for that piece of Oakton Park the pool previously occupied.  

* Hello to a plan to begin remedying the chronic flooding that has plagued Park Ridge for decades but seems to have increased in recent years as more and more multi-family residential development took over from this community’s traditional base of single-family homes.  The City has approved a $150,000 contract for the design of several sewer improvement projects, the first phase of what is expected to a multi-project remediation program that is already being estimated as costing upwards of $25 million.

* Goodbye to the no-bid, no accountability monopoly enjoyed by private corporation Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) over the City’s signature Taste of Park Ridge event (“TOPR”) after 7 years.  During that time Taste Inc. generated hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenues and undisclosed profits, four years of which occurred while Taste Inc. was lying to the public about being a not-for-profit enterprise.  And during all 7 years of its existence, Taste Inc. refused to reimburse the City for approximately $20,000+ a year in free City services. 

* Hello to the RFP (bidding) procedure that the new City Council, at Mayor Schmidt’s request, has implemented for the 2012 TOPR.  Three entities, including Taste Inc., have submitted proposals, all of which are supposed to include making the City whole for all of its direct and indirect TOPR costs.

* Goodbye to criminal complaints filed by one of Taste Inc.’s long-time head honchos, Albert Galus, against Mayor Dave Schmidt, Ald. Dan Knight (5th) and the editor of this blog, Robert Trizna.  Galus waited over 2 years to file a battery complaint against Mayor Dave Schmidt over an incident that Galus claims occurred at the Mary Seat of Wisdom polling place in April, 2009, although his “cyber-stalking” beefs against Knight and Trizna were of more recent vintage.  All of those bogus complaints were recognized as such by the State’s Attorney’s office, which declined to prosecute.

* Ironically, Galus closed out 2011 by saying “hello” to the FBI’s Child Exploitation Unit, which reportedly served a search warrant at his Park Ridge residence the week before Christmas and found a cache of guns which Galus had no valid FOID to possess.  According to Galus’ former employer at the Academic Tutoring Center, the search was initiated on suspicion of child pornography possession, although no such charges have been brought.

Although that’s not all of the hellos and good-byes of note, that’s more than enough to usher in 2012. 

Happy New Year…and here’s hoping the Mayan’s are wrong.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Will articles in the on-line Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park Ridge Senior Center manager plans own retirement,” Dec. 26) and today’s Park Ridge Journal (“Outgoing Director Grew Senior Center,” Dec. 28) finally debunk the rumors being spread by certain Park Ridge Senior Center members ab0ut the imminent departure of Senior Center manager Teresa Grodsky after 35 years on the job?

According to those articles, Grodsky is denying that she is leaving her employment by the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District against her will.  “It’s not true at all,” she said, adding: “Thirty-five years is a good career, a very good career.”

Both articles also report that Grodsky’s retirement is coinciding with that of her husband, Richard Grodsky, from his position as executive director of the Elmhurst Park District.

“We’re looking forward to traveling,” she explained.

That all makes Grodsky’s departure sound like a “retirement” to us, although we doubt even her own public statements will satisfy the small group of Senior Center whiners and conspiracy theorists – Barbara Ingolia and Helen Roppel being two of the most vocal – who contend Grodsky’s being forced out because she wouldn’t go along with the Park District’s plans for changing how the Senior Center is operated. 

And let’s not forget Millie O’Brien, who grandly claims in an article in the Park Ridge Journal (“Wills Spark Fight Between PR Seniors, Parks Over Donations,” Dec. 26) that a private corporation, Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.” or “SSI”) is “the board that oversees the senior center” and “handles all the financial issues” – comments that brought a strong rebuke from the Park District’s public relations manager, Kathie Hahn.

“[Seniors Inc.] does not run the Senior Center,” Hahn responded.

Sorry, Ms. Hahn, but you sure could have fooled us – at least until a few months ago when the current Park Board finally told Seniors Inc. it would not renew the lapsed contract by which Seniors Inc. had asserted its decades-long control over the Senior Center.  Prior to that time, the Park District acted like the “tail” to the Seniors Inc. “dog” despite Seniors Inc.’s not even holding “affiliate” status like the other organizations to whom the District has delegated the operations of certain of its programs and activities, such as the youth sports programs. 

As a result, Seniors Inc. was able to keep Senior Center annual membership “dues” at $45 even as it was building up a nice fat private bankroll ($241,000, according to its 2010 IRS Form 990-EZ), and at the same time the Senior Center was ringing up $160,000+ annual deficits that the District’s taxpayers were subsidizing in order to maintain the semi-private clubhouse for about 800 Park Ridge seniors.

Now Seniors Inc. is rumored to be fighting the Park District tooth and nail for control of a big bucks bequest by a deceased Senior Center member, Betty Kenmetz.  According to the Journal “Wills” article, O’Brien “felt the deceased would have wanted the money to go to [Seniors Inc.] to benefit the [Senior Center].”  If that’s truly what Ms. Kenmetz wanted, however, she could have been spelled it out in her will or trust document along the lines of:  “I, Betty Kenmetz, bequeathe $X to Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc., to be used solely and exclusively for the benefit of the Park Ridge Senior Center facility.”  But did she?

We can’t wait to hear how this one comes out.

Meanwhile, we wish Ms. Grodsky a long, healthy and enjoyable retirement. 

And we hope that the Park District will finally bring an end to Seniors Inc.’s taxpayer-funded entitlements – and any other special-interest entitlements that pick the taxpayers’ pockets without a compelling reason.

To read or post comments, click on title.

We’ve been critical of the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District/s operation of the Senior Center for awhile now, primarily because that facility is operated like a semi-private club for about 800 Park Ridge seniors while sucking around $160,000+ out of the District’s taxpayers each year in subsidies so that members can get away with paying a paltry $45 in annual dues – even as they whine about how unfairly they’re being treated by the Park District.

That’s $45 for a full year’s unlimited usage of the Senior Center facility and many of its activities.  Compare that to some of the Park District’s other facilities, activities and programs:  the Community Center costs $363/year for an unlimited usage membership; youth soccer costs $100 for a 2-3 month season of 2-3 day/wk field usage; and an ice skating pass costs $65/yr. for a maximum of 18 hours/wk. of open skating usage.

But for the past year or so the private corporation whose members seem to think they run the Senior Center, Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.” or “SSI”), has waged a propaganda campaign against the Park District and its Board.  The original focus of that campaign was the District’s unwillingness to sign a new contract giving Seniors Inc. a continuing (some might call it a “controlling”) say in the operations of the Senior Center.  And one of the vehicles for that propaganda campaign has been a blog called Butterly On Senior Issues.

According to the November 29 post on the Butterly blog, long-time Senior Center manager Teresa Grodsky has been forced into retirement by the Park Board – reportedly for siding with Seniors Inc. in several of its disputes with the District.  Grodsky’s retirement apparently has become the newest cause célèbre for those Seniors Inc./Senior Center members who are looking for any leverage they can find to help them hang onto their sweetheart Senior Center deal.

The Butterly blog has given Seniors Inc./Senior Center members such as Barb Ignolia, Helen Roppel and Ken Butterly himself the opportunity to castigate the Park Board, and especially Board officers Mary Wynn Ryan, Rick Biagi and Richard Brandt (himself a Senior Center member), for allegedly throwing Grodsky and them under the bus; and new District Director Gayle Mountcastle and her staff for aiding and abetting the Board’s effort by planning for non-senior programming of the Senior Center to help reduce that $160,000+ annual deficit.

In comments to the Butterly blog, Ignolia calls Grodsky “the heart and soul of the Center,” while Roppel quotes scripture: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”  No word yet on when they will commence Grodsky’s canonization proceedings, but Butterly has raised the specter of a new “Senior Center” being formed, ostensibly in response to the shoddy way these seniors believe they and their favorite Park District employee have been treated.

While Seniors Inc. now appears intent on creating a cult of personality around Grodsky, however, that effort should not obscure the real issues here: control and money.

As the legal owner of the Senior Center building, the Park District is charged with legal custody and control over that facility and its operations.  But for too long the District – both Staff and Board – effectively let the Senior Center “inmates” run that particular asylum, a situation that continued despite those substantial operating deficits piling up year after year without the District’s even trying to push that facility towards a break-even point. 

Consequently, many of those Senior Center members developed an entitlement mentality, talking and acting as if the District’s taxpayers – including the vast majority of the District’s seniors who don’t belong to the Senior Center – owe them their clubhouse and the programs that come with it, all for the token payment that masquerades as annual “dues.”  Meanwhile, Seniors Inc. has accumulated over $241,000 (as shown by its 2010 IRS Form 990-EZ); and we hear it’s looking to add to that total by battling the Park District over a bequest from the estate of deceased Senior Center member Betty Kenmetz.

As we understand it, Kenmetz’s bequest was to “the Senior Center” rather than to the “Park District” or to Seniors Inc./SSI.  And, even more interestingly, Kenmetz’s executor is…wait for it…Teresa Grodsky!

Rumor has it that Grodsky wants that money to go to Seniors Inc. instead of to her employer, the Park District, notwithstanding the Park District attorney’s argument that since “the Senior Center” is part of the Park District and not a stand-alone entity, Kenmetz’s intent was that the Park District receive that bequest to use for the Senior Center.

There’s a Park Board meeting this Thursday (Dec. 15).  Whether any of these topics will be addressed that night remains to be seen, as the District has not yet posted its agenda or board packet.

But one thing looks certain: that 800-person special interest group of Senior Center members isn’t likely to let what they believe to be their power, their money and their Senior Center be taken away from them without a fight.

To read or post comments, click on title.

With none of our local governmental bodies scheduled to meet tonight and, therefore, not playing any tricks on the taxpayers, we’ve decided to offer a few tricks and treats of our own – although, as might be expected, there are more tricks than treats:

Trick:  Former mayor Howard Frimark got his name splashed all over our two local newspapers a few months back when he insisted the City fine the editor of this blog more than $500,000 for approximately 1,100 postings using the “PublicWatchdog “banner” that includes a stylized partial depiction of the City flag.  Frimark claimed it violated the City’s flag ordinance.  But at last week’s City Council meeting – with Frimark nowhere to be seen – the City attorney reported that the flag ordinance likely was unenforceable, especially when applied to political speech.  So it looks like this trick’s on Howie.

Treat:  The Park District is reporting that it actually made a profit on its outdoor pools this year – thanks to the fact that the perennial financial albatross known as Oakton Pool no longer hemorrhaged around $100,000 of red ink this summer.

Trick:  Proving no good deed goes unpunished, a group of residents want the darkened Oakton pool replaced with a second ice rink. Of course, the proponents are already waxing rhapsodic about the need for another ice surface and how much revenue it will generate.  We suspect they’re suffering from brain freezes, but let the Park District hang a credible price tag – including any bond interest – on the idea, put it to referendum on the March 2012 primary ballot and see what the voters think of it.

Treat:  Rumors emerging from City Hall indicate that, for the just-concluded 2010-11 fiscal year, the City posted a surplus in its General (Operating) Fund, and an overall surplus for all of its funds.  That follows three straight years of deficits totaling almost $6 million by our count. 

Trick:  The ISAT scores are out, and both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times are reporting that no D-64 school ranked among the “Top 50” elementary or middle schools – despite its 4th highest-paid administrators and its 25th highest-paid teachers.  We can’t wait to hear the way the District’s spin-doctor, Bernadette Tramm, plays this bit of info, especially with teacher contract negotiations imminent.

Treat:  As reported in this week’s Park Ridge Journal, local website design firm Americaneagle.com has offered to make up a $2,900 shortfall in the holiday lights program. 

Trick:  City Mgr. Jim Hock’s admission that the City has taken no action since 2008 to collect on hundreds of thousands of dollars in parking tickets and other fines, which failure was recently discovered by new City Finance Director Alison Stutts.  It will be interesting to see how this dereliction of duty is spun and who ends up “wearing the jacket” for it.

Scared yet?

To read or post comments, click on title.

A quote from the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is becoming our favorite in this age of increasing misinformation/disinformation: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  Unfortunately, the members of Seniors Inc. (a/k/a Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.) don’t seem to buy into that concept. 

Instead, as they become more and more aggravated by the Park Ridge Park District Board’s unwillingness to continue operating the Park Ridge Senior Center according to its longstanding but increasingly dysfunctional, deficit-producing model, Seniors Inc.’s criticism of the Park Board has become a product almost entirely of fiction masquerading as fact.  And that appears designed to promote a resolution intended to let Seniors Inc.’s roughly 800 Park Ridge members pull another $160,000+ a year out of the taxpayers’ pockets so that those members can have their semi-private “clubhouse” for two more years at an annual cost of $45 in “dues.”

At the top of the list of fictions is Helen Roppel’s insistence that “[s]enior citizens make up approximately 35.9% of the population of Park Ridge” (13,000+ residents) and contribute $2,730,069 of the Park District’s $7,604,649 recreation budget.  That may be “the truth,” but only if one accepts Seniors Inc.’s definition of “senior citizens” as anyone 55 years and up.  But increase that “senior” status to the more conventional over-65 figure and the number of Park Ridge “seniors” drops down to around 20% of the population (around 7,400 residents). 

Big difference.

Another fiction is Ms. Roppel’s contention that “seniors” are “being taken advantage of” by the Park District because the approx. $172,000 Senior Center operating deficit the taxpayers subsidized (back in 2008, judging from that amount) is only a “measly 2.26%” of the Park District’s $7.6 million recreation budget, despite “seniors” (all 13,000+ of them) paying approx. $2,730,069 in property taxes toward the Park District’s recreation budget.  She conveniently ignores the fact that those taxes from Seniors Inc.’s 800 members accounted for only approx. $164,000 of that $172,000 deficit, and it would reach that level only if every property tax dollar they purportedly paid to the Park District went solely toward that Senior Center deficit and not to any other Park District expense!

What could be viewed as “the truth” but not “the whole truth,” on the other hand, is Seniors Inc. member Rita Johnson’s complaint that “many of the members of the Senior Center are on fixed incomes” and, therefore. can’t pay the higher membership dues that would allow the Senior Center to continue to cater to Seniors Inc. members, but on a break-even basis rather than burdening the taxpayers with those big annual operating deficits.

“Fixed incomes” is one of those terms used to create the impression of Social Security-only poverty.  But “fixed incomes” can – and often do, in communities like Park Ridge – include “fixed” pension benefits, “fixed” annuity payments, and even “fixed” bond coupon payments which produce income well beyond mere Social Security.  “Fixed incomes” also conveniently exclude the principal value of the annuities or investment portfolios generating that “fixed income.” 

And “fixed incomes” don’t include the value of those mortgage-free homes, many of which are still worth $400,000+ that seniors are sitting on, which put their net worth at well-above that of many still-working Park Ridge families, and which could be tapped for additional income through reverse mortgages. 

Then there’s the fiction from Seniors Inc. member Bobbi Oschger, who claims that seniors “have far fewer choices [than children and younger adults] for meaningful activities in Park Ridge…[and] far fewer ways to even be with other human beings to make life more joyful and worthwhile.”

Yo!  Ms. Oschger!  Ever hear of Starbucks (Park Ridge has three of them)?  Panera?  Einsteins?  The Pickwick theater and restaurant?  Goldie’s?  Mac’s?  For a relatively modest “investment” one can spend hours among other human beings, conversing and/or being entertained at those venues and in many others around town.  Seniors could also take in all those wonderful programs the Library puts on, most/all of which are free.

Or how about getting involved in some of our community organizations like the 20th Century Club, Community Women, Toastmasters, Friends of the Library, Lions Club, Park Ridge Historical Society, or even the Park Ridge Hysterical Society if you’re looking for a few laughs?  Or governmental/political organizations like the City’s boards and commissions, the League of Women Voters, Park Ridge Republican Women, etc.?  We can assure you that there are plenty of “human beings” involved in those organizations; and membership in many of them is inexpensive or even…wait for it…free.

Or aren’t those activities “meaningful” enough for you?

If there are seniors who wish to belong to the Senior Center but truly cannot afford $200+ in annual dues – and can provide the financial statement(s) to prove it – then some accommodations surely can be made, such as through the Park District’s Park’s Foundation.  Or Seniors Inc. could use some of that $215,000 it was sitting on at last report to subsidize the truly needy seniors.

What is certain at this point, however, is that all the fictions that Seniors Inc. can manufacture cannot obscure the simple fact that this is a contest of wills between the Park District Board members elected by the voters on a community-wide basis and accountable to the entire community, and a less-than-800-member special-interest group elected by themselves, representing only themselves, and pressing their own personal advantage at the expense of the taxpayers.

If fact triumphs over fiction, the Park District Board and the District’s taxpayers will win.  And that’s the kind of “win/win” we like to see.

To read or post comments, click on title.

The war of attrition over control the Park Ridge Senior Center continued last Thursday night (July 21) at the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District Board meeting, where about a dozen “members” of private corporation Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (what some call “SSI,” but we prefer the more corporate “Seniors Inc.”) showed up to excoriate the Park Board for not rolling over and giving Seniors Inc. whatever it wants.

As we wrote about in greater detail in “Time For A Senior Center Reality Check (01.27.11), Seniors Inc. orginally wanted a contract that not only would have locked in Seniors Inc.’s control over the Senior Center building for the next two years, but likely also would have continued the roughly $160,000+ annual operating deficits the Senior Center has been running for at least the past six years, totaling almost $1 million during that time.

So far, the Park Board – now led by President Mary Wynn Ryan – wisely has said “no” to such a ridiculous special-interest proposal, thereby incurring the wrath of Seniors Inc.  We thank those Board members who have stuck to their guns, and we hope they continue to do so.

But we aren’t yet ready to bet the ranch on it.

Why?  Because the Board has let itself be co-opted and/or intimidated by Seniors Inc. into seeking Seniors Inc.’s approval of something called the “Cooperative Guidelines…” (“Guidelines”).  In essence, the Board is asking Seniors Inc.’s permission to assert the Park District’s existing legal rights over the Senior Center, with a few tweaks to acknowledge the neither-fish-nor-fowl operating arrangement between the Park District and Seniors Inc. for that facility that existed for the past 30 years or so until its expiration at year-end 2010. 

So why is the Park Board continuing to abdicate its lawful role as the governing body of the Park District and engaging in this kabuki-like bargaining with special interest Seniors Inc. over how the Senior Center is to be operated?

One explanation – the cynical one, we admit – is that “seniors vote” (as they constantly remind us); and there are some self-styled politicians on the Board who don’t want to risk alienating any group of voters, even a special-interest group that totals less than 800 people and shamelessly sucks $160,000 a year out of the District’s taxpayers to keep its “clubhouse” operating. 

Another equally-plausible explanation, however, is that too many members of that Board – just like too many of their counterparts on the City Council and the local school boards – prefer making people happy to governing by sound public policy principles.  And the easiest way to make people happy is with give-aways of the taxpayers’ money and/or of the governing body’s power, public policy be damned.

Either of those explanations appears to be supported by the following facts about the Seniors Inc./Senior Center/Park District relationship, as we have been able to ascertain them:

1.  Seniors Inc. is not an affiliate of the Park District and, therefore, is unlike those other private corporations that “run” Park Ridge’s baseball, soccer, hockey and football programs on the Park District’s behalf.  Consequently, Seniors Inc. is not currently bound by the District’s affiliate guidelines and requirements.

2.  It’s not clear whether “Senior Center members” are “members” of the Park District’s Senior Center facility (not unlike Community Center members) or are Seniors Inc. members, because Seniors Inc.’s most recent IRS Form 990-EZ tax return (on file with GuideStar) reports “dues” of $27,601 on Part I, Line 3.

3.  While Seniors Inc. acts like it represents all Park Ridge seniors, we understand it has less than 1,000 “members,” more than 200 of those being non-residents/non-taxpayers of the Park District.  That means Seniors Inc.’s Park Ridge membership is less than 11% of Park Ridge’s approx. 7,400 over-65 residents, and just a shade over 6% of Park Ridge’s approx. 13,000 over-55 crowd that is eligible for Seniors Inc. membership.  So the overwhelming majority of Park Ridge “seniors” (by either measure) don’t belong to Seniors Inc. or use the Senior Center  

4.  Senior Inc. claims to have contributed approx. $1 million over the past 30 years towards upgrading the Senior Center building.  We’ve seen no proof of that total but, even if it were so, Seniors Inc. has received reimbursement of that entire amount by Park District taxpayers in covering the Senior Center’s operating deficits over just the past six-seven years.

5.  As of the end of 2009 (per its 2009 Form 990-EZ), Seniors Inc. was sitting on more than $215,000, yet back then it was still charging its “members” a paltry $35/year in “dues” for unlimited use of the Senior Center while letting the taxpayers make up the annual $160,000+ operating shortfall.

6.  Whatever previous contract Seniors Inc. had with the Park District for its use and occupancy of the Senior Center expired and is no longer in force.

Given the foregoing facts, we see absolutely no legitimate public policy reason for the Park District’s ceding any control over any of its public buildings to private corporations, including the Senior Center to Seniors Inc. – irrespective of what kinds of irresponsible giveaways other politicians may have signed onto 30 years ago and their equally irresponsible or clueless successors continued ever since. 

And this is even more true when that private corporation isn’t even a Park District affiliate, serves a very small demographic, yet generates a disproportionately substantial operating deficit for which all taxpayers have to pick up the tab – including the vast majority of “seniors” who aren’t members of Seniors Inc. and have never set foot in the Senior Center.

If the Park Board has a collective spine it will end this nonsense and tell, yes tell, Seniors Inc. under what terms it will permit Seniors Inc. to retain its current level of use of the Senior Center.  And those terms should include Seniors Inc.’s covering of all the seniors-related costs of that facility’s operation – including the cost of the Park District personnel who provide services to that facility’s senior users. 

Whether that’s done by Seniors Inc.’s increasing its “dues” for existing members, or adding a significant number of new members, or by dipping into its treasury, is something that can be left up to Seniors Inc.  But that’s pretty much all that should be left up to Seniors Inc., because the voters elected the Park Board members – not Seniors Inc. or its members – to manage the Park District and its various facilities, including the Senior Center.

Letting the inmates run the asylum is bad enough.  Letting them run it at a $160,000 annual loss is crazy.

To read or post comments, click on title.