December 17, 2008

Have A Very Merry Christmas!


crazy-frankenstein.com

We hope all our readers have a wonderful holiday season!


In addition -- We understand things are a lot tighter for almost everyone this year but, if you can, we respectfully ask would you please consider making a donation to chicagotoysfortots.org

December 16, 2008

A PRU Tuesday Twofer!



#1 -- Follow the Leader!

For those of you who spent the time to read 3rd Ward Alderman Don Bachtard's letter to the press announcing Mayor Howard's re-election bid, we commend you for your endurance. You may recall the following passage from the letter, where Bachtard claims :

"We have had far fewer closed session meetings compared than other neighboring cities, and all of them have been in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act. If any of them were not, I am sure Mr. Schmidt and his cronies would have seen to it that the incidents were reported and prosecuted for their own political purposes. Since this has not happened, in spite of their best efforts to try, it should be obvious that Mr. Schmidt's bellicose bellowing about transparency is motivated by his desire to win the election and has no basis in fact. Please also keep in mind that Mr. Schmidt was censured by his peers on the council for revealing confidential information from a closed session."

Well it looks like somebody did report it, and Mayor Howard and his cronies were admonished by the Office of the Attorney General. We thank one of our faithful readers for the submission.

MadiganIOMAltr508pg1&2


This is the incident that earned Park Ridge an Illinois Press Association 3rd Place Worsty Award. We do note that the Country Club meeting was moved back to City Hall, according to Mayor Howard, "to make everybody happy." So Bachtard's claim that all the meetings the City Council has held have been "in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act" is technically correct. But that doesn't mean Mayor Howard and his lapdogs haven't tried! And it also means that 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg's "bellicose bellowing about transparency" does appear to have some "basis in fact," in addition to the citizen survey results we assume Bachtard was given a copy of.

We also see that Alderman Bachtard is listed as a recipient of a "cc" for the Madigan letter, but maybe Bachtard didn't read it because he was busy with other things -- like spending quality time with his dictionary in preparation for one of his nasty letters to the press?



#2 -- Quickie Council Recap

As expected, at last night's City Council meeting --

1. -- PRC developers got what they asked for; the City Council voted to allow the Uptown developer to rent retail space to service provider Coldwell Banker. However, semi-PRUdos for the Council requiring that, should Coldwell Banker leave the space before the term of the lease expires, PRC will guaranty the sales tax replacement payments to the City. Additionally, the sales tax replacement payments will not be added to the deductions PRC takes before it figures the 11% rate of return on the development before profit sharing with the City. Still, don't expect any profit sharing with the City.

2. -- The 5th Ward's Benedict Alderman Ryan offered a formula for figuring square footage and the allowable number and size for televisions in restaurants. We are so relieved! The change to the liquor ordinance passed with flying colors.

3. -- Alderman Bachtard and Mayor Horses Ass got blasted by one resident who found Bachtard's letter to the press, announcing Mayor Howard's re-election bid, very negative. We're wondering if this method of operating comes as a surprise to anyone? Of course Bachtard went negative on behalf of his master! That way Mayor Howard can appear to be above the fray! Look! There Goes Elvis!

The Council was also treated to citizen opinions about their conduct in failing to second Ald. Schmidtzkrieg's motion for a resolution to discuss a referendum on building a new police station. And the citizens' opinions were decidedly unhappy.

In response to a recent quote in one of the local rags, where Mayor Howard discussed the wording of the police station referendum and said, "The way Schmidt had it questioned, no one in their right mind would vote for that. It has to be a fair and honest question, " one resident challenged Mayor Howard, saying, "Come up with your own wording for the referendum question!" The PRU Crew thinks this may be the meanest thing anybody has ever said to Mayor Howard because, as most folks know, Mayor Howard can barely manage words already written for him!

December 15, 2008

Bachtard Strikes Again! And Again! And Again!



As most of you know, the 3rd Ward's Constitutional UNscholar provides a lot of entertainment value for the PRU. If this clown didn't have a vote on the city council we'd be content to just point and laugh! But that 1/7th vote puts a bit of a damper on the comedy routine known as the Frimark administration.

Bachtard's first appearance on our blog was due to his taking part in telling the Park Ridge police department that he, along with 4th Ward Alderman Jim Allspaghetti, does not appreciate full enforcement of the Zero Tolerance law by police in Park Ridge.

At a later date, Bachtard went on to let everyone know how courageous he is for becoming an alderman on the Park Ridge city council, which inspired us to write an Ode to Alderman Dreadbach.

Bachtard continued to provide comedic value when he infamously rebuked Bill Napelton, telling Napleton he had no intention of every spending his own money at Napleton Cadillac ever again, right before he voted to give Napleton $2.4 million dollars of our money.

And who could forget Bachtard's self-described "sensationalist approach...to have a discussion on the elimination of the Tree Preservation Ordinance...His intent was to capture the attention of the community and it did just that (.pdf)", because as we all know, if there's anything the residents of Park Ridge need it's a "sensationalist approach" to public policy, and representatives who "capture the attention of the community" by making false statements about their intentions.

Given Bachtard's track record, it came as no surprise to the PRU Crew when we read that Bachtard again used a sensationalist approach in addressing the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) by suggesting that Park Ridge may be better off rejoining the Suburban O'Hare Commission (SOC). In a report in one of the local rags, Bachtard said, "I don't personally believe SOC is going to do us any good," he said, explaining that he believed the city's past involvement was a "miserable failure" which cost the city millions of dollars, largely in legal fees." The report states Bachtard's sensationalist approach was "intended to put pressure on the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration to share "accurate" information with communities surrounding O'Hare." Because as we all know, a heaping helping of hollow sensationalism is exactly what's needed when attempting to address serious issues of public policy.

So we have to ask, if Bachtard admittedly uses "sensationalist approaches" to serious discussions of important public policy issues and problems, what do you suppose he's using in his approach to political issues?

December 11, 2008

Snowball Fight!



Stay warm and have a long relaxing weekend!

December 10, 2008

PRU Holiday Briefs!



#1 -- PRU Opinion by proxy



We found ourselves unable to color inside the lines today; we could not resist the urge to comment on the arrest of Illinois Governor (we use the title loosely) Rod Blagojevich yesterday. We weren't sure exactly what we wanted to say, but we were sure it would include the word "resign" and good riddance.

Fortunately for us,
today's Chicago Tribune editorial expresses our sentiments perfectly.




#2 -- All we can say is, THANK YOU!

To the man who has stayed the course and done more to combat public corruption than anyone we know of.






#3 -- Everyone is innocent, just ask them!

Or, you can ask their attorneys.

What do Governor Blagojevich's chief of staff, John Harris who was also arrested yesterday on federal criminal charges, and Park Ridge's Mayor Howard Frimark and 4th Ward Alderman, James Allspaghetti, have in common?

They know who to call when they need their ass covered!



Remember that guy? The battle hasn't yet begun, but we're putting our money on the US Attorney in this match-up.




#4 -- While visions of campaign contributions danced in his head!



Looks like Third Ward Alderman, Don Bachtard may have fired his load a little early?



From the press article -- "It was 3rd Ward Alderman Don Bach who announced Frimark's plans to seek a second term in office when he submitted a letter to the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate on Monday, stating his intention to place his support behind Frimark."



And -- "When contacted this week, Frimark confirmed that he will run for re-election, but declined to comment very much beyond that, saying he would discuss his reasons for running and his record as mayor on Dec. 20. He also said a press release would be issued within days."



...as soon as his likely campaign manager writes it for him.







Hey dollface, whose email accounts will you be raiding, presumably without permission, this campaign season? And, we can't wait to see the positively libelous emails that will be landing in the electronic inboxes of Park Ridge citizens! That was you, wasn't it dollface? Maybe Mayor Howard can give you Ekl's office number.

December 9, 2008

Doing Less with More!



Many of you may remember when Mayor Howard was pushing his referendum to cut the city council from 2 aldermen per ward to 1 alderman per ward.

One of the robo-calls Mayor Howard sent out to voters included the promise that, should voters approve his referendum, it would save money. The PRU Crew knew the sum would be paltry in relation to the city budget, but the argument wasn't a lie or all that unreasonable.

When the Crew was doing our reading of the city budget documents for our library post yesterday, one of the Crew noticed another interesting tidbit at the top of pg. 10 --


Summary of Expenses 08/09



That interesting tidbit is the Legislative line item. The Legislative budget does include expenses beyond the $1,000 per month paid to the Mayor, the $750 per month paid to the Clerk, and the $100 per month paid to the aldermen. As we expected, the Legislative line item in the city budget was projected to drop after the council was cut, but it looks as if the actual budget expenditure was $5,200 more than the actual expense for the previous 14 member council.

What we didn't expect was, after the initially projected drop in the legislative budget, that line item would immediately rise to a level above that of the previous council. And what we're baffled by is the near doubling of that legislative budget line item for 2008/09.

We believe the police department audit cost probably accounts for the drastic increase, but we are left wondering why the budget for 2009/10 doesn't again reflect the savings Mayor Howard said would be ours if we cut the council.

It looks to us as if Mayor Howard isn't doing more with less, as he promised. But rather, he and his lapdogs are doing less and costing us just as much and more!

December 8, 2008

Hog Heaven!



We found last week's library discussion amazing. Despite the fact that our post was for the purpose of discussing the machinations being employed to attempt to expand the current library or build a new library altogether -- something that is expressly planned for in the Park Ridge Library's Action Plans for 2007 - 2009 -- there were those who, in the myopic fashion of the self-absorbed few, think everything they choose to do merits public support. We had one commenter insist on declaring demands for subsidies to be a right -- that genius, who can resubmit that stupid comment here today, tried to cover his or her shameless tracks by characterizing such demands as "freedom of speech." We're not sure, but we don't think shameless whining for government subsidies is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they included that bit in the First Amendment; though we have to admit such idiocy does qualify in the broadest sense. There's no law against being stupid, nor against the frivolous exercise of one's Constitutional rights.

We can understand those who hold
"The Audacity of Hope" -- but we think having the audacity to ask other community members to further fund the expansion of subsidized programs and shoulder the extra costs for personal entertainment choices is beyond shameless, especially given the current economic climate and outlook, and especially in a particularly privileged and well-to-do community like Park Ridge. We would go so far as to say those who claim to have an understanding of community, and then proclaim their right to ask for more based on that erroneous understanding, do not in fact understand anything about community -- certainly not their own responsibility to their fellow community members.

But instead of talking about the philosophical aspects of community, community subsidies, the shameless grabbing for more benefits than one may contribute to, irrespective of any measure for legitimate need, let's take a look at some real numbers.

On the Park Ridge Library web site, you can find the following --


PR Library Annual Revenue Page







The dollar bill illustration shows that of the $.13 total cents collected by the city from each property tax dollar, "only" $.04 goes to the library.

What you won't find is the bottom half of that dollar illustration page, which was copied from the city budget. We've included the full page (pg. 4 of the summary) from the city budget below for your review.

City Budget Summary







We're also wondering why the full library budget, or at least an annual expense page, isn't included on the library web site -- maybe we missed it?

We figure it is likely the Park Ridge Library authorities chose not to include the bottom half of the city budget dollar illustration page because they didn't want to have to explain it.

But we'll go ahead and try to do so, as simply as possible.

The fact is, of the total $.13 collected by the city, $.04 is dedicated exclusively to funding the library. But as you can see the second dollar illustration shows that of the total funds collected per dollar by the city, 28% -- more than a quarter or almost one third (it used to be a full one third) -- goes to the library alone.

We're also pretty sure the Park Ridge Library authorities do not want to have to explain why the 7 programs operated by the library require 28% of the distribution of funding, while the 44 programs operated out of the city's general fund "only" require 29% of the city's distribution of the revenue collected.

Even more simply -- the city funds 44 programs by collecting $.09 cents from every property tax dollar, while the library funds only 7 programs by collecting $.04 cents (almost half of what the city collects) from every property tax dollar.

How can this be? We think it may have something to do with the Park Ridge Library payroll. There are roughly a total of 100 people -- including full time and part time -- on the library payroll, 65+/- who qualify for benefits.

Compare that to the Public Works Administration and Public Works Service Center employees combined -- there are roughly 73 full and part time employees, all receiving benefits, who are responsible for all the physical and mechanical needs of the entire 7 square miles of the City of Park Ridge vs. the library staff which is responsible for the 36,000 square foot library building and the collection inside it.

O.K., some may say that the library has to deal with boatloads of visitors every day. Well that may explain why, of the $4,792,700 Library Operating Budget, they spend $3,573,000, or 75% of their total operating budget, on personal services, which is municipal speak for "salaries, wages, and benefits for employees."

The point of all of the above is to get the people asking for more to realize that the library already eats up a ton of public revenue for what they provide to patrons. We are not suggesting, nor have we read any blog comments suggesting, that any library staff should be laid off. But we strongly feel that the library programs, building and staff should not be expanded.

While there are those who will continue to profess the intangible benefits of expanding library programs to serve what is, by
the library's own reported statistics, a lower number of visitors than in years past, as well as a higher circulation despite a decreasing collection, there are other city-wide budget problems to be considered.

For those who want to expand either the library programming or the library building, itself, we want to know how you intend to pay for those things. We would like to know if you would choose to cut other public services in exchange for expansion of services you want at the library, or if you would seek to raise property taxes collected by the city? And, by how much? Or, do you feel the city should simply borrow money to pay for the things you want? And, do you realize that incurring debt comes with, dare we say it, intangible as well as measurable costs?

Remember people, last year the city had a deficit of $1.7 million, and is already looking at another deficit this year of approximately $1.6 million.

The PRU Crew has never been quick to defend the city council, and we think they were asleep at the wheel during the last city budget process. But we'll be damned if we're willing to put them on the hook for all this mess and let the whiny grabbers walk away as if they aren't responsible in some fashion.

So! Here's a
link to the city budget page on the city web site. If you want a hard copy of the city budget, you can request one from City Hall. Take a look. Get out your pencil. Start slicing, dicing, and rearranging -- or adding in the costs of desired programs and the requisite tax increases to pay for them. Since there are those who seem to feel the sky's the limit, we can keep in mind we are a home rule unit of local government -- our city officials can tax us as high as they want to for anything and everything that anybody asks for. Go ahead. Tell your representatives what you think they should do. After all, as our genius commenter said, it's your right to ask them for what you want.

Or, tell your city council that you prefer to cut road paving and salting because it's not that you fail to recognize that, beyond anybody's "subsidized two-car driving habit", police, fire and ambulance services also use those very same roads, but rather you would prefer to spend money having librarians pay authors to read to toddlers.

Or better yet, tell your neighbors to quit complaining about flooding every year. Relief sewers? Feh! Go ahead. Tell your neighbors and your city council that flooding is something we all have to accept because there is no difference between the value of relief sewers and stocking the library with current bestsellers.

For the PRU Crew's part, we think people who claim the right to ask their government for anything and everything they want, should also take responsibility for telling their elected officials how they want them to provide the things they want. Think of it as being fully a part of your community.

December 5, 2008

Let It Snow!



from -- SnowCrystals.com

... musings on that eternal, infernal question ...

Is it really true that no two snowflakes are alike?

Think warm thoughts and have a wonder-filled weekend!

December 4, 2008

Comment in the Spotlight!



Joe said...

Police station petition.


If anyone is interested in gathering signatures to place an advisory referendum on the next ballot, I have one drafted based on Alderman Schmidt's attempt to allow the taxpayers of Park Ridge decide whether or not we should spent over $24 million (includes interest but not operational and maintenance costs) in front of the City Council. I will need at least 25 volunteers that would be willing to gather at least 100 signatures each. I am researching exactly how many we would need. Time is of the essence since our City Council is afraid to ask this question. They are committed to going forward without our input. If you are interested, please email me at jjegan1@aol.com. I would also need someone to co-lead this effort.

December 3, 2008 8:54 PM

December 3, 2008

Of Fishbowls and Librarians!



We're sure you've heard the old adage: a fish will grow to fit the size of it's bowl. The PRU Crew feels this adage holds true for librarians and their libraries too!

Last week we read a story in one of the local fish wraps headlined, "Library feels pinch of limited event space." According to Janet Van De Carr, executive director of the library, the "pinch" being felt by library staff is a product of "requests from parents to provide more programs for children", though Ms. Van De Carr always fails to mention that these programs are free to users, courtesy of the taxpayers. The PRU Crew feels that these users should at least write thank you notes to all the taxpayers before asking for more freebies.

So now Ms. Van De Carr will "meet with an architectural firm the library has used in the past to obtain a cost estimate and learn if an office trailer can be located anywhere on the library's property."

If the office trailer becomes a reality for library staff, who will be moved out of their current work space so that space can be dedicated exclusively to more children's programs, it won't be long before we will begin to hear about the over-crowded conditions in the office trailer and how a first-class town like Park Ridge shouldn't have a third-rate facility that forces staff into low-class trailers to provide minimal event space for the children. And we're willing to bet there will be great amounts of discussion about not taking up precious parking spaces, so the office trailer will have to be placed somewhere else -- no doubt in a very visible location that, by design, will detract from "the character of the library and town." The solution? We need to build a new library!

And no matter how big a new library is, the goldfish librarians will grow their collections and programs to fit the space available. The largest library in the world is the U.S. Library of Congress which was begun some 200 years ago with fewer than 1000 books in its collection, but now holds 30,011,748 volumes and "115 million items in a number of formats", with a commensurately large staff and budget of $300,000,000.00 -- because the larger the library building, the bigger the collection, the more programs conducted, the more staff will have to be added, and the more taxes will have to be collected to fund it, beyond what will have to be borrowed to pay for a new facility or even just an addition to the current one.

B.O.H.I.C.A.!

December 2, 2008

Council Recap -- SSSHHHHH!



Our sources report that last night's City Council meeting was business as usual for the forces of darkness.

After the usual beginning niceties, including congratulations for our Maine South Football Champions, Mayor Howard let everyone know he's a day late and a dollar short on chasing the O'Hare noise problem. While Mayor Howard was doing his Rip Van Winkle impression, when he wasn't voting to pull out of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, the problem of noise and the new runway configuration at O'Hare was creeping up on the citizens of Park Ridge. But now Mayor Howard, and one of his more drooling alderdogs, Don Bachtard (3rd ward), are "challenging the FAA" to provide answers to questions about the jet noise. If either of these idiots had bothered to pay attention to this issue over the last several years, they would find all the answers they're now looking for in the meeting minutes of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. Or they could have spent an afternoon in the park on the North end of Park Ridge for a taste of things that were to come.

"Challenging the FAA" -- that is very funny stuff!

Next on the council agenda was 1st ward Alderman Dave Schmidt's report and resolution request to put the issue of building a new police station to a referendum vote. In stark contrast to the treatment of every other single resolution undertaken by the council, our sources report that Mayor Howard would not allow Ald. Dave to read an opening statement to begin his report and then offer a motion to adopt the resolution. When Ald. Dave began speaking, Mayor Howard cut him off asking for a motion. Ald. Dave then read the shorter text of the referendum question and motioned the item up for discussion and debate. Mayor Howard then asked for a second to the motion, as required by Roberts Rules of Order, so that discussion and debate could begin. Our sources report that for the first time, Mayor Howard proceeded very slowly through the process of asking for a second -- asking three times if there was anyone to second the motion. All the other aldermen on the council remained silent, and the motion died -- along with the possibility of a public discussion and debate -- for lack of a second.

The PRU Crew feels that, no matter where anyone falls on the issue of building a new police station, everyone should have the guts to discuss, debate and defend their position publicly. And if you are an elected representative of the people, you are obligated to grab hold of your fortitude and tell the people of Park Ridge, in an open forum, why you don't feel they should have a direct and explicit say on the issue through a referendum vote.

We're told two members of the audience rose to address the council after bearing witness to the shenanigans, calling the council's action -- or lack of action -- "appalling" and "sorely disappointing."

The City Council then moved on to other business which included debate and discussion, in great detail, of whether or not to allow businesses to advertise that they have televisions in their establishment, and whether or not minors can play arcade games in an establishment "when accompanied by a person twenty-one years of age." We are told the discussion of keeping our local youth safe from the ills of arcade games took about 30 minutes, and the ordinance passed on a final vote of 5 (Schmidt, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Carey) to 2 (DiPietro and Wsol).

We bet our readers may be wondering why the council was willing to spend a half hour on the minutia of the liquor ordinance, while foregoing any discussion on the potential expenditure of an estimated $20million dollars and a referendum vote. The PRU Crew feels anyone wondering about that should contact their alderman and the Mayor, and ask.

The final highlight in the council's actions last night was to tell PRC Partners, the development entity for Target Area 2 (Uptown), they would have to wait another two weeks before the council would again consider their request to lease space to service provider, Coldwell Banker, instead of a sales tax generating business.

We're told the discussion between the council and two of the partners for PRC began very cordially, but as it became clear the council wasn't in a mood to again give a concession to PRC, the partners became somewhat testy and said the city wasn't likely to ever see the originally promised profit sharing, and that the city should take this deal now. The partners also let it be known that every payment made to the city now, in return for the city's concessions to PRC, is included as an expense that is added to the project. What this means, people, is that PRC is adding expenses to the ledger which will almost guaranty that the city never sees a dime of profit from the project, because if the 11% target return for PRC partners isn't met, then the city is left out of the calculation for profit taking. So, is there anybody out there who would be willing to settle for an 8% return on an investment? We're betting the PRC partners will be just fine with that.

Alderman James Allspaghetti (4th ward) asked what would happen with the potential tenant if the council didn't approve the deal in a timely manner? The partners for PRC said they weren't sure what the potential tenant would do, but that it was important to approve the concession. We are told Allspaghetti then launched into one of his long winded and circular ramblings about approving the concession because the empty spaces in the new development are bad!

We are also told that a member of the audience then rose to address the council and, citing "the interest of full disclosure", said that Coldwell Banker is already leasing space in town and that if they were to move into the new development another, larger space would become vacant.

The PRU Crew has long heard that PRC Partners has spent a great deal of time trying to "canibalize" other local businesses in their efforts to fill up their development.

We give big PRUdos to the council for deferring action on this item until the costs to the city can be more fully understood. However, we're not foolish enough to believe the council will see this one through, and we think PRC will eventually get exactly what they're asking for again.

December 1, 2008

Back in the Saddle!




We hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving with lots of leftovers!

Tonight's City Council
agenda (.pdf) is full of fun! The items of particular interest to the Crew are 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidt's resolution for a referendum on the question of building a new police station, the agreement to let PRC Partners lease space to another service business that doesn't generate retail sales tax revenue, and an agreement that will allow Red Speed, the red light camera company, to line their pockets at taxpayer expense.
We hope to be able to publish a recap tomorrow!

November 26, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!


by: VermontFerret - flickr.com

Have a great holiday!

November 25, 2008

Sunshine Superman! -- Updated!


By: daniellefave

Many of you may remember that back in March Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg got into trouble with Mayor Howard and his council lapdogs for daring to disclose public business to the public.

The PRU Crew decided to nominate Ald. Dave for a Sunshine Troublemaker of the Week award, and Ald. Dave won!

The Open Records blog wrote, "Alderman Schmidt’s response to a “resolution of condemnation” signed by the Mayor and several other alderman is that it is an: …illegal resolution [which] will have absolutely no effect on how I conduct myself as an alderman, so the mayor’s behind-the-scenes machinations were a complete waste of time.”

As with most things, time is the test. So we are very pleased to see that Ald. Dave is making good on his promise to continue to be open and honest with the public. And we are very pleased to see Ald. Dave has made that promise part of his campaign platform.

Addendum -- The fine folks over at the Open Records blog have taken notice!

November 24, 2008

We're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat!

Back in October of 2007, a little over a year ago, we told PRU readers Lesson #1: Pay Attention!



In that piece we wrote about how the council's Finance and Budget committee, chaired by the Lord of the Manor, Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) had been cancelling meetings. We viewed those cancellations as a mixed blessing but warned that, "We sure do hope the Lord of the Manor is paying attention, because his won't be the only ass that could get bitten by something that creeps up from behind."

Six months later, in April 2008, we again wrote about the Finance and Budget committee meeting to discuss some serious budget issues that had crept up. We called that piece
Lesson #2: Pay Attention or Pay Up!

Well people, just another six months later and the piper's come calling again, and he's got really really big teeth and an insatiable appetite! The city's bloody red spending is starting to look a lot like this --



Who's the guy on the surf board, you may ask? You'll find the answer in the mirror.

Last year's red ink totaled a whopping $1.7 million dollars, and according to some of the recent articles in the local rags, the city is poised to be swamped with another red ink wave of the same magnitude.

We're glad to see the Finance and Budget committee hasn't cancelled their next meeting (.pdf), but we sure do wish they'd post those financial statements their background memo (.pdf) refers to.

So people, how long can you tread water?

November 21, 2008

Real Estate Downfall!

...the housing bubble bursts on a speculator.



Enjoy life's simple pleasures this weekend!

November 20, 2008

Reader Soapbox!



Today we read in the Park Ridge Herald that Alderman Ryan has asked for costs involving potential design/construction of a new police station.

I for one am for this and congratulate the city fathers once and for all.

But , recently we have seen the posted statements by our new city manager Mr. James Hock who stated that we are currently operating a city budget that is in the "red ".

Therefore, if we are already in the hole - why would we go forward with this proposal ?

Did we miss something here ?

A letter was submitted ( respectfully ) with suggestions as to how we can cut the fat from the budget. Such as :

- Stop the use of take home city cars for those non-emergency personnel.

- Stop all paid overtime with time due being substitute until funds are available.

- Salary cuts and start from the top down on a volunteer basis - first.

We are in tough financial times and have seen other cities cut very deep such as the city of Naperville in cutting three officers and two fire fighters from their budget.

The city of Hoffman estates had decided not to fill the five vacancies from their police department also due to the budget.

We certainly hope that this will not be the case here in Park Ridge but if we don't get tough and stop the spending and make some revisions within the city - we could see the above nightmare in loosing highly trained city department personnel being laid off.

I'm sure this is not what the city and the residents want.
Less coverage and more spending.

Its like the current rear wheel squad cars that we have patrolling the streets - when the heavy snow comes - our wheels will only spin.

We need some traction with our budget and those who protect us deserve only the best. Let's not let them or the residents down before its too late.

Thank you.
Gene Spanos
Park Ridge Resident

November 19, 2008

New Meat!




The PRU Crew is very happy to post the following announcement!

Today I am announcing my candidacy for the office of Mayor of Park Ridge.

When I was elected First Ward Alderman less than two years ago, my only desire was to serve the residents of the First Ward to the best of my ability – in the most open, accountable, and fiscally-conservative way possible. And that is what I have tried to do for these past 18 months.

But during my time in office, it has become increasingly clear that the entire city is suffering from a lack of vision, a lack of credibility, and a lack of leadership in City Hall. Most troubling, however, is the widespread lack of confidence and trust in the person currently holding the office of mayor.

Consequently, I am running for mayor, first and foremost, to restore the public’s trust in city government and in the office of mayor.

As "The Great Communicator," President Ronald Reagan, advised: "trust, but verify." As mayor of Park Ridge I pledge that city government will earn our residents’ trust by making everything it does – EVERYTHING – completely transparent and readily "verifiable."

I will work to ensure that all important information about city government is posted on the city’s website in a timely fashion, and that it is posted in an easily accessible and understandable form. The city’s website should be the ultimate public information resource, available 24/7 and fifty-two weeks per year.

Not only do I pledge to make Park Ridge city government as transparent as possible, but I promise to end the secret, behind-the-scenes deal-making that has characterized city government under the current administration. There will be no special sweetheart deals at the taxpayers’ expense for anybody – not my friends, not my business associates, not my campaign contributors.

Not only will I disclose any personal, social or business relationship with anyone seeking anything from the city, but I will not cast a tie-breaking vote on any such matter, because the residents of Park Ridge who pay this city’s bills also keep this city’s heart; and they should never have to wonder for even an instant whose side their mayor is on.

I believe in balanced budgets and sound fiscal policy because we cannot govern ourselves and provide for the future of our community by a policy of irresponsible spending and debt. I oppose mortaging our city's and our children's future for short term benefits or mere convenience. And I support utilizing our limited resources to do what is most important to the residents: upgrade and maintain our city’s infrastructure and delivery of basic services instead of going further into debt to build a new police facility.

As a fiscal conservative and believer in the free market system, I consider myself a friend of business. The residents want and need a vibrant business community. As mayor, I will work for a city government that encourages, accommodates and facilitates the ownership and operation of local businesses, but that does not spend our hard-earned tax dollars on handouts and subsidies.

I am running for mayor because this community stands at a crossroads. It has survived and thrived as a bedroom community made up of primarily single-family residences, conveniently located to both the Loop and O'Hare Airport. But the current mayor and his allies, while claiming to love this community, at the same time have worked relentlessly to drastically and permanently change this community's appearance and fundamental character. I do not believe the residents support such a change.

In addition to its uniquely exceptional location, the quality of life here in Park Ridge is what draws people to move here and remain here. That is why I support the preservation of a diverse assortment of structures and appropriate green space, and why I believe that growth and development must be held to the highest standards of performance and compatibility with this city’s character and feel. I pledge to look carefully at every development application to ensure that it does not adversely affect the existing character and uses of the area in which the development will occur.

Finally, I have chosen to run for mayor because I have found the vast majority of the people of Park Ridge are confident, courageous, generous and persevering. Those are the people whom I would be honored and privileged to represent and serve as mayor of this city, and those are the people whose support I seek in this endeavor.


I welcome the input of the residents from whom I will draw my strength and support. Anyone wishing to contact me or learn more about me, where I stand and what my vision is for Park Ridge should visit my campaign website at electdaveschmidt.com.

Watch your back, Alderman Dave. The purveyors of the status quo -- peddlers of business as usual -- are massing to give you one hell of a fight.

November 18, 2008

Attempting A Municipal Mobius Strip Trip!


Mobius Strip


Our source reports have come in and here we go, PRU readers! A council recap for your reading pleasure!


As most of you know the City Council met last night at Washington School. After the usual niceties of roll call and pledge of allegiance, the council got to work.


First up was a proclamation in recognition of the Rotary Club Fruit Day; the citrus variety.


Next, Mayor Howard reported on this past weekend's Strategic Planning meeting. According to the mayor, the city staff and council met on both Friday evening and Saturday to formulate their grand plan -- 12 formulated goals for Park Ridge to "move forward" in the upcoming years. Mayor Howard assured everyone that a report of the meeting would be available in the near future. We can hardly wait to see what this bunch of spendthrifts has planned for us now!


Then Mayor Howard repeated his prepared statement about respecting all points of view and that the audience has generally been respectful and he wanted that to continue. The Mayor went on to say that while a site for a homeless shelter was no longer being considered the council would still have to amend the municipal code to address the issue of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. The Mayor also reminded those present that speaking time for members of the audience would be limited to 3 minutes.


Alderman Frank Wsol (7th ward) then offered a nice remembrance for the recent passing of Dr. Martin Doot of Lutheran General Hospital. Dr. Doot was a member of the Community Health Commission and instrumental in that commission's founding.


The City Attorney's report was next on the agenda. Buzz Hill, as required by ordinance for the responsibilities of the City Attorney, made a disclosure for Acting Director of Community Development, Ms. Carrie Davis. Park Ridge Plaza LLC is a petitioner to the city and Ms. Davis' husband works for the architectural firm that represents the petitioner; therefore, Ms. Davis will not participate further in the applicant's petition for consideration from the city.


The City Clerk, Betty Henneman, then informed the assembly that the recent referendum to stagger the terms of aldermen passed by nearly 70% of the vote. The staggering of aldermanic terms will begin in the year 2011.


City Manager, Jim Hock, then began his report. The first item of business was final approval of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters. Mr. Hock clarified language in the ordinance regarding medical care -- "medical care, nursing care or clinical services may not be offered as a regular service at any temporary overnight shelter." Some exceptions apply to seasonal vaccinations, non-prescription drugs, emergency medical attention, and routine, non-invasive treatments.


The ordinance was motioned for consideration by the 2nd ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro. Mayor Howard then asked the council if they had any questions, and we are pleased to report that none of the aldermen were dumb enough to admit it if, at this point in time, they did. The Mayor then moved to comments from the audience.


Ms. Jennifer Conlon, the champion of all things ministerial, rose to speak. Our sources report Ms. Conlon tried to finagle longer than a 3 minute limit on speaking time but, to his unusual credit, Mayor Howard denied that request. Ms. Conlon then read a prepared statement that repeated the same old, discredited positions held by the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and the PADS homeless shelter supporters.


Ms. Conlon then asked the council to vote against the ordinance, or to table it. And that is where the idea of a municipal mobius strip trip comes in. In the Crew's view, what Ms. Conlon and her cohorts -- each addressing the council to ask that they vote against the licensing regulation or table the ordinance -- were attempting to do after what has been a long, twisting, and arduous trip down the municipal process path, is to attempt to begin at the beginning again. Doesn't that sound like fun? Wouldn't everyone like to go through this all over again? Wasn't it fun? Everyone who's taken this trip could just take one more step and find themselves right back where they started! Rockin' good time!


Next Ms. Margaret Gallagher Smythe picked up where Ms. Conlon's 3 minutes ended, and she too repeated, for 3 minutes, the warn out arguments of how Journeys from PADS to Hope has been done wrong!


Next Mr. Joe Garvey continued in the shared statement, offering his 3 minutes to ask if Park Ridge wants to be a town that only "writes checks" to charities? As far as the PRU Crew is concerned, that sounds fine by us. But we are wondering which self-righteous charities will now begin turning away cash donations being offered by the generous residents of Park Ridge? Maybe Mr. Garvey should put together a list and let everyone know which charities don't want just our checks any longer.


After Mr. Garvey spoke, Mrs. Garvey rose to offer her portion of the endlessly shared 3 minute statement. Mrs. Garvey informed all present that she's lived in Park Ridge for 38 years and that after all the meetings it's very sad that there won't be a homeless shelter in Park Ridge this year. Jeeze, Mrs. Garvey, have you been sad about that for the past 38 years? Or did it take you 38 years to notice Park Ridge doesn't have a homeless shelter?


Mrs. Garvey took particular aim at Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st ward) and "his band of anonymous bloggers" who had "entertained" everyone and treated this issue "like a Saturday Night Live skit!"


-- The PRU Crew will pause now and take a bow! --


Though we were hoping to be more like "The Onion" -- we like this one too -- we'll settle for comparisons to Saturday Night Live! Knock, knock Mrs. Garvey -- Candy gram!


Mrs. Garvey went on to speculate on whether Ald. Schmidt was the source that revealed the nasty email from Fr. Carl Morello in which he accused those opposed to a PADS homeless shelter of "racial and economic bigotry." For the record, the PRU Crew states that we also received copies of Fr. Carl Morello's email, and Ald. Schmidt was not the source. If we'd gotten it a day sooner, we would have scooped the Pub-dogs!


Then Mrs. Garvey decided to sling some serious dirt and stated that Ald. Schmidt told a news reporter the PRMA was staging a protest march. We do not know if Ald. Schmidt did that, but we will say we believe we were the first to publicly characterize the PRMA's "Bellowing for the Homeless" as a protest march through Uptown Park Ridge, because march through Uptown Park Ridge is exactly what they did. These folks are really radicals! (editor's note -- paragraph content corrected)


Mrs. Garvey concluded her remarks by saying that Ald. Schmidt's actions may not be illegal but they have been unethical and "he deserves sanctioning from the citizens and council."


Well, Ald. Dave -- at least she didn't threaten to condemn you! But we do feel that if you run for Mayor you may want to skip knocking on the Garvey's door, unless you're delivering a candy gram! And you can take comfort in knowing that, even after having lived in Park Ridge for 38 years, Mrs. Garvey still only gets to cast one vote. Democracy is funny that way.


Then, on a roll call vote, the council voted 6 (Carey, Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, and Allegretti) to 1 (Ryan) to approve the final reading of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters.


Next came a motion for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process.


Alderman Bach offered an amendment to attempt to limit shelter operations to Friday and Saturday nights to "protect kids" and make sure there would be "no Monday morning overlap." Our sources tell us that they truly believe that this amendment was offered with conviction and sincere consideration for the school children and concerned parents, and that the PRU Crew should be nice to Bach today, which is why we aren't going to call him Bachtard for the rest of our post today.


Again it was Ms. Jennifer Conlon who rose to speak, and ask that all the "evidence" presented by the homeless shelter supporters on September 23, 2008 be included in the record. We don't remember a public meeting taking place on that date, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a meeting held with homeless shelter -- PADS supporters or that they didn't submit "evidence" to city officials on the subject. Ms. Conlon went on to say that there is no evidence to support claims that the homeless pose a risk, that there is no evidence that this will apply anywhere else children are present, and that this is discrimination against the homeless in violation of city ordinances.


Alderman DiPietro said he would not vote for Bach's amendment because he felt they have "talked this thing to death" and the amendment was "over the top." Alderman Schmidt refuted Ms. Conlon's claims of lack of evidence of the health and safety risks that homeless shelters may pose.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed in a vote of 3 (Carey, Schmidt, and Bach) to 4 (Wsol, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Ryan).


Then it was Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan's (5th ward) turn to try his hand at offering an amendment. Ryan wanted to add language that "parking for temporary overnight shelters be entirely on site, or immediately adjacent to, or directly across the street." Ryan was inspired to offer this amendment because several people had concerns about the homeless congregating in the area of a shelter and that St. Mary's did not have enough on-site parking.


Alderman Wsol asked if it was more appropriate to follow past parking regulations and would this apply to any other entities? Acting Director of Community Development Carrie Davis said "the regulations used typically satisfy parking for the use of the property", which should now make that issue clear to everyone.


Alderman DiPietro said he felt the current, relevant language "gives staff broad leeway to incorporate what Ald. Ryan is proposing." The City Attorney said the current, relevant language gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to fashion the special use.


When it was time for comments from the audience, everyone's favorite homeless shelter pusher, Ms. Jennifer Conlon rose again to address the council. After hearing the audible groans from other members of the audience, Ms. Conlon prefaced her remarks by saying, "Someone has to speak on behalf of the people who are cold", which we are told by our sources prompted the Herald-Advocate reporter to leave her seat and turn off a giant fan whirring in one corner of the room. Ms. Conlon went on to say that she thought Ryan's amendment was ridiculous and she asked whether the next regulation would be to have the homeless "wear little aitches (h)?" Now that you mention it, Ms. Conlon, that's not a bad idea -- it would make it easier for all the super duper do gooders to identify those in need and take one or two of them into their own homes, one night a week or 365 nights a year; your choice, and bonus! no regulations!


When it was again the council's turn to speak, Ryan took umbrage at having his parking amendment called "ridiculous", and DiPietro said he understood the intent of the amendment but that the language under the special use is there now.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed by 2 (Bach and Ryan) to 5 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Carey)


But Benedict Alderman Ryan was not deterred and offered another amendment to change language that would require application for special use to be made by the owner and operator of a homeless shelter, if the owner of the property were different from the operator. The motion for this amendment died for lack of a second. Still, Ryan felt the need to explain that he wanted to change the language so that the PRMA would be considered the operator and he felt there was no need for co-applicants, that the language as it now stands is onerous, and would discourage helping those in need.


On a final roll call vote, for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process, the council voted 5 (Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, and Wsol) to 2 (Ryan and Carey) to adopt the ordinance.


At this point a member of the audience tried to ask Mayor Howard if she could address the council because many members of the audience had thought they would be given a chance to speak to the main motion just passed by the council but that Mayor Howard had not asked the audience for comment. Mayor Howard denied her request.


And the Crew would again like to repeat segments from one of our earlier posts on this subject --


"The PRU Crew would like to add a special note here -- while we are disappointed that the council did not adopt the zoning text amendment as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and while we would have really liked to see at least one alderman offer a resolution to the council to have the matter voted on in a referendum, we could not be happier about the participation of so many Park Ridge residents and local church parishioners.


What you have done is no less than carry on the greatest tradition of democracy ever known. You participated -- deeply, consistently, and unwaveringly. You have stepped up, taken hold of the microphone and spoken your views -- more eloquently and ably than many of you give yourselves credit for. Without each and every one of you, even the people we feel have been totally stupid on this issue, there would be no democracy. Without debate and consideration there is no democracy. To those of you who so diligently did your homework on this matter, you should take tremendous pride in seeing that much of what you researched on the matter and demanded from your representatives has been made part of the legislation governing this issue. We agree that the most important demand, the 500 ft. regulation that would have kept homeless shelters out of elementary schools, is a tough and heartbreaking loss. Nevertheless, you should view this entire process as a win. You worked for it. You earned it. Continue to demand that your elected officials respond to your concerns and represent your best interests.


For the PRU Crew's part, we're damn glad to know ya."


And we sure hope none of us is given a reason to have to talk about PADS or the PRMA for a long while.


In other council business, Ald. Schmidt refused to authorize another payment to the law firm of Ekl Williams, who our souces tell us has now billed the city for a total of approximately $100,000.00 -- 33% above the original bid for the police department audit. Ald. Schmidt said Terry Ekl had billed the city $2,000.00 to appear before the council and stonewall elected officials in answering questions. Schmidt attempted to amend the motion to approve the warrants -- payments of city bills -- to exclude the Ekl Williams bill, but the amendment died for lack of a second and the council voted 6 to 1 to approve the warrants.


The last items of business on the council agenda were approvals for an IDOT resolution to indemnify the State of Illinois for red light camera equipment placed on IDOT property, authorization for the city to enter an agreement for red light cameras, and to approve the placement of one red light camera at Oakton and Northwest Hwy. These three first reading motions were each approved on a unanimous voice vote of the council.


Finally under New Business --


1. -- Alderman Schmidt professed to having a "brain cramp" and said he had intended to vote "no" to the main motion to adopt the text amendment to the zoning code regarding homeless shelters. He reminded the assembly that the ordinances do not prohibit homeless shelters in Park Ridge, they only regulate them, and he urged all citizens interested in the issue of homelessness to rally behind the Park Ridge Center of Concern.


2. -- Alderman Schmidt said there is a difference of opinion regarding the building of a new police station and that to address this difference he would introduce a resolution at the next city council meeting, asking the council to approve a resolution for a referendum vote on the issue. PRUdos to Ald. Schmidt!


3. -- Resident John Humm asked the council about any follow-up report on the flooding issues and whether the Sibley Pump Station had been repaired yet. Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim said the pump would be repaired tomorrow. Ald. Bach told Mr. Humm he has asked the City Engineer for a report, and also if Mr. Humm would be willing to participate in meeting with himself, the Mayor and various government muckety mucks to see if they can find a solution -- "solution" being "government speak" for money -- to the flooding problems.


With that, the council adjourned the meeting.

November 17, 2008

Solutions Seeking Problems!


photo credit: pissedpoet pics; artist, Henry Bateman

Or, bait and switch, if you prefer.

The PRU Crew feels today's post title perfectly captures the essence of one of the meetings set to take place tonight.

First up will be a Special Public Safety Committee meeting whose members, Chairman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward), Don Bachtard (3rd ward), and James Allspaghetti (4th ward) will take action to "APPROVE IDOT RESOLUTION AGREEING TO INDEMNIFY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR PHOTO ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO IDOT FACILITIES."

If nothing else, government bureaucracy is exceptionally good at finger pointing.

In the cover memo (.pdf) for tonight's meeting we read that "IDOT does not allow Red Light Cameras at intersections interconnected with railroad crossing signals"; the Oakton and Dee intersection, that was originally recommended for a red light camera by Red Speed. We wonder if the consultant, Mr. Liebert of Red Speed, knew about the IDOT regulation the first time his company studied and then recommended that intersection in Park Ridge? He's an expert in this area, isn't he?

It is also interesting to note that the intersection now being recommended for a red light camera, Oakton and Northwest Hwy., was not among the intersections initially recommended by either of the red light camera companies asked to do studies. According to the August 7, 2008 Public Safety meeting minutes (.pdf) Mr. Liebert's Red Speed company studied 5 intersections and recommended 3 intersections for red light camera installation: one camera at Oakton & Dee, Summit & Touhy, and Cumberland & Devon. Red Speed didn't study the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy.; that was probably left to the other red light camera company, Red Flex.

According to the July 17, 2008 minutes (.pdf) of the Public Safety Committee meeting, Red Flex did not find enough violations at the 5 intersections they studied to justify installation of red light cameras. And according to acting Chief of Police Swoboda, the "top ten intersections" in Park Ridge were studied by these red light camera companies. Anyone care to guess whether or not the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy. was among the "top ten intersections" studied?

So now, since IDOT won't allow installation of a red light camera at the intersection originally recommended by Red Speed, all the red light camera fans can all take comfort that another study was done and, voila! There now appear to be enough violations at the newly recommended intersection to justify installation of a city cash generator -- oh, sorry! We meant to say red light photo enforcement equipment.

And can anybody tell us why the other two intersections originally recommended by Red Speed weren't selected?

What's that sucking sound, you may ask? That's the sound of red light camera fans sucking up the "safety" koolaid while getting their taxpaying wallets hoovered. Just lay back and try to enjoy it.


And it will all take place tonight, along with another favorite topic -- "final approval of an ordinance regarding licensing regulations of temporary overnight shelters to be included in the Municipal Code, Chapter 12" and "final approval of an ordinance for Text Amendment TA-08-02 to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission" -- that is, if the darkside forces can't manage to have the ordinances tabled, so that they can, at some point in the not too distant future, try again to circumvent the will of the people.

Just lay back and try to enjoy it.

November 14, 2008

Awesome!



Our thanks to a PRU reader for the submission.

Have an awesome weekend!

November 13, 2008

More PRU Briefs!



1. -- Give the Pub-dogs a bone!

If you haven't had a chance yet, get on over to the Pub-dog's blog and read their post
The Anatomy Of Fiscal Irresponsibility - Part 1. The PRU Crew is looking forward to Part 2!


2. -- You know who you are.

In response to the following comment and many repeated inquiries --


Anonymous said...I can see the few people who still read the vitriol spewed on this cowards blog are having a good time talking to themselves. The rest of Park Ridge has gotten past any curiosity that might have existed when the crackpots who publish this mean and spiteful garbage first started their hate campaign. November 8, 2008 5:07 PM
We set our PRU Tech loose backstage -- the following is from our reader meter for the last 45 weeks. We again say that we are humbled by the response to our blog -- averaging 2000 unique readers per week is beyond any of our expectations.


open pic in new window for clearer view

For the PRU Crew's part, we well understand that not everyone who reads here agrees with the positions we take. But they still read here, which proves to us what we have always suspected; the people of Park Ridge are hungry for information and will seek it out if they can find a resource for it that doesn't dose them with koolaid in the process -- and, they are adults who can handle not only dissenting opinion but also the unvarnished truth.

November 12, 2008

Rosemary's Risky Business!

Note -- PRU will be coloring a bit outside the lines today, but when garbage like this lands in the mailboxes of unsuspecting Park Ridge residents, we can't resist.



The PRU Crew was doing some after-election reading and ran across this on a dailyherald.com blog called 'Animal Farm' -- which by the by we think is a pretty great name for a political blog.

Blog author JP wrote the post which contains the following quote from State Representative Rosemary Mulligan: “I had my people ready to vote for McCain. Then they put Palin on (the ticket) and they look and me and say, ‘What do you want me to do now?’” (sic)

We guess Rosemary had a "eureka" moment while searching her soul for an answer, and then she had her campaign and political operatives mail out the following, which some faithful PRU readers and Park Ridge residents were kind enough to send us --












We know who "Citizens for Rosemary Mulligan" are, but we had never heard of the "Independent Campaign Committee." So, we looked them up. And we still aren't too sure about who they are, but if they're sending out political mail with Obama's picture on it, we're willing to take a wildass guess that they're probably on the liberal side of the aisle.

And as long as we were digging around the Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure website, we decided to take a look at Rosemary's disclosure filings too -- to see if Rosemary had declared an in-kind contribution from the "Independent Campaign Committee", who were kind enough to inform the voters of Park Ridge of Rosemary's political similitude to Barack Obama.

We found that the $84,058.76 Rosemary reported in in-kind contributions came from three sources:

1 -- the Illinois Republican Party gave Rosemary $30,607.84

2 -- the House Republican Organization gave Rosemary $26,144.88

3 -- Personal PAC gave Rosemary $27,306.04

Personal PAC gave more in-kind moola to Mulligan than the House Republican Organization. And can anybody guess who is largely responsible for funding Personal PAC? We'll give you a hint -- the label starts with a capital "D" and ends in "emocrats."

For those of you not familiar with who Personal PAC is, they bill themselves as "a bi-partisan political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice candidates to state and local office in Illinois." And from what we can tell, they do conduct themselves in a bi-partisan way. But one of our faithful PRU readers is of the opinion that Personal PAC will bend over backwards to ruthlessly endorse pro-choice Republicans because there aren't all that many currently holding office -- and Personal PAC needs to maintain the appearance of bi-partisanship.

Welcome people to a taste of the more local version of what columnist John Kass calls "the Combine."

What the PRU Crew believes is that politicians have long understood partisan politics only really matters to ignorant voters that can't be bothered to pay attention, and easy labels are a useful tool for confronting the ignorant. So we strongly suggest that the next time somebody like Rosemary's Political Baby tries to play you for a fool, short-hand the discussion, and warn you that he's the only thing holding back the marauding Democrat horde from invading Park Ridge, tell Rosemary's Political Baby they're already here and they helped get Rosemary re-elected.