From: Artist Miron Abramovici --'Let's Shake Hands'
Main Entry: cor·rup·tion
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle
b : decay, decomposition
c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)
d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
The Crew thought it was worthwhile to post the definition of the word 'corruption' above. Nearly everyone uses the word almost exclusively based on its' third listed meaning. We wanted to be sure our readers understand that money need not change hands under the table for corruption to occur.
Sometimes corruption is simply the impairment of integrity. Sometimes corruption is simply a departure from what is correct.
And sometimes simply friendships can be the inducement to do something improper.
Which brings us to a recent issue reported in the news -- here and in the more conventional press.
Today's Journal & Topics front page features a story written by reporter Craig Adams -- 'Possible Ethics Violation Reviewed'
As PRU readers know, the City Council received an interim report from City Attorney Buzz Hill regarding the City's Ethics Ordinance. The City Attorney's report isn't available for public review, but all signs point to the City Attorney's opinion being that an ethics violation is likely to have occurred with the sale of insurance by former Mayor Howard Frimark to the Uptown redevelopment partners, PRC, and the Uptown Condo Homeowners Association, which allegedly solicited Frimark Insurance to bid on providing a policy.
At Monday night's City Council meeting, Frimark's attorney Jack Owens said former Mayor Frimark did not know the City would be party to the insurance coverage and did not intend to violate the ethics ordinance.
The Crew hasn't heard it offered yet, but we believe denial of knowledge of the City's Ethics Ordinance by PRC and the Condo owners association can't be far behind.
In the first comment under the PRU post from yesterday, it was noted --
"...wasn't HOward an Alderman for two years, during which time the PARTNERSHIP contract between PRC AND the City was negotiated and inked? Wasn't HOward the Mayor for four years, during which time there was much back and forth about the PARTNERSHIP contract between PRC AND the City?...and HOward didn't know the City would have a part in premium payments for any insurance policy? Really? REALLY?"
In the Journal report, the Crew noted the following quote from local attorney Jack Owens, "Owens added that the city's portion of the premium would generate a commission of $360 for Frimark's company."
News flash for Attorney Owens, et.al. -- ignorance of the law is no excuse and neither is the dollar amount involved. It's the principle of the thing!
Which brings us to the current Aldermen. Any PRU readers out there feel as we do -- that the Aldermen's ability to act with integrity just may be impaired by not only their economic relationships with former Mayor Howard Frimark, but also by their personal friendships?
Any PRU readers out there think there's another opportunity coming down the pipe for friendships or beyond to possibly induce a departure from what is correct?
Think Planning and Zoning...and beyond.
October 21, 2009
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrəp-shən\
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Freaky picture PRU.
I'm a reader who also thinks the aldermen haven't got what it takes to treat this issue with integrity.
We'll see.
Nail on the head.
I would have expected all the professionals involved in this to have been better prepared. You have to be living in a cave to not know or have heard of "revolving door" reform legislation.
This is such a clear violation of the ethics ordinance that their options are very clear. This is their chance to show they are not bought and sold by Frimark. Either they pursue enforcing the clear violation by Frimark, or they turn their heads let him violate the law and walk.
Anon@10:56 --
If they choose not to pursue this as a violation of the ethics ord., we believe they should have to defend that position, publicly.
We hope they won't remain silent about whatever decision is made.
PRU:
I agree that if they choose not to persue this they should have to provide a public explanation. I would include the Mayor in that group required to give an explanation.
Anon@11:07 --
Agreed. Whatever position on the issue may be held by each individual member of the City Council, the public is owed an explanation.
By request --
Beware of Braying Ass
The bottom line is no written complaint has been filed. While we sit here and post pseudo-anonymously, who has the courage to walk into 505 Butler and file a written complaint? As much as I despise Howard, I have to admit "not me". For that I feel like a coward.
I would like to hope that an Alderman who has seen the facts and read Buzz's interim report would do it if the evidence points to it being a violation of our ethics ordinance.
PRU, do you think the Mayor should file the written complaint or stay out of this phase of the investigation?
Anon@11:34 --
We believe anyone who feels strongly enough about the integrity of how government functions should step up to the plate.
Regarding Mayor Schmidt, specifically, we feel his radar pinged hard enough for him to make an inquiry to the City Attorney for an opinion on the issue. And since Mayor Schmidt is now in posession of that opinion, Mayor Schmidt is in as good a position as anyone to determine whether or not this matter warrants the filing of an official complaint.
PRU:
BRAVO!!!!
Frimark still hasn't paid his taxes as reported here previously. I guess the rules don't apply to him.
Why just one complaint? Why can't everyone who reads this simply print the following and mail to City Hall:
Ethics Officer
City of Park Ridge
505 Butler Place
Park Ridge IL 60068
Dear Sir,
It is my understanding that the former Mayor, Howard P. Frimark has engaged in business dealings with the City, either directly or indirectly, either with knowledge, by studied ignorance, or lack of due care, in violation of the ordinance banning former elected officials from doing business with the City for two years after leaving office. It is my understanding that Frimark, by and through his business, sold an insurance policy which covers the City's public parking garage in the Uptown redevelopment. I ask that this complaint be investigated by the City of Park Ridge.
Add your name and address.
There is no requirement to personally deliver them to City Hall. Just drop them in the mail. Print some for the neighbors and your friends.
Let’s make sure the alderpuppets realize that they can not sweep this under the rug.
If only people would just do the right thing it would save so much hullabaloo.
How much time is going to be wasted by the city on this? I hope this gets over with fast.
I want the council to figure out what to do about my flooding problem.
12:32,
I agree this is a distraction from important city business.
I also think it is necessary to address problems like this when they come up.
Hmmmm,
Can I ask a question? Does anyone know if this will cause any issues with his insurance license if found guilty? More important should I or someone I know be concerned with their insurance coverage continuing?
Anon@1:19 --
The Crew does not have the ability to offer legal advice on the laws governing insurance agents.
That being said, there are usually other agents available at any given insurance agency who should be able to continue servicing company accounts and policy holders.
I am far from an expert, but even if something related to his liscence were to occur the company would still honor your policy. As an example, if a State Farm Agent gets fired that does not make all the policies they have written null and void.
PRU, thank you for pointing out that the integrity of our Planning and Zoning procedures are at risk too. The pressure from complaining constituents could lead to even more problems if the council changes the procedure and takes away the authority from our Planning and Zoning commission. Council should do the right thing and accept the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning commission.
Of course this is another sleazy move by Howard. Sooner or later he had to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Not a very big cookie....this time.
That said, I don't see what basis there is for accusing the condo association of wrongdoing. Not everybody who does business with Howard is bad, even if they do get up with fleas afterwards.
Finally, for all who think this ethics stuff is a waste of time, remember that it's the ethics stuff that separates us from criminal states like Russia and China. Let's show our elected officials that we expect more from our local government. I'll start by signing this post.
M. Anderson:
If the President of the Condo Association weren't a former DC lobbyist, I'd agree with you.
People --
Before the conversation takes an unfortunate turn, we would like to point out the use of the word allegedly in our post, in connection with the claim about which entity solicited Frimark Insurance for a bid.
It is our understanding that the developer, PRC Partners, has a controlling membership vote in the Uptown Condominium Homeowners Association.
We believe Frimark Insurance may have well been solicited to bid by the membership of the UCHA.
However, we believe it may have been the PRC Partnership interest through its role as a member of the UCHA which made the solicitation, not necessarily a UCHA resident member.
We don't know the details. This is purely presumption and speculation on our part.
Perhaps the president of the association, in light of the background information provided, should have been more aware.
However, as M. Anderson pointed out, not everyone who does business with Frimark Ins. is suspect.
Wow. Action Ridge!
M. Anderson,
I didn't say I thought ethics stuff is a waste of time.
I said people not doing the right thing is what wastes time.
We have serious issues in our community and they have to be solved.
I resent anything taking away from the serious business of the city.
Who would have thought after the voters kicked this guy out of office he would still be making problems in city government.
Anon 642,
I did. The only aldermen on the council now who did not support Frimark in the last election were Wsol and Sweeney. Nothing about this surprises me.
I sent the complaint via email to City Staff to forward to Buzz. Buzz is the ethics officer. I hope others sent it as well.
Anonymous 8:26:
Way to go. You are braver than me.
Reggie,
I sent the complaint per your instrutions, however they replied and let me know that unless it is in the form of an affidavit, it is insufficient to trigger the more rigorous investigatory requirements. Please see Sec. 2-5-2 D 3 and Sec 2-5-8 of the Park Ridge City Code which may be accessed on-line.
So you cannot just mail a letter or deliver a letter to City Hall it has to be an official affidavit.
Post a Comment