Last night's City Council meeting was another excellent installment of "Stupid Rep Tricks!"
The council's first interesting item of business was discussion of the release of the Ekl Williams Police Department Audit .pdf to the press and public, which can now be viewed on the City's web site. During the discussion, Alderman Allspaghetti (4th ward) said that he did not feel that if he had questions about the audit he should have to run those questions past his council peers first. Allspaghetti went on to say that he's "known Terry Ekl for 20 years" and would just pick up the phone and call Ekl to ask any questions he may have, indignantly adding that he nor anyone else is "not trying to hide anything" or "doing anything untoward". All of which gave the PRU Crew a good chuckle this morning, because we remember Ekl's interview before the City Council where Ekl was asked if he had any affiliation with the Mayor or any members of the City Council. As we reported to our readers back then, Ekl's response to that inquiry was that he'd met Allspaghetti once a number of years ago. And we are reminded of why not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a bad practice for elected officials -- as we also recall that Allspaghetti didn't say a single word during that question and answer session about knowing Ekl "for 20 years".
The next hot topic the City Council considered was the expansion of the R5 zoning district. Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward) attempted to offer several amendments that sought to severely limit if not eliminate R5 zoning altogether; his reasoning being that developers could go through the planned unit development process for building taller and denser projects. Schmidtzkrieg's amendment was defeated in a 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro) vote. The council then voted to adopt the new R5 zoning language in another 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro) vote.
And once again Fair Housing Commission chairman, Nan Parson, along with her trusty sidekick, former Alderman Sue Ding-a-ling Bell, complained that the City Council was wrecking all their do-gooder plans for the people of Park Ridge by voting to adopt a Fair Housing ordinance that eliminates the commission's plans to "conduct studies", "educate", and "advocate" for the people of Park Ridge on the issue of fair housing. The City Council then voted to adopt the Fair Housing ordinance as written by a vote of 4 (Allegretti, Carey, Wsol, Schmidt) to 3 (Bach, Ryan, DiPietro).
In an anti-climactic action, the City Council voted unanimously to "authorize the City Manager to sign the Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims with former Police Chief Caudill and authorize payment to former Chief Caudill pursuant to agreement", now that Ekl Williams has given assurances that Caudill cooperated with the audit. And the PRU Crew still feels that the stink wafting from this one is enough to make a butcher gag.
Finally, the political highlight of the evening came under council agenda item "new business". In what has been described to us as a scathing rebuke of Mayor Howard, Ald. Schmidtzkrieg read a letter in response to the Mayor's attack on Schmidt regarding the disclosure of closed session information to the press and the public. We are looking forward to reading Ald. Schmidtzkrieg's letter in the press this week.
August 19, 2008
Council Show Recap!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
PRU - Thanks for linking the Ekl Report. I enjoyed reading it.
I guess it's about as much as I expected; things aren't as bad as the vocal minority would have you believe but there's room for improvement.
Sounds like where I work!!!
Thanks again for the report, PRU. I have no surprise that the council voted for allowing bigger developments. It's what Howie wants for his buddies and contributors.
PRU, I'd have to give both your report today and Ekl's report an "incomplete"...
You failed to mention that the clowncil, once again, gave favored insider and zoning afficionado Jack Owens the fast-track, one reading of a zoning ordinance change he was looking for on behalf of his client.
The Ekl report gets an "incomplete" because of the failure to specifically name the elected officials being chastised for interferring in police matters, and the extent and nature of that interference...though specific police officers were named for their bad conduct...
Too bad there weren't more brave souls willing to openly discuss those things...
All in all though, I have to agree with private citizen's comment...it's about as much as I too expected.
" Spread the wealth Howie"...
Some fed money here, some state funds there, some Gov. Blago's slush fund there.....where does this all lead to...505 and your office Howie.
Oh if you need insurance....call him too!
what an interesting time to be living here.
Taxes up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny, it seems the "shirtless man" Jogmen has created a big mess or mentioned in association but he seems to go on.
Why didn't he face discipline?
Maybe thats the unfair discipline issued the cop shop squaked about!
Hats of to the "officers", they are doing a nice job!
The shirtless man is one. The frog is another. Don't bet that the unfair discipline complaints were only about not getting a kick. The ones who did get disciplined cried like babies and complained too. All the way to their chinaman - the meddling elected officials talked about in the report.
I wonder what else Allegretti hasn't been honest about with the city council and the People of Park Ridge?
hmmmmm?
what a JACKASS
FUN GAME:
count how many typographical errors are in the report
75 thousand bucks to find out that people don't get along with each other. Wow, big news. What I'm more interested in is intentional wrongdoing of officers. That is all either buried or completely left out of this "report". And even when it is mentioned, why the hell are Franze, Delgado, Raitano, Ryan still employed? Where's the recommendation for addressing the corruption of these guys who, according to the "report", intentionally abused their powers as officers?
There is so much to say about the police report, but let’s focus on two for now.
1. The report fails to specifically name the elected officials who are interfering in police matters because it is Howard, Howard and more Howard. I’d be willing to bet he is on the phone with them everyday trying to get his friends treated more “fairly”. Do you really think Napleton and Adriani are the only Friends of Frimark?
2. Page 12: “4. There is no evidence that the department is lacking in resources.” And we need a new police station because?
Is it just me that is confused by all the communication on the zoning discussion?
Ekl alludes to the fact that since Swoboda took over the discipline has been more fair - who does he think was doling out the discipline while Caudill was the Chief???
How about going after a couple officers' jobs for allegedly (not proven) lying - but a written reprimand to an officer who was proven to be lying???
That is Swoboda discipline!!!
Could the fix have been in from the start? It seems this "audit" missed the mark. Fact is, many, many officers and uppers went in and made it crystal clear that Swoboda should not be Chief. The only way to fix the mess at the PRPD is an outside,unbiased CEO. But, none of that made it in the report much to the dismay of those who spoke up.
Anon 12:36 am, dont tell me you drank the koolaid. If you are referring to the Smith case, do you really think she did no wrong? She didn't lie? Would you voluntarily quit your job after 20 years if you did nothing wrong? Just because your employer suggests you did. Please tell me you have more integrity than that. She quit because at some level, she was dirty. She did something wrong and they had her. This nonsense about her being run out is getting old. As for anyone else that has been caught lying. He or she should get exactly what the previous person got or it isn't fair. Fire them too.
I just read this ekl williams report and the thing seems worthless. I dont know a whole lot about PRPD but heres what I got. PRPD is like every other workplace I've ever known. Some people are happy. People who feel that they got passed over or disciplined complain. There are couple guys that everyone hates because they are "immoral" but they must do their job well so they stick around and some lady got arrested on accident. Who cares tell this lady 10 people will probably get taken in by Chicago today falsely. City wants underage drinking curbed but wants cops to do this magically maybe by giving kids slap on wrist so parents dont demand an audit when the kids get cuffed, who knows. Maybe there needs to be more structured discipline system, but then you take away the judgment of the superiors which got them to be bosses. Who really knows. This place is probably like every other suburban police department but with some Park Ridge we want this stopped but dont stop us attitude. Ekl sounds smart but you could probaly go one city over change some names and turn in the same report for 75k.
This report should have been more factual and professional, not ridden with "I think."
As I often do when I post here, I will up front admit that I may be missing something here. Sometimes I am guilty of emotional (gut) reactions. I am new to PR and I look forward to someone telling me where I am wrong.
I read the section in the report on underage drinking and I am flabbergasted!! What a bunch of crap!! Just to clarify, my intent here is not to be "holier then thou". I certainly had more then my share of beer prior to being of legal age and the age in the state I was in at the time was 18.
Maybe I have read too much into this but I see a bunch of parents complaining about the police enforcing the law when it relates to their kids. Verbally abusive? You should hear what the language the kids use as the walk by my house on the way home from school.
What I do not see is any indication that the accusations that the kids were in fact drinking underage were unfounded. Are they saying the police planted the booze?? The kids get caught drinking and now it is that the police were unfair!
The following quote from the report is priceless: “…..no longer enter any home where under-aged persons were drinking absent a clear indication that the entry by officers was consensual”. So even if they have what they believe is probable cause for a search they have to ask Bobby if they can come in? They also cannot watch for people to leave the party. I can only imagine the backlash if Johnny leaves the party and dies in a car crash. Where is the police enforcement??
People die from drunk driving. We all know that. Frankly, I am lucky to be alive looking back at some of the things I did when I was young.
So on the one hand we have a group of people in this town who are so concerned about the safety of our children that the panic over the thought of a homeless person sneezing on them, and then we have another group who says that the police were unfair when their kid got caught drinking underage. I wonder how much overlap there is between these two groups.
Well if there's underage drinking, then why shouldn't the cops enter and frankly, there should be none of these parties without supervision.
So why did the PRPD change how they go about handling teen drinking just because of the complaints?
I admit I stopped reading the report after page whatever the number was.
Also about The R5, I don't wanna sound odd and yes I've spoken out before. But when Aderman Schmidt explained his reason for his proposal, I figured he said the very same thing I would of said for his reasoning and I would of just repeated what he said.
I can't remember if the mayor gave the chance for those to speak on it but as said here, his proposal was defeated.
Maybe it wouldn't of mattered if I had said anything at that point but I wonder.
The meeting got interesting when the lady who I was sitting by wanted to speak on the issue and I guess felt they were acting to quickly and after letting the council know Frimark says something like OK you with the white hair speak up.
Boy he's something else.
From what I remember from a couple of years ago, there is no state law against underage drinking, just laws against providing alcohol to minors. So municipalities came up with these "zero tolerance" ordinances to nab the underage drinkers.
But I think that legally they need consent of the resident or a search warrant to go into a house where they only suspect underage drinking is occurring (Is the kid really underage? Is he really drinking alcohol?). This isn't the case of searching a car or frisking a kid on the street. This is a person's home, his castle, and the Constitution was written to give a goodly amount of protection to the people who dwell within it.
I have heard several stories of the PRPD forcing their way into houses, without probable cause, to look for underage drinkers. That's unconstitutional and illegal even if they find a violation of the ordinance.
Certainly the police need to find and arrest people who are violating the law, but they must not break the law in the process. We don't live in a police state.
In addition, if these techniques are used during investigation of a real crime, the defense attorney will have the evidence suppressed (because it was illegally collected) and the criminal will go free. Is that what we want?
For the two anons at 5:52pm and 7:34pm. Underage drinking is illegal. A parent can allow there minor child an alcoholic beverage if the parent is present. These underage drinking parties never...and I mean never have adult supervision, let alone the parents of each minor supervising. And as far as Park Ridge Police forcing there way into homes is insane, another rumor to smear the Department and the good job they do. I don't tell Howie how to sell insurance or Allegretti how to work a case. Like Ekl said let the Police enforce the law. No special treatment for anyone, enough is enough.
To 9:01PM - First, I'm against teenage drinking parties and think that the police should break them up using whatever LEGAL methods that they have available to them. But, I've heard too many first hand accounts of police forcing their way into people's homes without probable cause to write them off as "insane" and "rumor to smear the Department".
I agree that the police department should be left alone to enforce the law, fairly and without bias. But, they need to do it within the boundaries of the constitution.
No organization is perfect, not even the PRPD. When someone levels a criticism against the department, it should be evaluated on its merits and improvements should be made (if necessary). Suggesting that the criticism is "insane", without even listening to the first hand accounts of the incidents, only further alienates the public. Why not listen to the critic, try to learn from the experience, and improve the performance of the department? Or, if the performance is already perfect (which is highly unlikely), try to change the public's perception.
Dont want to go off on too much of a tangent but, from what I could find (as of 2007), the Illinois underage drinking law includes:
"Consumption is prohibited WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION(S):
• private residence AND
• parent/guardian presence and consent
• one or more specified religious, educational, or medical purposes"
I don't see where they would have too much trouble finding probable cause to enter if a parent/guardian is not the one answering the door or talking with the officers.
"Forcing" their way in? BS!! You've "heard" about this? Show me the broken door. Get the person who held a door shut on a PRPD Officer who forced it open with their body against the person trying to keep it closed. Where were these people you claim when they had a chance (3 chances) to speak with Ekl?
This is BS. The PRPD has never "forced" entry into anyone's home in Park Ridge for an underage drinking party or anything else!
Ridiculous!
When the parents get a phone call while in Jamaica on vacation that their 17 year old needs bond money at the PD for having 50 "friends" over to down a keg, you actually think the kid tells his parents what really happened???
On another note, 6:42am :
(Could the fix have been in from the start? It seems this "audit" missed the mark. Fact is, many, many officers and uppers went in and made it crystal clear that Swoboda should not be Chief. The only way to fix the mess at the PRPD is an outside,unbiased CEO. But, none of that made it in the report much to the dismay of those who spoke up.)
Every word you wrote is 100% truth!
First hand accounts "stories Rumors" whatever, I don't care who we or our friends are there is always three sides to a story...
Their's, ours and the truth.
The 4th Amend of the US stands. THe Cop shop spends a lot of time, almost everything they do, dealing within the 4th-Against illegal search and siezure.
I think it is reasonale, for the police, when called to an "alleged" underage drinking party by a neighbor, to respond to the house and make every attempt to locate and identify the "owner" of the proerty. I do not believe the under 18 resident, who is not the legal owner, has the right to refuse entry to the police.
Maybe, if the police find "fruits of a crime" or empty beer cans then identfiy the "suspects" and stay at the hosue until they contact the rightful owner or adult as designated by that owner.
The owner, who could be any of us one day, is on the hook in civil court if one of those "teens" who's alleged rights we are arguing about is killed.
As mentioned, if it is found by the court there is no problable cause then the case is thrown out, that is why we have elected judges.
But as Ekle reports, if the Cop shop acts with good faith, then ok, They are human too and will make mistakes.
Ditto on the 9:48 am
!!!!!!!!!!
Ekle gave time for those to complain, if their rights were violated then they should have talked to Ekle and filed a 4th amend suit.
They didn't becuase, their rights were not violated. Only their wallets, and only violated by their precious straight A student Johnny for his stupidity in hosting a party!
If the fine was $100 nobody would be complaining and we would more teen deaths due to alcohol.
Who wants to scrape a teenager off a tree?
So what some of you are saying is that we have a profiling problem in law enforcement agains affluent white kids who drink underage.
With all due respect I think parents should be thanking the police for enforcing the law and hleping the kid learn a lesson. Instead they seem more concerned about how this might affect juniors ability to get into law school in the future.
Maybe it's just us, but we get the sense that most parents are grateful for the enforcement and the support. And we note that one of the longer city council meetings that Allspaghetti whined about was when a bunch of people, mostly parents, showed up to tongue lash Allspaghetti and Bachtard for thier opposition to zero tolerance enforcement.
It seems that someone hit a nerve with the police officers who are monitoring this site. Why respond in such a caustic manner about lack of probable cause? Could it be that the truth hurts?
anon 11:47:
I am not a police officer, just caustic by nature. However, I will tell you that a nerve was struck.
I hope PRU's above psot is correct about about people's opinions about enforcement. I just find it facinating about the potential double standard on "safety of our children". It seems to me that in some cases saftey is a nice disguise for self interest.
Mike,
The "lady with the white hair" was Pat Livensparger, a CURRB member that Frimark knows very well. Frimark chooses who to call on by name and with respect like he did when he called "former alderman, Sue Bell" and "former alderman, Kirk Machon" to speak, because they are big supporters of his. Anybody who isn't gets treated like crap.
Frimark is a petty tyrant who will be as disrespectful as he can get away with toward people who won't bow down to him or who he thinks don't matter to his personal gain, like the guy he tried to insult by saying "be a man" when the guy declined his turn to speak but made a personal appeal to Frimark on the PADS subject.
Frimark is an embarrassment to the position of Mayor and to our town. He can't be gone soon enough, and I pray to God the rumors of somebody running against him in the next election are true.
Well I can understand why Firmark said what he said to that man.
I was one of those many who were stuck in the hallway but He shouted something like '' Save our Children" or something like that and the way he went about it sounded obnocxious in its own right so I probably would of recacted in such a way or would of let him and others know I didn't appreciate how he went about expressing himself.
Then it is our hope you never run for elected office, MIKE, as there is indeed a certain level of decorum expected from elected officials, even when faced with citizens who conduct themselves in less than optimal ways -- which we have witnessed on a number of occasions without their incurring any rebuke from Mayor Howard, but then those citizens were saying things the Mayor wanted to hear.
Anon 7:36AM....
You clearly have no idea how the police department works. The Police and Fire Commission is a rubber stamp for the Police Chief. The process of getting reinstated is long (approximately 2 years) and costly. Smith is a single parent with 2 or 3 children. My guess is that she didn't have the funds to fight the fight. It was classy how Caudill and Swoboda attempted to cut off every bit of Smith's income. She was suspended without pay and they contacted her outside employment and requested that she be removed from their payrolls-squeezing her financially. Do the math...what choice did she have? Things are not always what they appear...
The fact is that depending who you are different rules apply. Caudill may be gone but he was never really in charge...expect more of the same....EKL has sealed the fate of the PD with his candy coated lovefest...
Anon 642am, you're right about missing the mark to a large degree but they nailed the alderman interference. THat has caused most of the "acrimony" in the dept. Howie is completely inept as mayor but where he shines is in stirring the pot and masterminding the ill will at the dept. He seems more concerned about the insignificant drama in each dept, including the pd, than the larger issues. And its because he has his stoolies piping him info. Our very own FOP president seems to be a very close friend with Howie. Follow the gossip org chart: Howie -> gets info from his budster Allegretti-> whose tight and partners with high speed defense attorney Frank Di Franco-> who represented Lt. Kampwirth for his role in the Shirtless man business and has been on vacations with him. Kampwirth and Raitano also have worked on the side for DiFranco. Raitano has had information about what was going to happen at the PD long before the city manager or chief. Talk about inappropriate. People, this mayor will not listen to the report, especially the parts about him. He will however focus on those issues his toadies tell him to. And you can see that the view of the department Ekl had was eerrily similar to those toadies. Guess Alegretti made good on his statement and made a few calls to Terry.
Thank you to Anonymous August 21, 2008 11:52 PM.
The PRPD attempted to fire me for several General Order violations (Departmental Rules) - never anything remotely criminal.
Being in that position was the worst thing that could've happened and it was the best thing that could've happened. Yes, they squeezed me financially leaving me no choice but to retire, albeit a little early but with my pension and dignity intact.
I was a constant thorn in the side of the administration; as the immediate past president of the FOP, it was my job to defend officers from seemingly unfair discipline, as well as bringing to their attention problems within the organization.
To put it mildly, I was not well liked by the upper brass. But I was respected by most and I will defend myself and my character to the end proclaiming that I was never, ever "dirty".
Does the author of that comment understand what a "dirty cop" is?
Thus, it was the worst thing that I had to endure a character assasination of that magnitude.
It broke my heart to leave the department and my career in that way. I loved being a cop and I loved Park Ridge.
However, it was the best thing that I was allowed to free myself from a job that, in hindsight, was no longer a good fit. I am, for the first time in 21 years, in charge of my own destiny and that is a great feeling.
To all my brothers and sisters at PRPD - you all know what happened. That should say it all.
Hey folks of PR, wake up. The comments of "dirty cop: are ignorant. Do you have any idea of what your saying? I would gladly serve with this officer, Ofc. Smith, any day. This officer dedicated her career to serving PR and is an excellent Police Officer. As for the poster of that comment, you are either very ignorant or you are the part of the problem. The folks in the community she served can be rest assured that the at one time had a Good Officer in their community
To Anon @ 7:34 PM,
I have been asked to review your comment.
I've got an iron cast stomach, but I just can't bring myself to say yes to posting your comment. I can't even explain why in any clear way, because there is no libel, no bullshit; what you have said is all true. We all know it is true.
I fully understand the issues you are trying to raise and the points you are making.
But the idea that the two innocent people involved could become fodder, even in an indirect way, for a blog discussion about this is something I just can't stomach.
This one is my responsibility in total. I recognize in total that I am choosing to engage in an act of censorship. So be it.
Smith, Kamp and Rat...
keep up the good work! Your heart and spirit is respected among a lot of us
Post a Comment