Yesterday the jury handed down its verdict in the long-running, sordid saga of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich: guilty on 17 of 20 counts, almost all of which involve some form of selling out the public interest for somebody’s private, personal benefit.

Selling out the public interest has been Play No. 1 in the unofficial playbook of Illinois government and politics as practiced for at least the past 30 years, primarily by the Democrats who have controlled one or both chambers of the General Assembly for all but 2 of those years – but with the willing and shameless assistance of Republican governors like “Big Jim” Thompson, “Big George” Ryan and, to a lesser degree, “Slim Jim” Edgar.

While “trickle down” economics may be a suspect theory, “trickle down” government corruption is hard reality in our state.  Watching two of our last three governors get convicted of multiple public corruption charges in which they were aided and abetted by some of their closest advisors – also public officials who owed the people of this state honest services – sends the message, at least subliminally, that government corruption is unremarkable standard operating procedure.

But corruption can, and does, take many shapes and forms, some of which seem almost benign to a populace numbed by a steady stream of “Safe Road”s, “Silver Shovel”s, “Gambat”s, “Hired Truck”s, “Crooked Code”s, and too many other assorted scams and frauds to deserve their own catchy nicknames.

Sometimes it’s public “funding” that magically appears after somebody puts the arm on a pliant or outright sleazy politician. Other times it might be a zoning variance that gets pushed through without rhyme or reason. Maybe it’s a summer job that leap-frogs earlier applicants with equal or better credentials to land in the lap of the fortunate son of a public official’s buddy.  Or maybe it’s some other similar “favor” to one special interest or another that inexplicably trumps more important public interests.

As a state with more units of government than any of the other 49, Illinois is effectively a petri dish of government-bred pathogens infecting us at every level. Which means that we can’t realistically rely on the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI to protect us from even a fraction of them, including in our own community.

What can we do with our local governments here in Park Ridge?

We can start by paying attention and questioning everything our public officials do.  Asking questions, and demanding substantive and meaningful answers rather than hot air, is a great screening device for detecting wrongheaded or kinky dealings. Public officials owe each of us an explanation of what they are doing when they act on our behalf with our money, and why they are doing it: if they can’t explain it understandably, or if it doesn’t make sense, or if it sounds too good to be true, chances are we’re getting fleeced.

And that questioning shouldn’t just be at the City level. The two least-scrutinized and least-transparent branches of local government are School Districts 64 and 207, which do not televise or videotape their meetings and which have become quite comfortable cultivating the sense that the business of education can be understood only by “the educators.” To make matters worse, those two branches of local government account for about 2/3 of our property tax bills.

The bottom line is that every time a public official “put’s his thumb on the scale” – for either his own benefit or for that of some special interest – the rest of us are being cheated out of good government. Even if that doesn’t technically qualify as “corruption,” it most definitely is not “good government.”

And it’s “effing” wrong.

UPDATE (07.01.11):  Sometimes you need to laugh to keep from crying: our new Illinois license plate and Jon Stewart “Blago” bit.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Ever since the Oakton Pool’s diving well imploded in 2005, it should have been clear to any sentient Park Ridge resident that Oakton Pool itself was on its last legs.  

The Park Board actually voted in 2006 to close it, only to relent but institute a “do not resuscitate” policy in the event the pool required any extraordinary repair or maintenance expense. And at least once every year since, closing Oakton has been debated in the face of dwindling attendance and a steady stream of red ink. 

So we get a perverse chuckle out of residents like Stephen Murray, who have the gall to disingenuously beef about a “lack of communication” about Oakton Pool’s condition, and about its closing being “just not fair to the people who use the pool,” when he actually attended and spoke at a meeting last June where the Park Board discussed the distinct possibility that last summer would be Oakton’s final one. 

Now that the belated but sound decision has been made to put Oakton Pool out of its money-hemorrhaging misery, the Park District needs to make an even more important decision: What to do with the Oakton Pool site.

Park District Executive Director Gayle Mountcastle reportedly wants to demolish the pool and replace it with grass.  The price tag for that plan: A “rough estimate” of $170,000 for the demolition, and a six year old estimate of an additional $1 million for the “grassy park.”  

The “grassy park” was the choice of a majority of residents who participated in a District-run telephone survey back in 2005, around the same time that the voters rejected the first of two Oakton referendums – one for building a new outdoor pool, the other for building an indoor recreation center.

But before the Park District leaps to replace concrete with grass, we hope it gives some serious thought to what other, better uses that space might be put.  And if another use is realistically contemplated, let’s not waste money on building a grassy park that will just have to be converted into something else a short time down the road – like Chicago’s Millennium Park, where sod was laid, then torn up and replaced with concrete, which in turn was torn up and replaced with more sod…one of the many reasons the Park came in at hundreds of millions over budget. 

Back in 2004 when the batting cages were added to Oakton, the plan then being discussed was to also add a miniature golf course to create a true “family” recreation center: a triad of driving range, batting cages and mini-golf.  But that third component never was added, in part because no suitable location could be found.  

With the pool gone, however, space may no longer be a problem.  Or if mini-golf (or some other feature) isn’t in the cards, perhaps relocating the batting cages to a more visible location might give their revenues a much-needed boost. 

In any event, we’re guessing that a grassy park really isn’t the ultimate goal, or highest and best use, of the Oakton Pool site.  So before the Park District dumps $1.2 million or more into what is likely to be only a temporary fix, we suggest it remember the motto of television’s “This Old House”:

Measure twice, cut once.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Got A “Taste” For Fireworks?   A recent article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate reported that Park Ridge-based Americaneagle.com, the sponsor of Park Ridge’s Fourth of July fireworks show the past two years, is balking at re-upping this year (“Park Ridge Recreation and Park District: Sponsor’s support for July 3 fireworks display fizzles out,” April 12).  

The reason, according to Americaneagle’s owner and Park Ridge resident Tony Svanascini: while his company has been donating $18,000/year for the fireworks, the City continues to give away approx. $20,000/year in City services (police, fire & public works) to Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”), the private corporation that was organized in June 2005 to glom onto the City’s signature even, Taste of Park Ridge event (“TOPR”) – which former mayor Howard Frimark and a compliant City Council handed over on a no-bid, no contract, no accountability basis back in May 2005, and has kept on handing over ever since. 

For those who missed our previous posts on this topic, Taste Inc. has claimed to be a not-for-profit corporation since its creation, although that claim has become increasingly questionable in light of Taste Inc. apparently never having filed the IRS Form 990 tax returns (required of not-for-profits with gross revenues over $25,000) for 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 before it mysteriously dissolved in February 2009, only to be just as mysteriously re-incorporated as a 501(c)(6) corporation that, unlike its purported 501(c)(3) predecessor, can use its assets for lobbying and political contributions. 

The new Taste Inc. did file an IRS Form 990-EZ (for 2009) on March 12, 2010, however, which showed it ending its first official year of operations with $65,221 of net assets.  So far, however, Guidestar.org shows no 2010 return on file for Taste Inc.

Svanascini, who was first solicited for the fireworks contribution back in 2009 by then-mayor Howard Frimark and then-Park Board commissioner Dick Barton when the event was going to be cancelled for lack of funding by the Park District, says that Americaneagle would be willing to re-up its donation if Taste Inc. were to reimburse the City for its Taste of Park Ridge expenses.

Not surprisingly, Taste Inc. has remained silent on that point.  Meanwhile, TOPR committee member (and newly-elected Park Board commissioner) Mel Thillens reports that the Park Ridge Indian Scouts (whose Federation Chief, Jim Bruno, formerly was Taste Inc.’s treasurer) plan to sell $20 raffle tickets for prizes solicited by the Chamber of Commerce in order to raise funds for the fireworks.  And the Park District reportedly is “in talks” with two potential fireworks sponsors.

Good for them.

But that sure seems like a lot of effort just to enable Taste Inc. to remain in control of TOPR and on the taxpayers’ dole, especially when paying for City services and opening its books to confirm its non-profit status all these years would seem to be the far easier and honest thing to do.  

Pickwick A “Dinosaur”?  Both local newspapers recently reported on the Pickwick Theater’s plans for $1.5 million in renovations/improvements to both the exterior and interior of that historic building, which will be funded in part by tax breaks and state grants related to its historical designation.

While we question the wisdom of the State of Illinois funding anything but the most essential services, given the woeful condition of Illinois finances, we nevertheless applaud the Pickwick’s owners for putting up what we understand will be the lion’s share of the costs of this project.  The Pickwick building is perhaps Park Ridge’s most iconic structure, and its owners deserve credit for their vision and tenacity in making it a success during a period when the theater industry’s business declined.

They also deserve credit for resisting an ill-advised attempt back in 2004 by certain members of the City Council – led by then-Alds. Don Crampton (1st), Mark Anderson (5th) and Rex Parker (6th) – to have the City acquire that structure and turn its management over to a group known as the Pickwick Theater Council, which would have taken it off the property tax rolls and made the City responsible for its operating costs. 

At that time, Pickwick Theater Council president Catherine Kenney, in arguing for the City’s takeover, claimed: “A theater offering discount priced movies is a dinosaur.”

Seven years later, this particular “dinosaur” appears far from extinct…which is more than can be said for its Council critics and the now-defunct Pickwick Theater Council.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Last night the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District Board voted 6-1 finally to put Oakton Pool out of its misery rather than spend almost $100,000 on repairs just so it could re-open for the season…and, presumably, generate another whopping operating loss, as has been its custom the past several years.

Only Commissioner Mary Wynn Ryan voted to drag this battered shell of a facility through one more summer, voicing all the warm & fuzzy reasons that have kept it limping along under a “do not resuscitate” order while Commissioners Marty Maloney, Jim O’Brien and Rick Biagi spent the last couple/few years trying to recruit a fourth vote to put this old horse down and stop burning money that could be much better used elsewhere.

What did it take to get the Park Board to this point? Try a notification from the Cook County Department of Public Health that Oakton would not be licensed to open without some major repairs estimated at $94,000 – quite a jump up from Oakton’s customary pool-opening costs of around $12,000. And spending that money would not have guaranteed that Oakton Pool would make it through the summer.

Interestingly enough, the Park District budgeted for a $72,419 loss from all of the District’s outdoor pools in 2011, with Oakton’s stand-alone loss budgeted at $94,472. If we understand these numbers, and if they are accurate, Oakton’s closure might enable the District to actually turn a modest profit on those pools this year, something it hasn’t come close to doing in years/decades(?).

Like it or not, the era of outdoor swimming facilities like Oakton has come and gone – and it’s not likely to return anytime soon, especially in climates like ours where outdoor swimming is confined to three months a year. A well-run private company would have cut Oakton’s losses years ago, but governmental bodies tend not to care about making a profit and maximizing the value of their assets, a combination that generally is deadly in private business but is S.O.P. in the public sector where taxpayers are so easy to fleece.

Our October 16, 2007 post, “The Old Oakton Bucket,” criticized the waste of money on a deteriorating Oakton Pool that provided mere lap swimming to a generation demanding ever-changing “water entertainment.” We questioned how long the Park District could justify keeping Oakton’s doors open when it was averaging around $85,000 a year in operating losses – more than the District’s other three outdoor pools combined – on increasingly sparse attendance.

We just found out.

This momentous decision serves as a fitting valedictory for Commissioner Marty Maloney, who is ending eight years on the Park Board and heading over to Park Ridge City Hall as the new 7th Ward alderman. Unlike the current-but-departing occupants of Maloney’s new venue who lacked the integrity and the guts to vote on each of Mayor Dave Schmidt’s 70 line-item vetoes individually on its own unique merits this past Monday night, Maloney and fellow departing Park Commissioner David Herman didn’t punt the Oakton decision to the incoming board.

That’s a difference that shouldn’t be lost on those of us who pay the bills for local government.

To read or post comments, click on title.

To you Park Ridge voters who cast ballots in yesterday’s election: Well done!

You saw through the absurdity of union-backed Park Board members negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the union that backed them.  And you also appear to have seen through the bluster by members of the Park Ridge Senior Center, who reportedly had targeted incumbent Board members Jim O’Brien and Mary Wynn Ryan for defeat because of their refusal to add a ridiculous new sweetheart Senior Center contract to the ridiculous $180,000/year taxpayer subsidy Senior Center members already receive to keep their private “clubhouse” operating and their annual membership dues at a miniscule $35/member.

We offer our congratulations to both O’Brien and Ryan (who ran away from their “union” opponents by more than a 2-1 majority), along with our hope that they have gained an appreciation for those voters who make the effort to inform themselves about the issues and then go to the polls to vote for good government on a community-wide basis rather than for special deals for the special interests.  We also wish to congratulate newcomer Mel Thillens for his first-place finish in that race: hopefully his performance in office will mirror that lofty ranking.

We congratulate new District 64 Board members Anthony Borrelli and top vote-getter Dan Collins, who claimed two of the three available 4-year seats on that Board.  We find it noteworthy and encouraging that lack of a slate of candidates selected by the General Caucus produced the most competitive District 64 election in memory, with 5 candidates for the three 4-year seats and two candidates for the 2-year seat.  Maybe these two newcomers can help lift the veil of secrecy that has characterized D-64 operations for far too long (Hey, folks, how about entering the 21st Century and joining the City and the Park District in video-recording your meetings and posting them on your website?) – as well as start demanding academic achievement commensurate with the District’s per-pupil cost and its teacher salary levels.

Our congratulations to incumbents John Heyde and Scott Zimmerman come tempered with the suggestion that they stop doing business-as-usual – with all that faux self-esteem that D-64 is so good at generating – and start earning their spurs by actually improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of the education being provided.  And Mr. Heyde…lose the hide-and-seek gamesmanship that characterized your Board’s appointment of the new superintendent, its appointment of Scott Zimmerman as a new Board member, and the presentation of the District’s finances.  That’s just for starters.

On the City level, we congratulate Ald. Joe Sweeney on his first-time election as 1st Ward alderman by a vote of 328-200 over challenger Alana Warren.  As the appointed alderman he often talked the “fiscal conservative” talk but then inexplicably failed to walk the walk.  Here’s hoping he develops a comprehensible philosophy of City government, and then some consistency in its implementation.

And In the always-contentious 7th Ward, congratulations go to Marty Maloney, who handily defeated Franklin Ramirez and Lottie Janus 485-237-52 despite the Herculean efforts of 6th Ward resident Gene Spanos to figuratively tar-and-feather Maloney for having the temerity to say that he can’t justify throwing boxcar numbers of tax dollars at an anti-O’Hare fight for which nobody – not the City of Chicago, not the FAA, not the NIH, not the NTSB, not any of our neighboring communities, and neither our Democrat nor our Republican federal representatives – appears to be allied with us. 

Sweeney and Maloney will join with unopposed incumbent Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd), unopposed write-in candidate Jim Smith (3rd, “the ward democracy forgot”), and unopposed candidates Sal Raspanti (4th), Dan Knight (5th) and Tom Bernick (6th) to form a Council that should be far more fiscally-responsible, transparent and accountable to the taxpayers than the current crop of Frimark holdovers.  Which is good, because the tasks they face look daunting, to say the least – especially after four years of general mismanagement by the clown-car Council heading for the exits.

Finally, as a sad counterpoint to the “congratulations” we have offered the successful candidates and the voters who helped elect them, we offer a hearty round of “boo”s to the vast majority of Park Ridge voters who couldn’t muster enough civic-mindedness to drag their sorry derrieres to the polls.  In the contemporary idiom: “You suck!”

At the very top of the “You suck!” list are the residents of the 3rd Ward, who couldn’t even produce a legitimate petition-filing candidate to actually appear on the ballot.  If this were truly a “just” system, you 3rd Ward derelicts would go unrepresented for the next four years.  But because justice appears to run second to mercy in our system, you will be represented by write-in candidate Jim Smith.

Running right behind the 3rd Ward on the “You suck!” list is the 2nd Ward, where unopposed Ald. Rich DiPietro got 501 fewer votes (723-222) yesterday than he got running unopposed in 2007.  And the bronze “You suck!” medal goes to the 1st Ward, which turned out 508 less voters for this year’s contested race than it did for Dave Schmidt running uncontested in 2007 (1,036 to 528).  Such dereliction of duty reminds us of the following quote:

“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves; and the only way they could do this is by not voting.”  Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Even those of you in wards where the aldermanic seat was uncontested still had contested races for the Park Board and District 64 School Board that deserved the exercise of your franchise because, combined, they consume over $70 million of our tax dollars each year.  But because you couldn’t, or wouldn’t, be bothered to vote…

You suck!

To read or post comments, click on title.

In addition to our previous endorsement of Park Board candidates Jim O’Brien, Mary Wynn Ryan and Mel Thillens (see “Voters Should Reject ‘Union’ Park Board Slate,” Mar. 30), we offer the following endorsements for your consideration:

Park Ridge-Niles School District 64

For the Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 board, we endorse Anthony Borrelli, Dan Collins and Marshall Warren over incumbents John Heyde and Eugenia Taddeo for the three 4-year seats; and Kristi Bavaro over incumbent Scott Zimmerman for the 2-year seat.

In their 4 and 6 years on the board, respectively, Heyde and Taddeo have distinguished themselves by spending the taxpayers’ money and by things that we find antithetical to good government, like secrecy and lack of accountability – as we discussed at greater length in posts like “More Of The ‘Culture Of Secrecy’ At District 64” (Sept. 16, 2010) and “Concealing The Details Of A ‘Fair’ Contract Raises Questions” (Sept. 14, 2009) – while at the same time doing little to raise the academic achievement of D-64 students, as we noted in posts like “District 64 Schools Missing (Again) From ‘Top 100’ Lists” (Oct. 29, 2010) and “Time For Taxpayers To Start Paying Attention To School Dist. 64” (Oct. 31, 2008).

While Zimmerman has served for less than two years, he was appointed by Heyde and Taddeo, among others.  Enough said.

We believe Borrelli, Collins, Warren and Bavaro will bring a fresh approach to D-64.  In the absence of any over-riding reasons to retain Heyde, Taddeo and Zimmerman, a fresh approach is preferable to a stale one.

Park Ridge City Council

In the 1st Ward, incumbent Ald. Joe Sweeney, whom Mayor Dave Schmidt appointed two years ago to fill Schmidt’s aldermanic seat when he became mayor, has been frustratingly inconsistent and unpredictable.  For every policy-based decision he seems to get right (e.g., rejection of giveaway funding of private community groups, voting against deficit budgets) he gets an equally-or-more significant one totally wrong (e.g., City Mgr. Jim Hock’s new sweetheart contract).  And we get the sense that he is an automatic, knee-jerk vote for anything police or police-related, irrespective of the cost-benefit output.    

On the other hand, his challenger, Alana Warren, appears to have been un-engaged in City business until her decision to run for alderman a few months ago, as evidenced by her admission that she had not attended any City Council meetings prior to her candidacy, and had watched only a couple/few meeting videos.  Well, at least she was honest about her disinterest. 

We are disappointed that neither candidate has done or even said enough good things about how the City should be governed to merit an endorsement.  All we can do is hope that whoever wins will step up to the plate and build a record that will merit an endorsement four years from now.

In the 7th Ward, the only other contested aldermanic race, the voters once again have multiple choices.  That’s a good thing, especially compared to the positively pathetic 3rd Ward, which could only field one eleventh-hour write in candidate after nobody filed any regular nominating petitions by the deadline.  Of the three candidates running in the 7th, we strongly endorse Marty Maloney for the seat being vacated by 6-year veteran Frank Wsol.

For the past 8 years Maloney has distinguished himself as the No. 1 fiscal hawk on the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board, where he has also served as president of that body. As a new commissioner back in 2004-05, he was instrumental in the successful intergovernmental effort to build the new City water reservoir at Hinkley Park, thereby saving City taxpayers over $3 million in additional costs and preserving the old City Garage property at Greenwood and Elm for other City uses or for sale to private developers.  In other words, he has walked the walk and not just talked the talk.

The two other candidates for this office, Lottie Janus and Franklin Ramirez, are decent folks but appear simply outclassed by Maloney.  And, unfortunately, Ramirez seems to be trying to turn this into a “partisan” battle by lining up the endorsements of non-resident Republican officials like Cook County Commissioner (and Village of Elmwood Park president) Peter Silvestri and State Rep. (and Des Plaines resident) Rosemary Mulligan, even as he has failed to identify even one City issue that has an inherently “Republican” or “Democrat” position to it.

Memo to Mr. Ramirez: by law, City elections are non-partisan.

And memo to Park Ridge voters:  Act like citizens and get to the polls tomorrow.

To read or post comments, click on title.

On August 16, 1937, pro-union President Franklin D. Roosevelt authored a letter to the head of the Federation of Federal Employees, commending the latter on his organization’s resolution against strikes in government service.  FDR wrote: 

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. 

We heartily agree with that view, and with similar views expressed by private-sector union leaders like the iconic AFL-CIO president George Meany.  Those views and the public sentiment they engendered were sufficient to keep unions out of the public sector until the late 1950s, when public-sector unions gained official recognition in Wisconsin and New York City.  

By 2009, public-sector union members outnumbered their private-sector counterparts, despite there being 5 times more private-sector workers than public-sector ones.  As a result of that increased union membership and collusion between our elected public officials and public-sector employee union leaders, this nation’s taxpayers are not only facing higher government current operating costs, but also as much as a trillion dollars of unfunded public-sector retirement obligations for employees who can (and often do) retire 10 years earlier than their private-sector counterparts, with guarantied pension benefits that dwarf our 401(k)s.     

Now, in 2011, we have a “first” in a local election: a slate of candidates – Nicholas Giordano, Kristen Mattes and Peter Wachowski – being sponsored by Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), the very union that represents some of the Park District’s workers. 

And by “sponsored” we mean Local 73’s vice president Tim McDonald circulating their nominating petitions;  and the union’s paying for that slate’s signs – as reported in last week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park Ridge Recreation and Park District: Union-backed candidates criticized by opponents for park board seats,” Mar. 22).

That raises a serious question of to whom those candidates will be beholden if elected.  That question distinguishes them from all three of their opponents: incumbent commissioners Jim O’Brien and Mary Wynn Ryan, and newcomer Mel Thillens. 

O’Brien has been a dependable voice for fiscal responsibility in his four years on the Board.  Thillens brings both financial and recreation experience from the private sector in the form of his work for his family’s businesses: Thillens Check Cashing and Thillens Stadium. 

And although we have disagreed vehemently with Ryan on the closing of Oakton Pool, and on running the Community Center and the Senior Center more profitably, we believe her views on those topics are more her own than the simple parroting of the position of some special interest or other.   

That’s why we strongly encourage you to vote for Jim O’Brien, Mary Wynn Ryan and Mel Thillens for the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board on Tuesday, April 5.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Today we’re re-visiting the Park Ridge Senior Center, that building belonging to the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District that’s attached to the bath house of Centennial Pool and which serves as a semi-private clubhouse to roughly 1,000 seniors, approximately 200 of whom reportedly are not even Park District residents or taxpayers.

The reason for this post is the recent controversy that has arisen over a contract the private corporation that effectively runs the Senior Center (on the public dole, of course), Park Ridge Senior Services Inc. (“Seniors Inc.”), is trying to force on the Park District in order to keep Seniors Inc. in control of the Senior Center for the foreseeable future.

In order to understand this post, a brief history lesson is in order – starting with the formation of Seniors Inc. on December 19, 1980.  It appears Seniors Inc. cut its first deal with the Park District back in 1987, in the form of a one and one-half page letter agreement signed by then-Park Board president Susan Rizzo and then-Seniors Inc. president Clare Craig. 

Under that agreement, the Park District obligated itself to match, dollar for dollar up to $350,000, all contributions made by or on behalf of Seniors Inc. toward the construction of a “South Addition” to the Senior Center.  Additionally, that agreement gave Seniors Inc. a non-exclusive “License for Use” of the Senior Center, terminable at the will of the Park District on 180 days notice, accompanied by the Park District’s reimbursement of Seniors Inc.’s contribution to the South Addition, amortized at the rate of 3.3% per year.

An undated one-page amendment to that letter agreement clarified some rights and obligations, but left the basic terms of the letter agreement intact.  And for the past 23 years, Seniors Inc. has had, in practice, virtually exclusive use of that facility.

According to our back-of-the-envelope calculation, 23 years of amortization at the annual rate of 3.3% for the maximum $350,000 contribution by Seniors Inc. produces a buy-down of 80% of that $350,000, leaving a buy-out amount of $70,000 that the Park District would have to pay should it choose to end Seniors Inc.’s monopoly of the Senior Center.

That seems fair enough to us, but apparently not to Seniors Inc.

All of the sudden, after 23 years under the letter agreement and amendment, Seniors Inc. is pushing the Park District to sign a six-page “Senior Center Non-Taxable License For Use Agreement” (let’s call it the “Sweetheart Deal”) negotiated for Seniors Inc. by Park Ridge’s most prominent insider and legal beagle, John “Jack” Owens, who also happens to be a Senior Center member and Seniors Inc.’s registered agent. 

Why the Sweetheart Deal? 

We’re guessing it’s because, after all these years, our public officials, the media, and the public are finally starting to pay attention to, and balk at, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost to the taxpayers of “business as usual” – maintaining this semi-private club while its “members” pay a measly $35 in annual membership “dues.”  Within the past few months the City Council pulled the $35,000 donation that Seniors Inc. had come to expect from City taxpayers, and the Park Board has started to think about either cutting back on its approximately $200,000 annual subsidy or generating additional revenue from the Center through non-senior programming.

So Seniors Inc. now wants to lock in a two-year term for its current monopoly.  And, apparently realizing that its original 1987 buy-out price is down to a manageable $70,000, it is insisting that the Park District agree to add another $331,377 to that schedule, purportedly representing “additional improvements made by [Seniors Inc.] since 1999,” even though the Sweetheart Deal doesn’t identify any existing reimbursement obligation of the Park District for those post-1999 improvements. 

Oh yeah: and Seniors Inc. gets the continuing benefit of a “Senior Center Manager” and other Park District staff members providing services at/for the Center…on the taxpayers’ dime, of course.

Not surprisingly, the Sweetheart Deal makes no mention of the millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies the Senior Center has sucked out of the Park District, including a total of $993,000 just in fiscal years 2005 through 2010 alone!  Nor does it make any mention of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars it has sucked out of the City of Park Ridge at around $35,000/year, until the Mayor and City Council finally eliminated that “donation” this year. 

Given how far they have stuck their hands down into the taxpayers’ pockets and for how long, we have to wonder whether the folks at Seniors Inc. are clueless or just plain shameless in demanding anything from the Park District: they already have enjoyed over 23 years of control over one of the Park District’s (i.e., the taxpayers’) newer and better facilities, at a personal cost to each member of less than a dime a day!  For Seniors Inc. now to try to lock the Park District (i.e., the taxpayers) into a one-sided Sweetheart Deal is disappointing bordering on outrageous. 

But it will be an even bigger outrage if the members of the Park Board spinelessly give into this Sweetheart Deal and sell-out the public trust to their “Greatest Generation” (and “almost Greatest Generation”) counterparts in the process.

To read or post comments, click on title.

After just 13 months on the job, Park Ridge Recreation & Park District executive director Ray Ochromowicz  (a/k/a “Ray O”) is leaving the PRRPD for the St. Charles Park District. 

That Ray O is leaving for St. Charles is not surprising from a “career” perspective.  The SCPD owns and manages 1,400 acres of parks and recreational facilities, compared to a meager 130 acres at the PRRPD.  The SCPD also sports such features as a 9-hole Robert Trent Jones, Sr.- designed golf course, a miniature golf course, and a variety of other amenities beyond what the PRRPD offers.  A new $10.2 million (not counting debt service), 9.2 acre water park complex is scheduled for a June 2011 grand opening. 

It’s also rumored that the SCPD offered him a big bump up from his current $120,000 salary, which would be expected given how much larger the SCPD is than the PRRPD.

In his short time at the PRRPD, Ray O has done some very good things.  He is credited with revamping the District’s organizational structure, revising job descriptions, and establishing a pay-for-performance plan that saw $36,000 of performance-based bonuses paid to District employees in 2010.  He established needed customer satisfaction assessment measures. 

He also started the District toward a modified zero-based budget process – which is the direction in which we wish all local governmental bodies started moving – and slashed expenses by 10% while producing approximately $1 million more in revenues than expected. 

Those notable achievements, however, were tempered by a few notable failures. 

Ray O was stonewalled when he tried to take on two of the District’s most sacred cows and financial black holes: the Oakton Pool and the Senior Center.  In each instance small but entrenched, vocal minorities – with the aid of a slim majority of sympathetic Park Board members – were able to preserve their “entitlement” facilities that suck almost $300,000 a year ($100,000 for Oakton, $200,000 for the Senior Center) out of the taxpayers’ pockets to subsidize what effectively serve as semi-private “clubs” for their relatively few users.   

Another notable gaffe was the cell tower at Northeast Park, a somewhat marginal idea to begin with that was totally botched by Ray’s failure to follow the long-standing District practice of sending written notification to all of the park’s neighbors in advance of the District’s public hearing on the project.  Consequently, the project received few objections until it finally came before the Park Ridge Planning & Zoning Commission, where an irate SRO crowd convinced that City commission to deep-six it.  

And we seriously question the wisdom of Ray O’s plan for turning Centennial Pool into a modified water park, if only because he has proposed using a significant amount of the District’s non-referendum bonding power to do so – in the face of the voters’ decisive rejection of every referendum on spending big money to increase the size and amount of water at Centennial (or at Oakton) since at least 1995.  

The last time the District committed a significant amount of its limited non-referendum bonding power, we got our  $12 million-plus (counting principal and bond interest) poorly-designed and undersized Community Center – which deprived the District of the $7.6 million of non-referendum bonding power it would have needed to acquire 13.8 acres of what was then (in 1996) the “Edison Park Home” property (on Canfield between Devon and Higgins) that subsequently became the Brickton Place development. 

Despite those failures, we hope the District seeks and finds someone with Ochromowicz’s ability, financial focus and direction.  But even if it finds one, it will need fiscally-responsible Park Board members to encourage the new director to stay on the relatively sound financial path that the District generally has been following for the past decade. 

Unfortunately, the Park Board will be losing its most fiscally responsible member in Marty Maloney, who after 8 years on the Board has chosen to seek election to the Park Ridge City Council as alderman from the 7th Ward.  Besides Maloney, only Board president Jim O’Brien (who is seeking re-election) and vice-president Rich Biagi (who has two more years remaining on his term) have consistently displayed any backbone on the Oakton Pool and Senior Center albatrosses, in sharp contrast to Board members Richard Brandt, David Herman, Mary Wynn Ryan and Stephen Vile.

Since 1995, the Park District has seen the most contested election races of any local governmental body.  We think that is a big factor in the Park District having been (in our opinion) the leading local governmental unit when it comes to: improving operations of existing facilities while eschewing big expenditures and/or debt; meaningful intergovernmental cooperation; transparency of its operations (it was the first to videotape its meetings and post them on line); and accountability, including the solicitation of public opinion through both advisory and binding referenda before big decisions are made. 

We hope this April’s election sparks spirited, issues-oriented debates among this crop of Park Board candidates about whether they wish to see the Park District continue to move in its present direction, or whether they wish a return to the District’s less transparent, less accountable, more tax, borrow and spend ways of the early-to-mid 1990s.

Meanwhile, we bid bon voyage to Ray O, while at the same time wondering just how much better the PRRPD might have become with another year or two of his presence at the helm.

To read or post comments, click on title.

As we leave behind the difficulties and tumult in local government during 2010 for the hope and opportunities of a new year, we offer the following quotes from among our favorites for your delectation, indifference, or revulsion…depending on your point of view: 

“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”  Thomas Jefferson

 “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”  John Kenneth Galbraith

 “A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.”  Theodore Roosevelt

 “Frugality is founded on the principle that all riches have limits.”  Edmund Burke

 “The [big] lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”  Joseph Goebbels

This coming year also brings with it the election for all seven members of the Park Ridge City Council and for various members of the boards of Elementary School District 64, High School District 207, and the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District are only 95 days away.  Which means you have 95 days to get to know the candidates so that you can exercise a meaningful choice at the polls on April 5th.

Remember:

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”  Justice Robert H. Jackson

Happy New Year!

To read or post comments, click on title.