...Mayor Howard P. Frimark, for...
Confidential information should not be released
I read with interest and dismay, Jennifer Johnson's July 31 article on the possible acquisition of the Napleton Busse site for a police station. Aldermen Schmidt has again chosen to betray the confidence of his fellow aldermen by publicizing closed session discussions.
We have previously been advised by the city attorney that the topic of acquiring real estate by the city is appropriate for closed session discussion. The city attorney has told us that this not only includes discussions of the amount to be paid, but also includes discussing the advisability of acquiring a particular property.
The reason the Illinois legislature has created this as a permissible subject of a closed meeting is obvious. Once the marketplace learns that a government entity is even interested in acquiring a particular property, the price is driven upward. The legislature was trying to protect the public treasury and the taxpayers whose hard earned dollar fund that treasury.
We in Park Ridge know that Alderman Schmidt marches to his own drummer and does whatever he pleases, even when he knows the Council is acting legally and even if he knows that his actions are taken at the taxpayers' expense.
However, I wish to express my disappointment in the Pioneer Press for printing his inappropriate breaches of confidence. We assume that Alderman Schmidt will answer to his electorate for his indiscretions. But, it is irresponsible for the press, knowing that a closed session is legal and knowing that disclosure will be costly to the public, to publish information from that closed session.
Howard Frimark
Mayor, Park Ridge
We're pretty sure we don't need to deconstruct this drivel point by point, because we're pretty sure PRU readers have a superior grasp of not only the Illiniois Open Meetings Act, but also the snivelling bullshit that regularly pours from the mind -- we use the term loosely -- of Howard P. Frimark in his effort to smooth the way for "Friends of Frimark."
Have a wonderful long weekend!
42 comments:
The " No Spin Zone" just got bigger!
When and who is.......running against king Howie!!!!
Thank you.
so just because Ald Schmidt doesnt go along with Howie's oompa loompa clan, he is WRONG?
Mr. Mayor, you are such an embarassment to this community. Your sleazy, back of the room dealings are unethical. Because you are being called on the carpet for these actions, you attack others instead of TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
This editorial whines his crybabiness to death.
If you go back in the archives of the Underground, the Watchdog and even the local press, you'll see Alderman Schmidt first spilled the beans on a closed session regarding the purchase of real estate, because the former City Manager and the Mayor were trying to manufacture a waste of taxpayer's money. Specifically, although a certain parcel of land was appraised at $900,000, the plan discussed in closed session was to offer $200,000 more. And the Mayor wanted to offer even more than that! That land would have been for a police station which had not been debated, discussed or approved in open session. Schmidt saw that the taxpayers were about to get screwed, and he properly blew the whistle.
Now, the Mayor is peeved that Schmidt did it again, and he is lashing out like a spoliled brat who did not get his way. This time, the Mayor was trying to manufacture a sweetheart deal for one of his political contributors, Bill Napleton. Remember, just a few months ago, the Mayor cast the tie-breaking vote to give Napleton $2 million dollars of our money. However, Napleton closed his doors, so that plot was squelched. "No worries", Howard told Napleton, "I'll just get the City to overpay you for the new property and say we can build our police station there." Again, Schmidt recognized that the taxpayers were about to get screwed in a blend of behind-the-scenes negotiations and closed door sessions. And again, Schmidt did the right thing.
Now the Mayor wants to go into closed session to discuss the police audit. The question everyone should ask themselves is this: why is the Mayor so afraid to discuss matters that affect the residents and the taxpayers in open session? Does he think we are children? Doesn't he trust us? Or is it because he is chronically secretive and afraid that public scrutiny will expose him for what he is: a disaster for the residents and taxpayers.
Mayor F should be careful what he asks for, he might just get it!. I personally would love to see "...Alderman Schmidt...answer to his electorate for his indiscretions." Maybe by being elected as the next Mayor!
Thanks t from p. I'll say this right now: I do answer to my electorate, which is why I am adamantly opposed to closed sessions unless they deal with ongoing litigation or sensitive personnel matters. My electorate deserves to know what is going on. And although I'll have much more to say about the mayor's letter later on, I'll also say this: the mayor is wrong that I march to the beat of my own drummer. In fact, I march to the beat of the peoples' drummer, and I will continue to do so.
The question that should be asked isn't why Schmidt is disclosing to the public what's going on in closed session but why aren't the other aldertools - especially when what's being discussed is special deals that are selling out the taxpayers for the benefit of certain well-connected people.
As legal as it may be to go and hide in closed session, it is equally legal for any alderman (or even Mayor Frimark, if he wasn't such a sneaky varmint) to report in detail about what goes on in a closed session.
Somebody's got to let that sneaky varmint know that we're tired of all his secret deals and his trying to take care of his buddies. IF there was any justice in Park Ridge politics, Frimark would be required to walk around town with a dead albatross around his neck, bearing the sign "Napleton $400,000 land clean-up deal."
But if Frimark actually had any decency, he wouldn't walk around town at all. Doesn't Bonita Springs need a mayor, even a sleazy one?
anonymous 1:21 asks the BIG question that I would love to know the answer to....why aren't the other Aldermonkeys speaking up and telling people what's going on behind "closed doors?" I say "Dandy Dave for Mayor." Who's with me?
The community stands behind you Alderman Dave. We thank you for representing the interest of the people.
anonymous @ 1:21
the mayor doesnt want the secret meetings disclosed for the same reason he doesnt want city council meetings televised on local cable-- the truth will come out about him and his unethical sleazebag dealings, and his embarassingly poor behavior.
just when you think there isn't another asinine thing Howard the Horrible could do to convince the voters he is a totally inept leader... What a guy!
Folks:
No time to read it at present, but perhaps one (or more) of you might be interested in reading and perhaps commenting on the Illinois Open Meetings Act, the link for which is attached below.
Charles
http://www.ag.state.il.us/government/open_meetings.html
Aw, come on now, folks. You *know* how hard it is to be the Wizard when people keep trying to take away the emerald curtain!
(Next thing you know there will be flying monkeys coming out of Mayor Liemark's - er. . . Frimark's posterior. . . )
I love our politics...
Action-Reaction
One clueless blowhard causes us to listen to a self-serving arrogant blowhard. Great choices.
Hey Howard...you suck.
If someone's trying to sneak a sweetheart deal through the cracks of a closed session meeting, then I'm glad we've got a whistle blower.
But what about when the city just wants to identify a piece of property and discuss what they want to offer for it. It seems reasonable that those meetings should happen behind closed doors, right?
Why clue in the owner of the property? Couldn't that kind of knowledge end up costing the city more?
I'm just asking the questions, and like I said... I have no clue what kind of sweetheart deals are going on and if that's the case then I'm glad someone is opposing it.
Hi Private Citizen-
Here is the deal. The City NEVER has to pay more than market value for a piece of property. If a property owner tries to jack up the price because he thinks the City is interested, the City has every right to assert eminent domain which then allows the City to purchase the property at the market value price. In other words, there is no need to go into closed session for fear the price will go up. So why does the Council go into closed session anyway? That is what you need to ask the Mayor.
do you need a secret password to get into the closed sessions? ha! that's about how mature this all is. GROW UP MR MAYOR.
BE
A
MAN!!!!!
The City Council can be like the Our Gang headquarters for "Spanky" Frimark and his Little Rascals (Carey as "Alfalfa," Allegretti as "Weezer"?). And since there is no "Darla" on the council, they can paint "NO GURLS ALOWED" on the door.
Dave - I appreciate you taking the time to respond, thank you!
However, I still think that having a discussion about what property you may want to buy and how much you may want to offer is best done so without the potential seller present.
Eminent domain is certainly always an option, but unless you're talking about putting a highway through town, it's a much bigger battle grabbing someone's land through eminent domain than is often worth it.
For the record, I've no problem with the city holding these kind of discussions in closed sessions. I'm assuming that the end result of those discussions will be made available to me and that I'll have my opportunity to have my say if I dissent.
Private citizen – Don’t assume anything in Park Ridge. It doesn’t seem like we really have much say in the police station issue.
As for closed-door discussions on property acquisition - if city council could be trusted to act in the interest of its citizens, I wouldn’t have a problem either, but with suspected individual interests driving the discussion – ya got to leave that door propped open!
I just don’t understand why 6 aldermen would sell-out their constituents. What do they get out of it??
Private Citizen:
You're wrong about eminent domain. Eminent domain is "a much bigger battle...than is often worth" only when the owner wants a lot more than fair market value for his property. But if the owner wants a lot more than fair market value, the only reason NOT to use eminent domain is if the city is willing to pay a lot more than fair market value.
Unlike you, I've got a big problem with these discussions being held in closed session. Because by the time they finally come out of closed session with a decision to vote on, the discussion is pretty much over and the decision is a "done deal".
anonymous @ 10:01--these alderman are just puppets. they do what they mayor tells them to. except for Schmidt. THAT is why Frimark doesn't like Schmidt.
Frank Wsol occasionally gets it right, too, but he acts too much like a politician and can't be counted on.
anonymous - I like to have my say as much as the next guy, but I understand that some things (like a police station) is best left out of my hands.
As a tax payer in this town, I'm quick to say, "Hey, I feel safe... I haven't been robbed or murdered... they police must be doing a fine job with the station they already have. I don't support spending 13-30 million dollars on a new station."
So that's my own selfish view. But... I guess I do kind of realize that the basement apartment that is the PRPD is a shanty compared to ever other police department in the Chicagoland area. I'm not saying build a Niles PD or a Glenview PD (as I assume those departments have more cops than PR).
Maybe if I had to actually work in that environment, I might think differently. As I understand it, the police and some smarty pants firm agree that the current facilities are woefully inadequate. Somewhere down the line of the past 30-40 years, every other town around here has built there police a new station. I'm guessing we can't avoid it.
So maybe that's a decision best left out of my hands. I live in my own little lot of land here in PR and if things were left up to me, I'd spend money just on fixing roads and fixing my roof. Maybe I'd give myself a swimming pool too.
Good evening private citizen---11:01 is right on the mark. Not always, but too often, the discussion, argument and consideration of an issue in closed session will be the end of the discussion, argument and consideration. Sure you can give your input once we return to open session, but to what end? The aldermen have already made up their minds, and all they do in the open session is cast their vote.
And I repectfully suggest that you are wrong when you infer your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to a new police facility. The City has a finite amount of money to spend. Sure it needs to upgrade its police facility, but the City also needs to upgrade its infrastructure. Your input about where that finite amount of money is spent is just as important as mine or any other alderman or the mayor, himself. And don't forget that you, yourself, have a finite amount of money to spend. If the City wastes your money, or does not spend it on its greatest needs, can you afford to give it more? Especially now that all of our taxes are skyrocketing?
Disclosure of Matters Discussed in Closed Meetings: A public body cannot sanction
one of its members for disclosing information or issues discussed in a closed meeting. 1991 Ill.
Att'y Gen. Op. 1. The Attorney General noted that the possibility of such sanctions "would only
serve as an obstacle to the effective enforcement of the Act, and a shield behind which opponents
of open government could hide."
In affirming dismissal of a count alleging that a public body had violated the Act by
making disclosures to the public concerning information given in a closed meeting, the Appellate
29
Court noted that "there is nothing in the Act that provides a cause of action against a public body
for disclosing information from a closed meeting." Swanson v. Board of Police Commissioners,
197 Ill. App. 3d 592, 609 (Second Dist. 1990).
These observations and holdings do not, of course, indicate that members of a public
body should not deal carefully with confidential information that may be brought before the body
in the course of a closed meeting.
I agree with many of the things said here about a variety of issues (not all of them but many of them).
I just hope that all everyone remembers that we have the ultimate "stick" and that is our vote. Those of you who pationately believe that Howard is the incarnate of the Devil and that we only have one good Alderman in this town had better get of you asses an do something.
If you don't, then all we have here is just one big bitch session.
Speaking of people in this town "getting off your asses and doing something," tomorrow night City Council will be voting to allow R5 construction anywhere in the Central Business District.
Do we want the Uptown area ringed by more EOP and 6 corners type developments or should our elected officials keep these monsters away from the edges of Uptown that border single family neighborhoods?
Show up at the meeting 7:30 council chambers.
I thought the public hearing was at 7:00pm, prior to the meeting.
If left up to me, I'd rather have more businesses in town than new residences.
I might frequent those new businesses and I'm guessing they'll pay more to the city in taxes than residences would.
Now... my house doesn't border Uptown so this is another issue (like the police station) where I tend to think those folks that live right there in Uptown should probably have a louder voice than mine.
The public hearing meeting at 7 is for the special service detention area in the EOP development. The text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is part of the regular council agenda and that meeting starts at 7:30
Alderman Schmidt and public citizen both touch on something we should be a lot more focused on: the finite resources of the city, and the balance of residential vs. Commercial. First of all, Park Ridge has no industry, so all commercial needs to be office or retail. And we are loosing both at a rapid rate. Car dealers are good sources of sales tax, and we just lost 2 of them. What is the city leadership doing to replace them? If I were in charge I would set 2 priorities; more retail, and highher commercial occupancy. If something is not done to fill all of the empty space, we can probably move the Police Dept into any one of a number of empty commercial buildings. I don't see the point in more residential if there isn't even a CVS close by.
Anon 4:03
How long have you lived in P.R.? I ask because I have read on these blogs over and over and over the debates about more building and more retail and more restaurants, the need for them the idea that they will bring in more tax revenue and how all that would turn P.R. into a destination place. History of P.R. has told us that because of our geographic location, P.R. will most likely NEVER be a destination place. Bringing more retail here, the same retail you can find in the next 5 surrounding areas, isn't going to send anyone flying into P.R. The parking is and has always been inadequate, and anyone who has been in this town for a considerable amount of time or has once owned a business in town knows that the 37,000 people who live here cannot sustain the retail and a resonable pace. That is in fact why over the past 20- 40 years (or more) there has ALWAYS been vacant store fronts. The nature of this sleepy little suburb is residential. If you chose to live here it I would think that was one of the first things you would have recongnized. And no matter how much urbanization is attempted I doubt that we will be left with anything more than abandoned stores and for lease signs. Just remember, when a developement is built there are usually some tax incentive to encourage retailers
to open in town, if at the time the incentive is up and that store has not produced to a certain potential they will usually pull out. So even though they were here we were NOT benifitting from the taxes as they were deferred. So.... unless the fine residents of P.R. are going to shop for new clothes, and eye glasses on a daily basis and then go out to dinner every night of the week to give all the new eateries a whirl, and perhaps they could split their quick trip to Walgreens between there an a CVS I don't quite know how all these "new businesses" will survive in P.R. By the way, with the more recent business in town, have your taxes gone down? Didn't think so, I wouldn't ever expect them to either. That is one of the things you accept when moving into a residntial community, you are the tax base. If it was a concern you may have chosen a place like Niles, Des Plaines,or Glenview to live.
I, too, would much prefer more retail to more multi-family residential. But those big-ticket retailers aren't knocking down the doors of City Hall begging for space to move into.
When Uptown Redevelopment was first discussed and leading to PRC getting the deal, we were baited with stories about Borders and Barnes & Noble, about Crate & Barrel, about a GAP and an Ann Taylor Loft, about a Walter E. Smythe, and on and on. And then we got switched to Chico's and Jos. A. Banks, neither of which has succeeded in even putting a dent in the City's TIF debt, much less lowering my property taxes. Neither has the sainted Trader Joe's, for that matter.
Where are all those folks who said about retail: "If we build it (Uptown), they will come?" Ron Wietech? Gone. Tim Schuenke? Gone.
And boy oh boy, haven't those former cheerleaders for retail been remarkably quiet of late, like former Economic Development Corporation leaders Sharon Curcio, John Kerin and Owen Hayes? Uptown Advisory Task Force chair Ellen Upton? Former 6th Ward alderpeople Rex Parker and Mary Wynn Ryan? CurrentEconomic Development Director Kim Uhlig? City consultant S.B. Friedman?
Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?
by God, have they really gotten that far into our heads that we believe there are only two choices in town. Reatail or residential. Is overdevelopement the only option? Because I chose option C.) Take care of what we already have and do the best we possibly can to help our town flurish. Improve our streets, offer facade incentives to some of those dated buildings which already house retail and office space, and help the small businesses by bring this town back up to snuff. Heck, if I had to travel from somewhere else into Park Ridge now to visit a doctor or even Trader Joes, I think I'd ask myself, "what's the big deal about Park Ridge, the town looks like shit you'd think it would look better for all the taxes they pay". Also, don't buy into the idea that tearing down and building newer and bigger is the answer. First let's take care of what we have and try to preserve some of the towns original charm. Same 'ol same 'ol isn't going to attract anything or anyone. Some uniqueness, however, might.
There's always been vacant store fronts?
In the 34 years I've been I've in PR I've seen more occupied stores than empty ones.
Boy - the Cumberland Extention idea sure has lost its wheels since Rep. Jan took the 500K off the table.
Remember to tell the truth next time
Mayor HF.
Thanks
I still don't understand the reason for extending Cumberland. I've never received a straight answer on that.
It can't go all the way through anyhwere past Busse so what was the purpose?
This is a great example of Howie at his best--just wants it done but doesnt feel he needs to explain anything to anyone.
In terms of the size of the police dept. in reference to previous posts, Niles has 61 sworn officers...Park Ridge has 60. The department building itself is grossly inadequate in terms of space, technology, and general professional atmosphere. Have you toured the place lately?
Also, in my own opinion, fire departments, public works, and other aspects of the city have stand-alone facilities. Police departments should be no different.
Police cars should be housed in garages just like fire trucks and engines, public works vehicles, etc. Not only for maintenance purposes but also so that vehicles are ready for an officer's tour of duty when he or she arrives in the event that he/she is required to respond to an emergency at the start of the work period. (ie. a car covered in snow and ice)
An interior sally port should be present for transporting prisoners from the squad car to the lock up facility. This is not a perk, it is a safety aspect.
Among other things which need to be improved.
I was an officer in another state for an extended period of time and just giving my two cents from a safety and logistics standpoint having recently seen the facilities here.
The purpose of extending Cumberland is to keep traffic out of the downtown area.
As it is now, if you are traveling N on Cumberland, you have to head into the most congested part of Park Ridge to continue going N(either NW on Busse or N on Prospect); the same is true if you are going S.
The idea is to lessen traffic in the city center. I think it is a good idea, one that we'll revisit in 12-18 months when people start to realize just how congested downtown will be and how some of that could be abated by utilizing what is now under utilized ground.
It may also ease some of the traffic on Greenwood between the tracks and Touhy Ave.
Of course I still have the notion it would be to hard to have Cumberland either go over or under the tracks because they're much closer to busse and opposed to Greenwood where there's more distance betwwen the 2.
Post a Comment