Back on February 27 and again on March 1, we wrote about how City Mgr. Jim Hock’s “Labor Negotiations Guidelines” are exactly the wrong thing for the City and its taxpayers.  Those guidelines, as written, would both hamstring and gag our City officials in the upcoming negotiations with some of the City’s unionized employees. 

When it comes to dealing with the City’s unions, Hock’s been acting like he’s on their payrolls instead of drawing his $200K-plus annual compensation from the City’s taxpayers.  

First, Hock winked and nodded at Chief Mike Zywanski’s wrongheaded negotiating “Ground Rules” that drew a curtain of secrecy around the latest firefighters negotiations.  Then Hock recommended rolling over on the firefighters’ grievance that was filed to enforce the double-dip paid holiday demand, in utter disregard for the May 1, 2011 “effective date” of the new contract. 

Any doubt about whose side Hock really is on in any union v. taxpayer dispute, however, seems to have been cleared up at the February 27 Council COW meeting, when Hock reflexively branded, as an “unfair labor practice” (“ULP), Mayor Dave Schmidt’s suggestion that future collective bargaining occur in sessions open to the public – even though Hock, in typical fashion for him, couldn’t provide any legal or other precedent to support his ULP claim.     

Schmidt asked City Atty. Everette “Buzz” Hill to opine on Hock’s contention.  So far, there appears to be no word from Buzz, presumably because he’s having as difficult a time as we had finding anything in the way of statutes or court decisions that would back up Hock: our quick-and-dirty Google search, and conversations with a couple of labor law attorneys who specialize in public sector matters, turned up not even a hint of anything that would make open-session negotiations a ULP.  

Meanwhile, perhaps realizing that his bull-flop had been called, Hock has now come up with a new tactic to hamstring and gag City officials in connection with the upcoming union negotiations: he’s converted his “Labor Negotiation Guidelines” into a City Council policy – Policy No. 8 – which he wants the Council to adopt at tonight’s meeting.

Although that proposed policy is not quite as outrageous as his guidelines were (e.g., unlike the guidelines’ secrecy provisions, the policy does not require City officials to violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act), Hock has inserted revised secrecy provisions into that policy which semi-sneakily replace the “shall”s and “must”s with “should”s, effectively setting up the City for bad-faith ULP grievances by the union if the mayor or any alderman were to go public – as they are permitted to do under IOMA – about any aspects of the negotiations, such as what the unions have demanded.

We have to assume that these revisions are an intentional attempt by Hock to jackpot the City because, frankly, we’d hate to think all of us taxpayers are paying over $200K a year for somebody who would do something like this out of mere stupidity. 

So it’s time to conclude that Hock has thrown in with the unions; and that the unions, emboldened by having an ally “inside” City Hall, not only have no intention of ever taking “no” for an answer from this mayor (even if that “no” ultimately gets over-ridden by a feckless Council) but, also, now want an enhanced ability to file ULP charges against the City. 

That would explain firefighters union president Mike Isom’s comments about Schmidt in a recent TribLocal article (“Park Ridge mayor exercise [sic] veto power again over firefighters contract,” 03.09.12):

“I think he’s trying to create controversy where there wasn’t any,” Isom said.  “We’ve made multiple concessions over the years only to be lambasted.”

Not surprisingly, Isom didn’t identify any of those “multiple concessions,” or when they were made.  Maybe he didn’t think he’d get all that much sympathy from City taxpayers by claiming that a cumulative 5% raise over three years, with commensurate benefits, was a major “concession.” 

City/union negotiations shouldn’t be hostile, but make no mistake about it: they are adversarial – especially when the City finds itself in a bubbling financial stew that’s been quietly simmering for the past decade or more while previous City administrations irresponsibly spent money and made long-term financial commitments – including for regular raises and increased benefits for union employees – as if the bills would never come due.

Well, they’ve come due, even though only Ald. Rich DiPietro remains from the folks who closed their eyes and whistled while the stew simmered. 

But don’t expect DiPietro to fall on any swords if he can help it: after 16 years on the Council, he’s become a “short-timer” looking to leave next year.  Which is why he acts like he doesn’t even want to deal with the current problems, much less future ones; or to accept any accountability for previous Council failings.

But if this mayor and this City Council don’t get even more serious than they’ve recently been about managing expenses and increasing revenues, things will get a whole lot worse, starting next fiscal year when – as Schmidt pointed out in his recent State of the City address – the Uptown TIF drain on the General Fund is projected to begin its newest escalation, from the current $5.4 million indebtedness to the $9.4 million mark.

We’re guessing it’s Hock’s and the unions’ fear that the taxpayers are finally waking up to the dangers presented by all this red ink which spurred Hock to propose his guidelines, and now his new Policy No. 8.  Together, Hock and the unions may have concluded that a Council Policy is the best way to lock the City into keeping the collective bargaining process – and all the unions’ demands – hidden from public view until there’s a done deal for the Council to rubber-stamp.  And to get it done quickly, before the next round of collective bargaining begins.

Let’s see how many of the folks around The Horseshoe jump at this new chance to help Hock sell out the taxpayers…again.

UPDATE:  This matter was deferred to the March 26, 2012, Procedures & Regulation Committee meeting at the request of 2 aldermen (Maloney & Raspanti), which is a permitted Council procedure.  That was just as well, because the City Attorney had not yet completed his research into the exact nature of unfair labor practices, including (per Mayor Schmidt’s question) whether it would be a ULP for future union contract negotiations to be held in sessions open to the public and the media.

That question wouldn’t even need to be answered by the City Attorney if all the City unions agreed to open-session bargaining.  But until you see herds of pigs are doing loop-the-loops in the airspace over Park Ridge, don’t expect that to happen.

To read or post comments, click on title.

An article in the online Park Ridge Herald-Advocate dated March 6 bears the title: “Park Ridge mayor calls veto of firefighters pact ‘matter of principle.’” 

It goes on to discuss the Council’s over-ride of Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of an after-the-fact change in the firefighters union contract that effectively allows the firefighters to double-dip one extra paid holiday – compliments of bungled contract negotiations led by Fire Chief Mike Zywanski, under the should-have-been-watchful-but-really-was-blind eye of City Mgr. Jim Hock.  The cost to the City’s taxpayers: $6,400.

Schmidt admitted that if his veto were upheld and the firefighters union filed for arbitration rather than voluntarily give up one of the double-dip holidays, just the City’s legal fees for that arbitration would exceed $6,400…even if the City won.  Schmidt’s reasoning for opposing the contract change?  “It sets a bad precedent, and it sends the wrong message to the other unions by showing weakness and inviting them to employ the same tactics.”

We agree, which should come as no surprise to anybody who has read our posts about those negotiations and how Chief Z and Hock helped keep negotiating details hidden from public view until the contract had become virtually a done deal.

But at least six aldermen – Sweeney, DiPietro, Smith, Raspanti, Bernick and Maloney – apparently didn’t agree with Schmidt’s concerns about “bad precedent” or about encouraging certain unions to employ such tactics in the future.  Or maybe they didn’t want to risk having to spend the money to arbitrate.  Or maybe they just didn’t care. 

Unfortunately, we don’t know – because while Schmidt explained his reasoning, the Override Six weren’t talking. 

Ironically, that same H-A article reported the Council’s over-ride of another of Schmidt’s vetoes – this one of more donations of tax dollars to Center of Concern, Maine Center for Mental Health, and Meals on Wheels.  The Council over-rode as to the CofC and Maine Center handouts by a vote of 6-1 (Knight dissenting), but then sustained it for the $3,168 donation to Meals on Wheels by the bare minimum of 3 votes needed to sustain: Knight, Sweeney and Smith.

Which brings us back to the issue of “principle” – about which Jefferson once wrote: “In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current.”

As with the firefighters contract, Schmidt has stood like a rock on this community group funding, always articulating his reasoning – as he did when he announced his veto of these latest donations at the February 20, 2012 meeting: “It is wrong to compel taxpayers to support any private entity, no matter how well-meaning the group, unless that group is providing an essential city service which the city cannot.”  Knight has been equally staunch and has articulated that same reasoning on several prior occasions.  That sounds like a “matter of principle” to us.

When it comes to Sweeney and Smith, however, their votes seem more like a matter of schizophrenia – as evidenced by their previously having voted both for and against “community group” funding. 

As recently as the February 6th meeting (with Sweeney MIA), Smith voted for donating to Meals on Wheels the exact same $3,168 on which he is now, just one month later, voting to sustain the mayor’s veto.  Yet just last June, Smith voted to override Schmidt’s veto of the Council’s budgeting $65,776 for all three of those groups, while Sweeney voted to sustain that veto.  And, going back to August 23, 2010, Sweeney voted for donating $7,040 to Meals on Wheels but against donating $6,600 to Maine Center. 

If you can discern any controlling principles of public policy or municipal governance from that kind of behavior, you’re a lot sharper than we are – or just as bollixed up as Sweeney and Smith seem to be.  Judging from their public comments and votes, they could very well be Marxists…albeit of the Groucho variety: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”

Unfortunately, most of the other aldermen have yet to voice or display any discernable consistency in their approach to the many issues confronting City government that would suggest more developed principles of public policy and governance than Sweeney’s or Smith’s.  Heck, Rich DiPietro’s been an alderman since 1995, and the “principle” of municipal governance he has demonstrated most consistently during all that time is go-along-to-get-along.

Modern leadership guru Stephen Covey distinguishes “reactive” people from “proactive” ones by the latter’s ability to “subordinate an impulse to a value.”  Reactive people are “driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment” while proactive ones are “driven by values – carefully thought about, selected and internalized values.”

Looks to us like a proactive mayor and one aldermen, surrounded by a bunch of reactives.  And the results speak for themselves.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Tonight’s City Council meeting should finally ring down the curtain on the recent Taste of Park Ridge (“TOPR”) RFP charade orchestrated by City Mgr. Jim Hock, seemingly in collusion with the folks who run the private corporation Taste of Park Ridge Inc. (“Taste Inc.”) that has had a no-bid, no-contract monopoly on TOPR since 2005. 

That monopoly appears to have cost the City over $100K in City services provided free to Taste Inc. over the past 7 years – which allowed Taste Inc. to build up its current $80,000+ bank account despite having to pay what Taste Inc. claims were thousands (tens of thousands?) of dollars to the IRS in back taxes for the four years (2005-08) it advertised itself as a not-for-profit while, in reality, it was a for-profit corporation. 

This year was supposed to be different.

This year the City was going to award a first-ever TOPR contract, based on an RFP that required reimbursement of City expenses and a share of the profits.  But as could have been predicted from the fact that Hock was in charge of the process, the RFP itself was a cobbled together mess in many respects that contributed to the three applicants submitting non-conforming proposals, all of which should have been rejected.

But Hock chose to enter into negotiations exclusively with…wait for it…Taste Inc.  And once that started, he promptly (a) agreed to reduce the RFP’s $100,000 letter of credit requirement to the $20,000 one Taste Inc. offered, and (b) agreed to defer any City profit sharing until after Taste Inc. pockets the first $20,000 of profits so that it can boost its bankroll up to an arbitrary $100,000 figure.

If this City Council had a spine, it would tell Hock and Taste Inc. “no deal” unless profits were split 50/50 beginning with the first dollar.  But it doesn’t.  And, besides, politicians love bread and circuses – and TOPR provides both.

Which might explain why, by our count, Alds. Joe Sweeney, Rich DiPietro and Jim Smith already are in Taste Inc.’s corner.  And if Taste Inc.’s biggest Council cheerleader, Ald. Tom Bernick, actually decides to make one of his rare appearances at The Horseshoe, Taste Inc. will have its fourth vote even if Alds. Sal Raspanti, Dan Knight and Marty Maloney vote for a better deal for the taxpayers.

There are those who will say that forcing Taste Inc. to pay its expenses after 7 years on the public dole is an accomplishment.  And it is, just like grabbing a few crumbs off the floor is an “accomplishment” for a beggar.  Which is what the City has let itself become in dealing with Taste Inc.

Worse yet, the City’s (a/k/a Hock’s) mismanagement of this RFP process likely has demonstrated to anybody who might otherwise be interested in bidding on any future TOPR contract that the City’s RFP process is just a sham and a “cover” for awarding the event to Taste Inc.  But that almost certainly will be lost on Hock, the Taste Inc. aldermen, and whatever Taste Inc. representatives – Mel Thillens? Dave Iglow? – show up to take their bows. 

Just chalk it up to a little more special-interest government from 505 Butler Place.

UPDATE (03.06.12):  To nobody’s surprise, Taste Inc.’s done deal for TOPR 2012 became officially “done” last night by a 6-1 vote (Ald. Knight dissenting).  

And, also not too surprisingly, Taste Inc.’s No. 1 Council cheerleader, Ald. Tom Bernick (6th) – whose Council attendance record to date makes that of former Ald. Robert Ryan seem positively stellar – apparently found the awarding of the TOPR contract an event more worthy of his presence than the usual Council and COW meetings, or the budget workshops.  Perhaps he just wanted to publicly ask Taste Inc.’s Dave Iglow and Mel Thillens, one last time, why they keep insisting on running TOPR when they’ve been treated so shabbily of late at 505 Butler Place.

Memo to Ald. Bernick: Try $80,000 in the Taste Inc. bank account, which should swell to a cool $100 grand this summer, thanks to the $20,000 of profits Taste Inc. won’t have to share with the City under the contract approved last night. 

Other than Bernick, none of the aldermen explained their votes, so we don’t know why they thought Taste Inc. shouldn’t have to split the first $20,000 of this year’s profits with the City, a/k/a the taxpayers.  Frankly, we expected more from Alds. Raspanti and Maloney, who in past Council discussions on this subject seemed more concerned with maximizing the City’s financial return on TOPR than their simple “yes” votes (which cost the City $10,000) last night would indicate. 

But the taxpayers should be grateful it’s only $10 grand: at tomorrow night’s budget meeting, these same folks will be dealing with real money. 

Or maybe not all these “same folks”: what’s the Vegas line on Bernick showing up?   

UPDATE (03.07.12):  For those of you who bet the “over,” you’re in luck…because we’ve heard that Bernick bailed on tonight’s budget workshop, preventing the Council from having a quorum and causing the cancellation of the workshop (because Alds. DiPietro, Maloney and Raspanti had previously indicated they would not be present).

We’ll need an “official” record check, but it’s looking like Bernick may have set the record for most Council meetings missed by one alderman in one budget year.  And, more remarkably, he will have done it as a rookie! 

Way to go, Little Tommy!

To read or post comments, click on title.

As we wrote in Monday’s post, the “Labor Negotiations Guidelines” proposed by City Manager Jim Hock are exactly the wrong way for the City to go about negotiating union contracts.  That’s because public sector collective bargaining bears little resemblance to its private sector counterpart. 

Private sector employers are profit-driven. They want to maximize their profits for the shareholders’ benefit.  One way to do that is to minimize costs – including labor costs.  Collective bargaining in the private sector, therefore, is the product of both management and labor keeping their cards close to their vest, bluffing when they can, and generally producing a level of creative tension that usually facilitates a reasonable balance between the employers’ and employees’ interests.

Public sector employers, on the other hand, are governmental bodies who tend to be viewed by their own bureaucratic managers as “non-profit” entities.  That view fosters a give-away mentality, because the bureaucrats generally have no real incentive to minimize labor costs or operate more efficiently.  To the contrary, increased raises and benefits given away to the unionized workers, and a larger workforce under management, can actually be used to justify higher raises and benefits for those “managers.”

That symbiotic coziness between public sector unions and the governmental managers is a key reason why bureaucrats like Hock would prefer to keep union negotiations hidden from public view – as we saw with the recent firefighters union contract, where lead City negotiator Chief Mike Zywanski (presumably with Hock’s approval) proposed “Ground Rules” that kept negotiations secret and effectively put a gag on the elected officials.  And, as we saw in the aftermath of those negotiations that guaranteed the union firefighters a non-merit, across-the-board raise of 6% over the next 3 years, the non-union salaried City employees were given non-merit, across-the-board raises shortly thereafter.

Another reason why negotiations are kept secret is that the public officials who are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers often have strong ties to the union side of the table.  In the case of Chief Z, he reportedly spent much of his career as a firefighters union member; and his non-Park Ridge taxpayer status (he resides in the Naperville area) doesn’t even provide any “taxpayer” self-interest as a counter-weight to that sense of firefighter fraternity.   

Even when we have elected officials involved in the collective bargaining, however, those officials often are proven go-along-to-get-along types (like D-64 Board president John Heyde), or outright union sympathizers (like D-64 Board member/union attorney Pat Fioretto).  No wonder Heyde and Fioretto don’t want even fellow D-64 Board members sitting in on the teachers union negotiations.

But perhaps the most significant reason why negotiations are conducted in “closed” sessions outside the public and media view is because the unions want it that way. 

Irrespective of whatever lofty mantle a particular union wraps itself in for marketing purposes – “first responders” for police and fire, “for the kids” for teachers – the last thing those unions want is for the taxpayers to see and hear, firsthand, the unions’ demands; or for those taxpayers to be exposed to a weeks/months-long stream of meeting video, news reports and press releases detailing the costs of whatever compensation and benefit packages are being negotiated. 

They’d prefer the taxpayers hear about that stuff only once, after the deal is tentatively struck and being rushed through the City Council or school board for final approval.

That’s why we’d like to see the City – and all our other local governmental bodies – adopt ordinances requiring that all union contracts be negotiated publicly, in meetings open to the public and videotaped for those who can’t attend in person.  Let the taxpayers see and hear the respective sides’ demands, offers, and negotiating “styles” so that they can judge for themselves who is being reasonable and who is not.

Prior to any such negotiation, however, each governmental body would have to make a determination – in open session, probably in the context of the budget process – how much it believes it can/should appropriate for union (and non-union) employee compensation and benefits for the coming year; and, if possible, projections for 2-3 years out.  That way, the public could weigh in on the fairness/reasonableness of those numbers even before negotiations commence.

But don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.

When Mayor Schmidt suggested the possibility of open-session bargaining at Monday night’s COW meeting, Hock called it an “unfair labor practice” (“ULP”) almost before Schmidt finished his sentence – although City Attorney “Buzz” Hill didn’t offer an opinion either way on Hock’s claim.

While we don’t claim to be experts in public employment law, we could find nothing in the Illinois statutes or in case decisions that support Hock’s position.  While labor negotiations are a permitted exception to the Illinois Open Meetings Act’s requirement of open proceedings, neither IOMA nor any other law we could find prohibits open-session negotiations.  And open session collective bargaining – under so-called “sunshine” laws – has been the rule in states such as Florida for years.

Schmidt asked Buzz to look into it and report back to the Council, so we look forward to what he will find.

We wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Hill reports that not only are open-session union negotiations permitted (and, therefore, not a ULP), but that the City’s adoption and enforcement of Hock’s misguided “guidelines” would violate IOMA while also actually providing the unions with a basis for claiming a ULP if, for example, any information about negotiations were to slip out of the “confidential” bargaining sessions Hock wants to impose!

But apparently that’s the kind of sharp thinking that gets Hock the big bucks.

To read or post comments, click on title.

There are a few matters of interest on tonight’s City Council COW agenda, including the “transparency” of the backgrounds and qualifications of all those appointed City officials sitting on boards, commissions and task forces.  That’s one that’s near and dear to our hearts, as our posts on 01.17.12 and 02.20.12 confirm. 

But a more immediate and, arguably, more consequential matter on the agenda is billed as “Labor Negotiation Guidelines.”  City Mgr. Jim Hock has prepared (with the help of temporary “HR Consultant” Mike Suppan) a document by that name filled with a lot of typical HR feel-good mumbo-jumbo that looks as if it was designed to bamboozle the simpler-minded folks around The Horseshoe while keeping the actual negotiations themselves away from the mayor and the aldermen.

If the Council approves these guidelines, it will be demonstrating that it learned nothing from the Hock/Fire Chief Zywanski/atty. Dina Kapernekas fiasco of the just-resolved firefighters union contract, which we addressed in several posts, including “The City’s Three Amnesiacs…Or Three Liars” (05.19.11), “One Bite At A Time” (05.23.11) and  “Firemen Renege, Hock Conceals, Council Hides, Taxpayers Pay” (1207.11).

Why?

Let’s start with Hock’s provision (in paragraph 3) that “[t]he Human Resources Manager and at times, any labor attorney approved by the City Council will represent the City at the negotiation table.”  That’s eerily similar to the model that gave us the Chief Z/Kapernekas tag team and the decidedly taxpayer-unfriendly firefighters contract. 

And if that paradigm isn’t enough, by itself, to justify nuking those guidelines, let’s try the fact that Hock just appointed a new Human Resources Manager, former Community Preservation & Development Manager Cathy Doczekalski, who appears to have no meaningful human resources education, training or background experience – much like her predecessor, who recently resigned her City position after a botched attempt to manipulate salary brackets to increase the compensation of the non-union City employees.

That means the City’s negotiating team will be headed by someone woefully inexperienced in such negotiations.  But it gets worse. 

Hock wants the negotiations to be “confidential” – meaning that the mayor and the aldermen cannot “publicly discuss any contract issues…unless a formal declaration of impasse has been made.”  And just to be sure that such information stays secret, Hock includes a provision that not only permits closed session discussions of the negotiations, but that also requires that such “closed session discussions must remain confidential” – which sure sounds like a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act to us!

But that’s indicative of the way Hock, and most bureaucrats, view “transparency”: if there’s a way to get around it so that the public remains in the dark, so much the better.   Just ask D-64 Board president John Heyde, who reportedly has the teacher union negotiations so locked down that no D-64 board members other than he and fellow “negotiating team” member Pat Fioretto are permitted even to attend the negotiations.

And when it comes to labor negotiations, the last thing the unions want is to have all their demands displayed before the taxpayers in real time.  That might put a smudge or two on the angelic personae they all try to cultivate in the public’s mind, whether they be “first responders” or “for the kids”-committed teachers.

That’s why we previously proposed (in “One Bite At A Time”) that all City labor negotiations be conducted in open meetings subject to full public scrutiny:

Let the City decide, as part of its very public budget process, what wage and benefit terms are affordable and in the best interest of the taxpayers for the coming year, and only for the coming year.  The City should then publicly offer those exact terms to the union representing the particular bargaining unit; and then let that union make its case, equally publicly, to those same taxpayers if it thinks its members deserve more than what the City offered. 

That way, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much which bureaucrat is chosen to “lead” the City’s negotiating team (except, of course, for the irredeemable Chief Z), although that team still should have at least one elected City official – either the mayor or a capable alderman – to represent and be accountable to the taxpayers in the ways most bureaucrats can’t or won’t. 

But for now, the City Council should tell Hock in no uncertain terms that his “Labor Negotiation guidelines” are non-starters so long as they contain anything that would prevent City officials from treating the details of all future negotiations like an open book.

Or, better yet, like an open City meeting video.

UPDATE:  Listening to Hock last night defend his “guidelines,” it was difficult to tell whether he is totally clueless or a shameless dissembler. 

Either he still doesn’t understand the workings of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, especially the “closed session” provisions, or he’s so concerned about secrecy that he doesn’t care about violating IOMA – which observing his “guidelines” would definitely do.  And, interestingly enough, whenever the discussion moved in the direction of opening up and shedding more light on the negotiations process, Hock would try to stop it by chirping “unfair labor practice” (“ULP”) – as if he were a trained parrot…perched on the shoulder of a union negotiator. 

Or like the little boy who cried “Wolf!”

Query for Mr. Hock: If conducting collective bargaining in an open forum in front of the public really is a ULP, then why do you need “guidelines” that expressly provide for all these confidentiality requirements?  Wouldn’t the “guidelines” actually give the unions the basis for a ULP claim where currently there is none?

Fortunately, Mayor Schmidt called Hock on his ULP invocations and requested the City Attorney to look into exactly how much open-ness could be applied to negotiations without the City’s committing a ULP.  We can’t wait to hear Buzz Hill’s answer(s).

To read or post comments, click on title.

The public comment segment of Wednesday night’s City Council’s budget workshop – addressing whether the City should budget $49,500 for the Center of Concern (CofC) in FY 2012-13 – ran over an hour, even though only a fraction of the 50+ CofC supporters in the audience actually spoke to the Council.  

When the smoke cleared, 3 aldermen (Joe Sweeney, Rich DiPietro and Jim Smith) voted to add that $49,500 into the budget, while the other 3 aldermen present (Sal Raspanti, Dan Knight and Marty Maloney) voted to uphold its exclusion that they, along with Smith, had approved at an earlier budget workshop.  That tie, created because Ald. Tom Bernick was once again MIA, meant the budget will come up for final approval without money for CofC – although DiPietro basically promised an amendment to include CofC funding when the final vote is taken.

As we predicted in Wednesday’s post, emotional buzzwords and phrases abounded. 

Former 4th Ward alderman (and current CofC director) John Kerin told the Council to “take off the…blinders” and not “kick our seniors to the curb,” while former 6th Ward alderman Mary Wynn Ryan warned that “We the People get to say what the business of our government is.”  And former 4th Ward alderman (and current CofC treasurer) Jim Radermacher suggested that eliminating City funding of CofC would make Park Ridge no longer “A wonderful place.”

Other CofC supporters floated fantastic financial claims, like former 5th Ward alderman Rich Whalen’s magic act that had CofC returning $3 of value “tomorrow” for every $1 of City funding “today.”  But that Ponzi-like promise actually paled in comparison to the “fabulous” return on investment of “5 times, 10 times, 500 to 1,000%” that former mayor (and current CofC advisory board member) Mike Marous projected for City funding of CofC.

Heck, if that were remotely close to provable fact, the City might be able to solve most of its financial woes by “investing” a few million in CofC.  But from the few specks of verifiable data CofC has provided about the services it actually performs for Park Ridge residents, MegaMillions might be a surer bet.

Although the CofC folks hate to hear it, CofC is just another private vendor of services.  Kerin admitted as much Wednesday night when he referred to the City’s having “outsourced” its human services function to CofC. 

But because of its clout – a board of directors and advisory board so loaded with current and former officeholders that Marous could proudly note how there were more aldermen in the audience than sitting around The Horseshoe – it has NEVER been held to ANY of the procurement or performance standards to which other City vendors are subjected.

That makes CofC perhaps the ultimate “special interest” vendor:  no uncertainty of competitive bidding, no bothersome RFPs, no annoying RFQs, no pesky contracts, not even a price list.  In other words, CofC is excused from providing anything by which an ordinary taxpayer – or the aldermen allegedly representing him – could judge whether the City truly is getting at least a dollar’s worth of service for every tax dollar paid out.

If the City bought any other of its goods or services in this cockamamie fashion, somebody would (or, at least, should) be fired.  And maybe even sued for what the legendary Mike Royko called: “Aggravated mopery with intent to gawk.”

Would the taxpayers tolerate a procurement process for street paving services whereby the City would send $49,500 to a paving contractor with the understanding that the contractor, and not the City, will decide how many streets it will pave, which ones it will pave (even if they aren’t in Park Ridge), when it will pave them, and the price it will charge per block?

Not for a New York minute.

But that’s exactly the kind of absurd arrangement the City has maintained with CofC for years.  And that’s exactly the deal Alds. Sweeney, DiPietro, Smith (and Bernick, if/when he deigns to return?) want to keep in place, notwithstanding City Council Policy No. 6 which has never been complied with since it was last amended in 1991…and maybe since it was adopted in 1974.

Throw a few more zeroes in there and this could be the kind of deal that might get even Mike Madigan’s attention. 

UPDATE:  We addressed CofC’s failure to provide meaningful information about the services it allegedly provides to Park Ridge residents in our 05.16.11 post:  https://publicwatchdog.org/archives/2011/05/16/should-city-taxes-be-raised-to-fund-center-of-concern/ , noting that the most detailed information CofC ever has provided the City – its 2011 application for City funding – claimed 6,770 “Park Ridge residents served.”  If provably true, that would be 18% of all Park Ridge residents!  Even in these difficult economic times, that kind of claim deserves a serious credibility check. 

And nowhere in that report are there any numbers to establish how many man-hours, or cost-units, of services CofC allegedly provides to Park Ridge residents for the money it gets from the City.   As we pointed out then, transparency and accountability are foreign to CofC – and remain foreign to CofC to this day, as does the concept of actually entering into a contract with the City that requires CofC to provide X units of service for Y dollars of funding.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Conventional wisdom tells us that “no good deed goes unpunished.” 

And it looks like it will be demonstrated again at tonight’s City Council 2012-13 budget workshop, where the City Council’s 2-year old fiscal responsibility is expected to be challenged by staff and supporters of the private corporation (and consummate public trough feeder) Center of Concern (“CofC”); and by a group of citizens who want renovations and additions to the Park Ridge Police station.

Today’s Park Ridge Journal reports (“Center Of Concern Seeks Budget Backing”) that CofC “sent out an e-mail asking residents to attend [tonight’s] meeting and ask the city to continue its funding” to the tune of $49,000/year, or else CofC “would be forced to reduce programs or staff members that support residents.”  That’s the same tune CofC has been singing since the City started re-thinking its annual giveaway of arbitrary amounts of taxpayer funds to “local” private corporations/community groups a couple of years ago.

As we’ve repeatedly written, we are fans of private charities such as CofC.  We just don’t like them hitting up local taxing bodies like the City for funding simply because they know our local public officials are such soft touches when it comes to giving away other people’s (i.e., the taxpayers’) money for “feel good” reasons.  Of course, the City Council might one day actually do the right thing and comply with its own Policy No. 6 – and then contract with CofC and other private social service businesses for a specific quantity of specific services solely for Park Ridge residents at a specific price per unit of service.  But that would require more critical thinking and effort than the Council has appeared willing to invest, especially when a warm-and-fuzzy quick-fix is just a $49,000 “yes” vote away.

Interestingly enough, CofC has opposed that “contract” concept, balking at having to provide that kind of accountability for which it isn’t set up.  It also must not be set up for actual fundraising: its reported fundraising for FY 2009 (as disclosed in its most recent Form 990 tax return posted on GuideStar) is pathetic, accounting for only $75,482 of its $998,000 of total revenues, and netting it a ridiculous $37,600.

That dismal figure suggests that either the general public, left to its own devices, doesn’t wish to financially support CofC, or that CofC’s staff and politician-laden director and advisory boards aren’t even making any serious fundraising effort – presumably because they’ve found the public trough so much more inviting. 

The folks who want the cop shop renovation/additions, on the other hand, have the better argument for the $1-2 million of public funds the project is projected to cost over the next 3-4 years.  That’s because the cop shop is a public building run by public officials who – unlike the folks who run CofC – are accountable to the taxpayers/voters.  And the things they are proposing would no doubt improve the quality and efficiency of the police station, although not necessarily on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

But we have not seen nor heard anything close to a compelling case for the necessity of these renovations/additions, especially where the City’s finances remain in a figurative iron lung, and necessary infrastructure projects continue to be deferred or down-scaled despite annual property tax increases in the 3.5% range and a variety of fee increases.

While the Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force has raised all sorts of dire warnings and predictions about the criminal danger and civil liability festering in the current cop shop, we can find no hard evidence that the conditions and deficiencies of the cop shop: (a) jeopardized any criminal investigation; (b) jeopardized any criminal prosecution; or (c) resulted in any civil liability to any criminal, suspect, officer, employee, or citizen.  (In an upcoming post we will provide a critical analysis of the “Cost Effective Strategies to Address Risk Factors at the Police Facility,” the report/game plan for the renovations and additions to the cop shop being proposed).

As the City recently heard from Moody’s bond raters, the General Fund balance is unacceptably low and continues to decline because of the black hole effect of the Uptown TIF, which already has sucked almost $5 million out of the General Fund and is likely to continue doing so until FY 2023 – 5 years after the TIF is projected to bottom out at $14 million of total deficits. 

If that’s not bad enough, the to-date $5 million of TIF borrowing from the General Fund occurred (as we understand it) while the City was only paying interest on the general obligation bonds funding the TIF.  Unfortunately, starting next year, debt service will include principal repayments – which is why, for the years FY 2013-FY 2016, Revenue Director Allison Stutts is projecting year end deficits from the TIF totaling $3.1 million, which deficits will need to be covered by…wait for it…more loans from the General Fund. 

Call it déjà vu all over again.  Or further proof of Einstein’s definition of “insanity.”

The City didn’t get into this mess overnight.  It took more than a decade of feel-good-but-irresponsible management and whistle-past-the-graveyard financial obliviousness to produce this collection of problems.  Only In the past two years, however, has the City finally stopped digging and, instead, began filling in the hole – one small shovel-full at a time.  And it will take several more years of increasingly larger shovels-full of spending cuts and revenue increases (a/k/a, taxes and fees) just to get us anywhere close to where the City’s finances become stable enough to address infrastructure and unforeseen contingencies in a predictable, non-“crisis” mode.

Expect to hear shameless invocations of the “poor,” the “disabled,” “seniors,” “human suffering, “dignity,” “safety,” “efficiency,” “liability” and any other buzzwords that might tug at the heartstrings while clouding the mind on the real issues of transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility and taxpayer choice.  That’s how this game is played, and those who play it for a living or a hobby have gotten quite good at it. 

But make no mistake about it: the folks who will show up tonight at City Hall with their hands full of “gimme” and their mouths full of “much obliged” see the modest surplus the City posted last year and the one it’s on track to post this current FY as nothing more than a pool of available cash just waiting to be tapped for their own personal hearts’ desires, the taxpayers and the City’s long-term economic health be damned. 

Will there be at least 4 “adults” sitting around The Horseshoe tonight with the discipline, the integrity, the vision and the courage to just say “no”?

To read or post comments, click on title.

In our post “Time For Transparency On Both Elected And Appointed Officials” (01.17.12) we advocated the posting on the City’s website of more information about our public officials – especially our appointed ones on boards, commissions and task forces who don’t go through the electoral process and, consequently, can be pretty much unknown quantities to the people they represent and serve.

That post received only 5 comments until this past Thursday (02.16.12), when a stream of critical comments commenced.  We can only assume that the new interest in this topic – primarily by one commentator posting under 2-3 monikers – was prompted by the City’s posting of its agenda for tonight’s City Council meeting, which includes both a “Transparency Report” item and the appointment/re-appointment of 11 persons to City boards and commissions.   

In the first portion of that Transparency Report, City Mgr. Jim Hock notes that the City’s performance on the Illinois Policy Institute’s transparency analysis is 68.5%, good for 24th place among the rated governmental bodies.  The City is the only governmental body from our community listed by IPI, so 24th place is better than a no-show, even if 68.5% tends to be a “D” in most grading systems.

City Information Director Diane Nelson’s portion of the Transparency Report, however, reveals her concerns that, as to the information about board, commission and task force appointees contained in their application forms, “the current form has information that would need to be redacted before posting”; and that, because “we didn’t tell applicants at the time of completion [and submission of the application forms] that they would be published, [the successful applicants] may have some objections or concerns.”

Such concerns are to be expected from local officials whose governmental bodies have operated for so long in secrecy and semi-secrecy.  Not surprisingly, and as is apparent from Nelson’s memorandum, even this modest effort at transparency came not from staff but “in response to the mayor’s request.”

If we can view this as a “teaching moment,” however, we would remind Ms. Nelson and all City officials of Jefferson’s admonition: “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.” 

All of these board, commission and task force members voluntarily sought appointment as public officials, with all the powers and the public trust that come with it.  While that doesn’t require them to open up their homes, refrigerators, sock drawers and tax returns to public scrutiny, even Atty. Gen. Madigan’s FOIA Guide states (at Page 17) that “basic identification” – such as names, addresses, and other information that is sufficiently well-known so as not to constitute “confidential or private” information – is not protected from disclosure by FOIA; nor is any other information “bearing on the public duties of public employees or officials…[to] be considered an invasion of personal privacy” (at Page 18).

The fact that all of the information requested by the City’s standard form Application is part of the process for assessing the applicant’s qualifications for appointment to public office suggests that such information “[bears] on the public duties of public…officials” within the disclosure provisions of FOIA.  And unless those applicants submitted their applications with a prior agreement from the City that the contents would be kept confidential, we are aware of nothing in FOIA or City ordinances requiring confidentiality.

That’s one problem solved.

As for Ms. Nelson’s more mundane concerns about the “extremely arduous task” of “[l]ocating, organizing, redacting, scanning and posting over 200 of these forms,” we would expect that somewhere over in City Hall is a drawer holding a file jacket with a label that reads “Boards & Commissions Applications” that should make the “locating” part a relatively non-“arduous” 10-second task.  And if there isn’t such a drawer or file, then somebody over at City Hall has some ‘splainin’ to do, because there darn well should be.   

With the “locating” part out of the way, in order to spare City staff the burdens of “organizing, redacting [and] scanning” those application forms (and spare the taxpayers the indirect costs thereof), this blog volunteers the services of its editor in that regard.  Given how Park Ridge simply adores volunteerism (isn’t that right, Taste Inc.?), how can the City not jump at this offer?  Heck, we won’t even try to skim the first $20,000 of savings for ourselves.

As for better information about the elected officials, let’s start with: name; residence address; City contact information (i.e., phone number and e-mail address); occupation; current/most recent employer; educational background (as on board/committee/commission application); and any prior City or local governmental position and experience.  That should provide the average citizen with far more relevant information about City officials than is currently available, accessible 24/7. 

And for those wanting even more information, there’s always the FOIA request.

BTW, how’s your FOIA request coming along, Ald. Bernick?

UPDATE:  Last night the City deferred discussion of the mayor’s “transparency” initiative to next Monday’s Council COW meeting.  Hopefully there will be a meaningful debate on this important issue, considering how many appointed officials fill the City’s boards, committees, commissions and task forces that wield some significant power over City issues and finances – despite literally nothing but their names currently posted on the City’s website.

Frankly, we look forward to hearing the objections from any officials who have a problem with the posting of the applications they filed with the City – albeit with their residence addresses and other contact information redacted, if they insist – in order to demonstrate their qualifications for appointment/reappointment.  And while they’re at it, hopefully those folks around The Horseshoe will discuss beefing up their own on-line resumes for public consumption.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Want to know under what kind of weird-bordering-on-bizarre circumstances the announcement of the lowest Park Ridge crime rate in 5 years could provoke a grilling of the police chief by a Park Ridge alderman?

You’ll have to watch the City’s video of Monday night’s Council COW meeting (from 1:12:28 to approx. 1:21) to see for yourself, although don’t feel bad if you can’t quite figure out where that particular alderman is coming from.   

According to the Chief’s (Kaminski, not Illiniwek) 2011 Annual Report & Crime Comparison, Park Ridge’s “Index Crime Rate” for 2011 was the lowest it has been during the past five years, with a decline of 14.76% from 2010, and 12% less than in 2007.  That 2011 index rate is also 25% less than the high-crime year of 2008. 

That’s very good news, no matter how one looks at it.

While the crime rate declined, Kaminski reported a 9.7% increase in calls for police service, which he attributed to the department’s proactive community-policing initiative and an increase in public trust of the department.  That’s also a good thing.

Not surprisingly, six of our seven aldermen in attendance accepted that report with what seemed like quiet approbation. But one sounded like he was caught somewhere between disbelief and distrust.

Guess who?

If your answer was “Ald. Tom Bernick (6th),” smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.

First Bernick challenged Kaminski on what his department planned to do to address property crimes, which represent 95% of all Park Ridge crime.  Kaminski’s answer: get residents to lock their doors, because many of the burglaries reported involve thefts from unlocked homes and vehicles.

D’oh!

From there, Bernick questioned the reported reduction of drug crime, asking whether that’s the result of less enforcement.  Kaminski responded that there is not that much “street level” drug dealing and, therefore, fewer of those types of arrests.  Frankly, we would have expected Bernick’s inquiring mind to have followed up that answer with a question or two about drug enforcement in our schools. 

But Little Tommy was already off and running on his next topic: whether arrests are down because of a less-vigilant, less-efficient police department.  Kaminski rebutted that one by reiterating that arrests are down because crime is down, not only in Park Ridge but nationally.

Memo to Ald. Bernick: That’s not a “chicken and egg” situation.

After being rebuffed at every attempt to rain on Kaminski’s reduced crime parade, Bernick ended his mini-inquisition by explaining: “I didn’t want to look at these figures and then get the wrong perception that crime is down when, in reality, we weren’t making the arrests.”

We suspect there’s a clue or two in that statement about the real motivation behind Bernick’s questioning of the report.  And we suspect it has something to do with his “perception” about the police station and spending $1-plus million – or $2-3 million, when all is said and done ? – to address various “safety” concerns which, fortunately, don’t seem to be adversely affecting local crime or punishment.

Bernick’s bizarre reaction notwithstanding, Chief Kaminski’s report is not only welcome news, but it confirms what most Park Ridge residents already knew, or at least believed: that despite the pair of corpses that recently turned up, we live in a relatively safe and secure community.

And it would be even more secure if only we started locking our doors.

To read or post comments, click on title.

We have consistently argued that it isn’t the job of our City officials to confiscate money from Park Ridge taxpayers so that it can be given to certain “charitable” causes – private “community groups” like Center of Concern – favored by those City officials.  

Although we have taken a good bit of criticism for that position, Mayor Dave Schmidt and a majority of the City Council seem to have come over to that same viewpoint, as evidenced by the fact that they cut back those handouts from $190,000 to 13 community groups in 2010 to a shade under $62,000 to only 4 groups the current fiscal year.  And they have tentatively cut that to zero for the 2012-13 budget, although we understand Ald. Rich DiPietro – in response to heavy-duty lobbying from those 4 groups – is asking to re-open that part of the budget discussion.

But at least one such organization has found a way to obtain funding without putting the arm on the taxpayers through the “soft touch” that City government historically had been.

As reported in last week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park Ridge Teen Center to get boost from local nonprofit,” Feb. 9), that local philanthropic group known as the Park Ridge Juniors has designated the Park Ridge Teen Center as its “major recipient” of its 59^th annual fundraiser, scheduled for March 10 at the Park Ridge Country Club.

We applaud the Juniors for doing so.  That should be the paradigm for private community group funding.

The Teen Center was one of 9 community groups that lost their City funding in 2010, with the Teen Center losing $22,000.  One reason cutting the Teen Center’s funding was the correct decision by the City Council is that, like so many other of these private corporations who pass themselves off as “Park Ridge” groups, the Teen Center reportedly serves a significant number non-Park Ridge residents. 

That apparently goes over well with the teens who want to hang out with their friends, irrespective of whether those friends’ parents pay Park Ridge property taxes; and with the adults who run the Teen Center out of the basement of the First United Methodist Church on Touhy, who seem to prefer whining about the lack of City handouts than figuring out how to keep their pet “charity” operating without bellying up to the public trough.

But that’s bad public policy, pure and simple, which we criticized it in our 12.29.10 post, “Learning A Lesson From The Teen Center”

Interestingly enough, the concept of “public charity” was recognized as bad policy by none other than political philosopher Alexis De Tocqueville – the acclaimed author of “Democracy in America” (1835) – in his “Memoir on Pauperism,” also published in 1835.  De Tocqueville saw it as something that actually tore at the social fabric:  

[I]ndividual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor.  The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate.  The latter, supported by aid which he had no right to demand and which he had no hope to getting, feels inspired by gratitude.  A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other, and although divided by circumstance they are willingly reconciled.  This is not the case with legal charity.  The latter allows the alms to persist but removes its morality.  The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him, and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth.  The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit that no one can refuse him and that could not satisfy him in any case. 

This may not be a popular view among those private community groups who would rather accept public welfare than undertake the heavy lifting of getting their funding directly from the taxpayers through private donation, but we think it deserves more than passing consideration.  We’d like to hear the Council debate this issue for once.

Until that happens, however, we’ll be content with the Juniors’ private philanthropy.

To read or post comments, click on title.