Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com
PRU readers may remember our post, Moooooving Forward!, where we asked, "Anyone want to guess what power play Mayor Howard has up his sleeve next? We will give you a clue -- what bodies within the structure of our local government still maintain some measure of independent authority from Mayor Howard and his council lapdogs?"
The answer is the Appearance Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Each of those qausi-adjudicative bodies (defined in 5 ILCS 120/2 (d)) are "an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges." There are circumstances under which these bodies do not make final decisions, such as when the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a major variance.
In his role as one of Mayor Howard's favorite lapdogs, Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd ward) has suggested that decisions made by these quasi-adjudicative bodies should be appealable to the City Council -- appealable not only by the applicant, but also by neighbors of an applicant, who may or may not agree with either the applicant's request or the decision made by the commission or board. You can read the background information here (.pdf). Furthermore, Ald. Bachtard, with the support of Alderman James Allspaghetti (4th ward), wants all negative decisions by these quasi-adjudicative bodies to be appealable to the City Council.
Does anyone see a problem with this? The PRU Crew sure does hope everyone is getting along out there!
We also wonder just how far Mayor Howard and his lapdogs will go in their unending efforts to seize control with the potential to politicize city procedures. We agree with those who have expressed concern on this matter, as recorded in the Procedures and Regulations Committee meeting minutes of November 4, 2008 -- this is not a good idea.
January 22, 2009
Whoa!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
So...in other words, the boards and commissions will be stripped of their powers.
And, if someone doesn't like a decision and is seeking an appeal, they can then file that appeal with the appropriate city department? ...or alderman? ...or mayor?
Fire up the grill! The shipments of meat can't be far behind...
Let the campaign contribution faucet be turned on.
Socialism? Closer and closer everyday.
Apparently to be on the Tree Preservation Task Force, you have to fill out an application and then be interviewed at the Mayors Advisory Council. If they accept you, you're on. Talk about stacking the deck.
Frimark's friends need special favors. These committees have been run very well and are not granting any special favors to the FOF "Friends of Frimark".
These committees are working on behalf of the residents in this town to keep things balanced and fair.
Who can stop Howard? Right now Howard has a aldermanic block that will vote on anything he wants. The permanent solution to our problems is to make sure he does not get re-elected on April 7th.
Please encourage your friends and neighbors that it is time for change and Schmidt is our guy!
Don't let Frimark win now...or in April!
I have an idea to save some $$$. Let's just obsolete the aldermen, committees, boards,commissions (why not the citizens)and let Frimark run the whole show himself! Same as today but much cheaper on the tax payers.
April 7!!!!
Anon@3:05 --
The thought has crossed our minds often that running the whole show is exactly what Mayor Howard wants to do.
We doubt that would result in being much cheaper for the taxpayers though.
well, I am sure Allegretti would approve of that since he doesn't think the citizens are able to make decisions for themselves.
Maybe we should call Judy Barclay at C.U.R.R.B. and see if she has more purple ribbons we can put on the trees to mourn the loss of ethical, responsive, open government in Park Ridge.
I found the story about the purple ribbons on the PublicWatchdog.
http://www.publicwatchdog.org/
archives/2005/07/
Ah yes, the good ol' days!
When the 14 people on council decided that it would select four committee chairs instead of one person. (OK nine of the 14, but that still beats 1)
Now look what we have: an unresponsive government, more interested in cutting deals for FOF supporters, ignoring and insulting the public they are elected to serve, and keeping information away from the public to the maximum extent possible, all so one man can have more power.
Any way to roll back the clock?
And when can we get a binding referendum on term limits??
Park Ridge is actually one of the few suburban communities in which a Plan Commission's negative vote is the end of the process. In most towns, these bodies simply make recommendations to their city council or village board for the up or down vote that matters.
Anon@11:05 --
That is true for the Planning and Zoning commission. That is not true for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
We believe not allowing P&Z the potential for being politicized is something our city government has been doing right.
The relatively new ethics ordinance now in place prohibits elected officials from 'lobbying' board members about pending or upcoming cases...now that the mayor can't summon commissioners to coffee to pressure them to vote a certain way on cases of interest to him he is trying to get ahold of the reins in another way.
PRU--is it correct that if the voters turn down the referendum(s) that the city council can still override that vote? they can still spend the $$ for a new police station?
That's what I heard was discussed at the meeting on Monday.
Anon@7:56 --
Yes, that is correct. The referenda are only advisory. The council can still vote to issue the bonds and build a new station.
Hey, if you don't play with the boys and allow the new police station - then where will the teamsters work?
Its gonna happen!
Yes, there IS a way to turn back the clock. We can work to get Il. on the list of states with recall power. If a public servant is found to be negligent in their duties, they can be removed from office. 18 states now have that power. Gee, Frimark, Shakowsky, Katowski, Durbin, Blago....the list in Il. is endless!
Hey its the 41st ward -west here now..so why not vote, pass, kick'em
in the a........the Daley way.
To Anon 8:02>
I'd love to hear your personal definition of negligent. Your list is truly absurd. Outside of Blago, you may not like their political orientation, I know I don't, but the notion that they are all negligent in their duties is silly.
Typical of the character of many of the comments found in this and most other anonymous blogs, pretty much everyone is an asshole and does a lousy job in whatever the bitch du jour happens to be, whether elected official, community volunteer, consultant, etc...
This string of comments includes emasculated boards and commissions, labor union conspiracies and the turn to socialism in Park Ridge. It is amazing to me how far we can stretch a conjecture, an assumption or an innuendo without grounding our comments in any actual fact.
I agree that our local elected folks have not served us very well and that is what elections are for. Whether Frimark, Blago, Stroger or Bush, what we get is only the result of whom we elect AND what the choices were at the time. None of them were appointed as far as I can recall.
anon 9:25:
You took the words right out of my mouth!!! I was simply going to ask who gets to decide what negligent is? I guess I would ask, just for the hell of it, if any of those "deciders" would be willing to fill for office.
Anon@9:25 and Anon@1:32 --
In determining neglicence, wouldn't that become the decision of the "deciders", a.k.a. the voters, through the power of recall Anon@8;02 suggests?
So how would it work??? Would it be similiar to the referendum process? Would someone need to get a required amount of signatures start a recall vote?
As an example, the poster through out the name Katowski for recall, I would strongly disagree with his suggestion. As 9:25 stated, just becuase I do not like a decision make by an elected official does not mean they are negligent.
I will have to do some research as to how the recall process works in those states with recall power. I will say that I do not see a huge amount of recalls taking place.
Anonymous at 1:57,
Under the recall legislation that was proposed, the process would be nearly identical to the referendum process; circulating petitions signed by x% of the voters in the last election for the office and officer being subject to a recall effort.
As a matter of note, our State Senator Dan Kotowski voted FOR the recall amendment but the Senate vote fell 3 votes short of passage. I have supported Sen. Kotowski both financially and by voting for him.
However, if a sufficient number of voters felt Sen. Kotowski should be subject to a recall, by placing their names on a peition to hold such a recall election, I would not and could not in good conscience argue with that privilege. And based on Sen. Kotowski's own vote on the recall measure, it sure looks as if he wouldn't argue with that privilege being given to the voters either.
I have personally found Sen. Kotowski to be a man of high honor and morals. I am quite certain he might think being subject to recall is a pain in the tush, but he isn't afraid of that process being in place, clearly.
I also believe Sen. Kotowski is doing a fine job for being still new to his office.
Negligent might mean basking in Fla. when your town is under water and fighting airplanes. Negligent might be working for the advancement of ONE city in the STATE you are supposed to represent. The deciders would be the voters who can oust those who promise one thing and deliver something entirely different....could have saved court costs with the Ryan case and could have saved us from being sold out.
(It is threw....not through)And watch the language....no need to name call just for having an idea that doesn't coincide with your opinion. It wasn't a "bitch" it was just a suggestion. A proccess that 18 states have worked out is worth looking into.
well, this all will just make the mayor quite "incest"
a recall takes 12% of voters on a petition,400,000 signatures, and a 2/3 vote. It starts as a referendum. Since this runway opened neither Kotowski nor Shakowsky have made a statement about a plan to work on helping their constituants in Pk. Ridge. It is frustrating that they found time to send out mailers, make calls, take polls, and visit homes BEFORE the election and don't seem to have time to publically address the problem AFTER the election. Also, it seems convenient that the runway opened two weeks AFTER elections. They both may be honorable...heck, we voted for Shakowsky.....where are they now? I'd even reimburse them the price of the news ad.
Post a Comment