Something the PRU Crew would appreciate our readers keep in mind --
Article 2 of the Municipal Code -- Corporate Seals, Emblems And Policies
Chapter 5 -- Ethics Provisions
Subsection 2 -- Disclosure Statement
Item D. -- Policy
Says...
Disclosure of Economic Relationship
1. Policy Statement
One of the primary duties of a City Official is to Act on Matters where a Petitioner is seeking Consideration from the City. From time to time, a City Official may be required to Act on a Matter in circumstances where the City Official is involved in an Economic Relationship with a Petitioner.
It is the intent of this section that it be construed broadly for the purpose of granting to the citizens of Park Ridge full knowledge of the dealings of City Officials as those dealings may relate to City business.
2. Disclosure Required
When a City Official is called upon to Act on a Matter in the course of his or her official duties, the City Official shall publicly disclose any Economic Relationship the City Official has with a Petitioner prior to Acting on the Matter, where either: (1) the City Official has a current Economic Relationship with a Petitioner; or (2) the City Official has had a previous Economic Relationship with a Petitioner while the City Official knew that the Petitioner was seeking Consideration from the City; or, (3) the City Official is actively pursuing an opportunity to establish an Economic Relationship with the Petitioner. If disclosure pursuant to this policy would violate a confidential relationship between the City Official and the Petitioner, (such as an Attorney/Client privilege or HIPAA), then the City Official shall abstain from Acting on the Matter and when abstaining, need state only that the abstention is done pursuant to this policy.
In the case of Disclosure of campaign contributions, the actual amount of the contributions shall be disclosed. The Disclosure statement shall be filed prior to the time of Acting on the Matter. The City Attorney shall read the Disclosure into the record at the next regular meeting of the City Council. However, should the matter require discussion prior to such meeting, then the City Attorney shall give notice of the Disclosure to the City Manager; the City Clerk and each member of the City Council within twenty-four hours of its filing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the City Official be required or expected to disclose any matter of which the City Official does not have actual knowledge.
And now for your viewing (dis)pleasure are all 5 videos from last night's City Council theater of the absurd! We aren't going to index them today -- watch all of them.
Video #00002.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09
Video #00003.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09
Video #00004.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09
Video #00005.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09
Video #00006.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09
November 3, 2009
PRCC Videos 11-02-09!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
I said on the PRUs earlier post, these assholes were bought and paid for by Frimark and they proved it last night.
Judging by the look on the former mayor's face last night, he thinks he's been proven innocent. I don't think so. The council's vote not to prosecute simply means they're not interested in pursuing the matter any further. I think it's been shown many times that the former mayor just isn't very bright. He knew full well what he was doing when he sold the insurance and his arrogance led him to believe he wouldn't get caught. He was. It's over and done, time to move forward and get the city running well and in the black!
Robert Ryan has got to be one of the *worst* liars of all time.
What did he say...did I hear that right...he "thinks" he gave about $100 or so...?
Try a "transfer in" from Ryan's campaign account to Frimark's campaign account of $864.51.
What a Bozo!!!!
Ryan and Allegretti were hand picked by Frimark to make pre-written statements at a given time.Thy are drama queens beyond belief and should be removd from the city council for lack of integrity, lying and full on bullshit.
how much longer how much longer how much longer?
I like the comment from the audience you can hear on the tape when Ald. Algretti says he wants to leave. They said "THEN GO"
classic!
At a sporting event, this is when the home team crowd starts chanting
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
What are the economic relationships that were supposed to get disclosed?
Based on the posts I have read thus far it seems to me there are two people getting a pass.
1. Frimark
2. Schmidt
“Transparency” – making it possible for citizens to “see through” the workings of their government – is essential to holding government and the officials who administer it accountable for their actions and inaction......and the more transparent government is, the less chance there is of corruption and the back-room deals that for too long have characterized government in our county and in our state.
This came directly off electdaveschmidt.com. Well said Mayor Dave!!!
Anon@3:32 --
Damn. We knew somebody was going to ask that.
When our Crew record keeper has more time, we'll post the mutual back scratching receivables in total.
Since none of the aldertools Frimark helped pack the cut-down city council with were honest or decent enough to actually do their ethical duty, let's do it for them:
Allegretti: $1,500
Bach: $400
Carey: $500
DiPietro (Cross-Tech): $565
Ryan: $864.51 (didn't he say last night that he only gave "about a hundred"?)
Frimark also gave Carey $3,100 for his aldermanic campaign, so they are a $3,500 joint investment.
And that guy from the Uptown condo board who defended Frimark at length, Joe Chiczewski, gave him$1,200.
Anon@3:34 --
FWIW -- the Crew agrees.
Anon@3:37 --
Thanks for making our job easier.
We just love /most of/ our faithful PRU readers!
oh my. those amounts are not the usual $25 or $50 at a coffee.
In one sense, this was the most "transparent" proceeding of this type I know of, because it qualified for the "litigation" excuse for a closed session that usually sends these guys scrambling to get behind closed doors.
On the other hand, the fact that the City Council AND Frimark AGREED to this being done in open session looks a lot like they might have intended it to be the reality t.v. show it turned into.
Were we conned?
Chiczewski gave me the creeps when he spoke. I'm sure Howie made him lots and lots of promises.
I am as disgusted as anyone here.
But I agree with the comment that said it is time to move on now.
is anyone else concerned about what ELSE we may uncover that Frimark did, signing a document that should have been reviewed by the Council.
3:47 TA4 perhaps????
3:57:
Look, I am not going to miss any sleep over this but here is the problem. We have an ethics ordinance on the books, which I believe we are all in favor of. Apparently there is some delineation between enforcement and "time to move on" Can someone tell me exactly what are the criteria for each catagory so we can apply them on a go forward basis? Can we write these into the ordinance? Most importantly, can I apply this concept to speeding tickets??
Whoever said Schmidt and Frimark are getting off the hook here, I agree.
I don't have any feeling that a guy like Frimark would ever step up and do the right thing.
I have different feelings about what I expected from Mayor Schmidt. I received a copy of the email he sent out. I can see his point but I would have liked to see him vote for the principle of the ethics ordinance.
General comment to PRU readers --
We've reviewed video #5 and would appreciate someone letting the 5th Ward's Benedict Ald. Ryan know that when a resident gets up to address the Council on a non-agenda item, the only appropriate response is deferential and respectful silence and attention -- as opposed to a breathy whispered "oh my god" as we believed we observed at the 19:52 mark of the video.
The Aldermen and the Mayor voted not to prosecute the ethics violations.
Then the Aldermen go ahead with neutering the Planning and Zoning commission.
Yep. Bought and paid for. Totally.
Anonymous @ 5:13,
Repeat after me...
BILLBOARDS! RAH! RAH! RAH!
First a thank you to the videographers who have kept up with all these meetings.
It looks like the mtg. was a circus of stupid. I am embarrassed for our whole town. Shame on the Aldermen for their conduct. Shame on the former Mayor for his conduct.
November 3, 2009 5:32 PM here again.
I finished reading the comments and I don't want to say shame on Mayor Schmidt though his vote is a disappointment.
anon 5:38:
Why don't you want to say it??? There seems to be this idea that if you support or voted for a candidate you are obligated to agree with every single thing they do. That is pure rubbish!! I happen to see this as a contradiction versus what I would have expected from Schmidt and his past behavior and I will call it as such. He made this huge stand on closed meetings and yet is willing to let this one slide. He makes this written comment about in his heart not believing this would help to further the ethics ordinance. I would like to hear more of his reasoning behind that statement.
All of this does not mean that I no longer support Schmidt - I do support him!! I still believe he was the right choice for Mayor. That does not mean he and I will agree on everything. My wife and I do not agree on everything!! When we disagree I will come forth with criticism. From what I know of the guy he would not want it any other way!!
Speaking of disappointment, which the Frimark thing is beyond, how about the trashing of Planning and Zoning along with The Zoning Board of Appeals? The Frimark thing is bad, but the long term repercussions of the 4-3 vote are staggering. This does nothing but make all the zoning regulations in town up for the highest political bidder. Mayor Dave if you are ever going to veto something now is the time.
Anonymous @ 5:47 said...
"When we disagree I will come forth with criticism. From what I know of the guy he would not want it any other way!!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAA...
Steve Macko:
Best comment on this whole post!
Bravo!
Go, Alegretti. Please leave. Your corrupt bull is not what we need. We know you feel you do not need to listen to the citizens of PR. It's just your personal intersts you are supporting right now. And those personal interests of the former mayor who bough and sold you.
RESIGN ALEGRETTI. NOW. Then you will have time to talk to Frimark all you want about the conspiracy against you. Crybaby.
I finally got to watch a couple of the video tapes. Wow. It is all dreadful. The posturing was ridiculous by Aldermens Allegretti and Ryan, but particularly Allegretti. I am very glad he is not my Alderman. I wish the Mayor had cast his vote differntly too.
November 3, 2009 5:47 PM
I didn't want to say shame on Mayor Schmidt because as I understand it he did explain his vote.
I'm also not ashamed of him like I am of the Aldermen and the former Mayor, but I am disappointed in Mayor Schmidt.
The entire unanimous council vote was disappointing, but it is Frimark who is guilty.
Folks,
What's done is done. The city should move on and leave this sad sordid episode behind. We have serious problems to solve and focusing on these petty issues is a waste of time and energy. Mayor David Schmidt has promised action on our real problems not political vendettas.
Mayor David Schmidt cast the right vote. He understands that getting a pound of flesh out of his former political rival would make him look petty and punitive. It also would be a waste of the precious limited city funds on a legal fight the city could lose.
It is time to move on.
Anon@7:55 --
We noticed somebody from Jackie boy's law offices popped in earlier -- we're wondering if that same somebody waited to use a home computer from which to comment?
-- sure sounds like something Jackie boy Owens might write.
This is maddening!!!! Why have laws that are not going to be enforced????
The I did not mean it defense is not a defense!!!! Ignorance of the law is not a defense!!!!
the rules don't apply to Frimark. they never did.
The chance Park Ridge had to prove itself head and shoulders above the rest and all these idiots blow it. It's the same old corruption that takes place everywhere.
Macko:
Oh how true. While all of this highly theatrical ethics stuff was going down, the Frimark Four (Allegretti, Bach, Ryan and Cary) were busy turning The Planning & Zoning Commission and The Zoning Board of Appeals into an advisory task force. The whole point of having these bodies act independently of the voters was to keep politics out of enforcement. Now that is gone. In the end that and not the ethics violation, may be the last joke Frimark has on the people of Park Ridge.
I wonder what the ladies from CURRB think about all of this. It is true they have diligently attended Council meeting after Council meeting over the years, but their true passion has been Planning & Zoning and the ZBA. They have gone to meeting after meeting, pursuing and pushing for what they believed would insure the long term “Norman Rockwell” feel of Park Ridge for generations to come. With a single vote all that now lies with the elected officials, who can’t help but to be less concerned about one neighbor’s adherence to zoning codes as much as they are about the other neighbor who contributed to their campaign.
I can’t help but think back to over four short years ago when I was driving home from work one rainy night and I saw one of the CURBB ladies struggling to tie a purple ribbon to a tree. She was doing it in protest because a group of Aldermen refused to seed their responsibility for organizing the four City Council Committees to Mayor Frimark. That City Council wanted to choose its own Committee structure just like most democracies do. The same group of Alderman who never once suggested undoing any zoning controls even close to the extent that was done last night. It was that same “purple ribbon protest” that helped lead to Frimark gaining total control two years later. The Same Frimark who then put in place all four of the Alderman who voted to undo our zoning oversight last night.
I wonder how the CURBB ladies feel now and I wonder if Mayor Dave still has his purple ribbon?
Frimark needs to be judged by the citizens of Pk Ridge. Instead he was judged by a group of his paid off flunkies.
OWNED and PWND!
Psych 101, Allegretti. Have a spitting spewing screaming tantrum to distract the audience and deter anyone from angering you anymore and asking additional questions. Carry on so much that no one will question you. Become so hysterical that people will be afraid to approach you.
Bravo, Napoleon. Bravo.
You all seem surprised or disappointed.
You shouldn't be.
This is how politicians behave. All of them.
Decent people don't bother with politics because it is so dirty.
No one should be surprised or disappointed by anything that took place.
Anon 959,
You might be right about how dirty politics is, but to say that we shouldn't be disappointed or expect better from these people is to give up on things ever being better. It's almost as if you are saying corruption should be expected and tolerated.
Schmitty, Schmitty why have you forsaken us!
WHAAAAAA! WHAAAAAA!
Call a WHAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
OK...I need to the person who keeps screaming "bought and paid for" to elaborate. I mean of course the idea of these guys donating to each others campaign can look bad. Many of the alderman are clearly Frimark supporters. But you make it seem as if they are all pulling up to Butler Place for a meeting in their Ferrari. If you look at the total dollars that changed hands it is almost revenue neutral. An earlier post listed the Frimark donations. I have seen a dollar amount at what the Alderman donated to him at 3 Grand and change. It would appear to me that these decisions were based more on alliances and personal relationships rather than dollars.
Anon@8:39 --
Offering the view from the Crew.
Your statement -- It would appear to me that these decisions were based more on alliances and personal relationships rather than dollars.-- is probably accurate.
However, the dollar amounts exchanged are indicative of those personal relationships and alliances. And do not ignore what a previous poster remarked upon -- the amounts exchanged are considerably greater than the usual donations made by most ordinary citizens.
Indulging, for a moment, your toss out about flashy cars -- while none of the parties involved are driving Ferraris as a direct result of the benefits, alliances, and personal relationships involved, the Crew and most others who are paying attention, know most of these parties will sell themselves rather cheaply -- for something as pedestrian as promotion of their business and themselves. If any of them were to hold out for an amount which might bring them the price of a Ferrari we could actually muster more respect for them. After all, it's been said there's nothing worse than a cheap whore.
We believe the alliances and personal relationships are exactly why most of these representatives are suffering from an impairment of their integrity, an element of corruption.
I keep thinking back to the flyer I received in the mail during the election. There was a picture of City Hall and a "for sale" sign on it.
Yes, our City Hall and City Council are FOR SALE. That proved it on Monday night. Shame on you all.
PRU:
Thanks for your reply. My point was not a defense of the Aldermen or some of the decisions that have been made. I just think to say that they were "bought and paid for" is not accurate. I have served on some condo boards and charities over the years. Even on a condo board you have people having conversations off line and counting votes and making alliances - "we can get this through if we stay together". Sometimes it becomes more about winning then what is the right thing to do. One need only look at the Health care debate to see that (although there are HUGE dollars in play in that mess!!!). In other words, money going both ways was a refelection of the alliances but was not a determining factor in any votes.
What amazes me with these guys and with Frimark and PRC is the lack of common sense. Even if something is legal and the money had no effect on any decisions, the do not seem to "get it" that if it does not look right, if there is even the potential for people making assumptions, don't do it!! It is not like these contributions would have been make or break to any of these campaigns.
Anon 959
I don't know how long you've been in PR but in the 35 years I've been here, Wich has been most of my life, I don't always recall things being this crazy.
If you know anyone who's been here a very long time they'd probably tell you the sazme thing.
anon 9:25:
I do not remember that flyer but it would only make sense that it was distributed by the Schmidt campaign - right? Schmidt voted against prosecution. Are you saying he was for sale?
Anon@9:32 --
Unfortunately, Mayor Schmidt appears to lack immunity to political considerations.
Jim Giovanni's editorial in the Journal today is comical. Another puppet.
PRU:
Of course there are political considerations. Schmidt now has to try to build some kind of "alliances or relationships" with the Aldermen. They are around until 2011 and if he wants to get anything done they have the votes. One could look at this vote from him as an "olive branch" of sorts. Whether one finds this to be acceptable is an individual voter decision. I just find all the screaming about the Aldermen (bought and paid for) to be amusing when Schmidt voted the same way.
Anon@9:42 --
It may serve Mayor Schmidt to remember why and by whom he was elected.
It may serve Mayor Schmidt to remember his professed platform -- honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.
It may serve Mayor Schmidt to consider policy first, over political considerations.
And it may serve the Aldermen to remember those things too.
Howard must REALLY be smiling today. The City and the Council were just starting to work together and moving towards a positive working relationship.
His presence, his actions and his sliminess have brought us all back to square one.
Bravo, scumbag...
gypsy,
...heh...who are you trying to kid...unless you view agreement on approval of minutes and warrants as a "positive working relationship"...?
and voting to table it until the next meeting.
Anonymous at 10:02,
...:::snork:::...that too!
...but I suppose they have to start somewhere!
Gypsy:
Something else strikes me about your post. While I completely agree with you about Frimark's actions, the path you take to blaming him for the city and the council being back at square one is suspect at best.
I believe that every decision is an opportunity. Howard presented our eleted officials with an opportunity to make a decision and be judged accordingly. Along with that comes consideration about motivations, things stated in the past and what they ran on.
If we are "back to square one" as you state (I am not sure I agree with you on this one) it is based on their decision (unanimous)about how to handle the issue, not based on Howard's actions.
10:22--were you at the meeting? If so, you saw Frimark acting like a child in the audience, shouting out, waving his arms, clapping his hands, giving evil glares to people. It's like "Christmas past"
I didn't say everything was perfect, but I sure like how things are moving. It is much better than how it was.
I just watched the video and agree it was bad. I have really nothing to add except to say we sure have interesting people who get up to address the council. First, I do think Frimark is getting what he deserves. Second, I'm sure most are not practiced at public speaking and it's hard to stay on point. Having said that, who was the goofball who addressed the City Council and kept bringing up Howard's property tax payments? I'm sure the guy isn't playing with a full deck, but people try to stick to topic when addressing the Council.
1105--oh Howard. We know it's you.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....11:30
Like Howard could spell that good.
he has people type for him.
Is that Linda? or Jack Owens?
For the curious --
It does not appear to be any of the people suspected.
maybe the guy who wrote the editorial in the Journal today. He was quite gung-ho in his writing. Yet he never attends city council or COW meetings!
Anonymous at 11:05,
I can't resist...
That "goofball," as you undiplomatically characterized him, is Tony Svanascini who owns Americaneagle.com, the city's vendor for development of the city's web site.
I'm of the opinion his "deck," in relation to municipal government and "proper procedure", is quite less than full. However, he does (by all accounts, especially his own) have a very full wallet...which allowed him to be Mayor Dave's biggest contributor...providing an "in-kind" contribution of $4,646 to Mayor Dave's campaign.
Unfortunately, while I'm of the opinion Mr. Svanascini is a remarkable light-weight on policy, there are others who believe him to be otherwise.
That being said, even if it might have "looked bad," Mayor Dave should have immediately employed the use of his gavel (not the only time during the meeting) to rule Ald. Ryan out of order when he demanded if Mr. Svanascini had made any contributions to Mayor Dave, during the ethics discussion. I noticed that Ald. Ryan, nor any other Aldermen, demanded the same information from Mr. Chiczewski (sp?) or any other speaker who addressed the Council.
As much of a "goofball" as Mr. Svanascini is, he had every right to address the Council at a public meeting, and Council decorum demands the Aldermen refrain from debate with citizens, and personal attacks upon citizens (see Allegretti's ignoble example) should never be tolerated by the boy in the big chair.
I liked what he said. His comments related to the "character" of Frimark. This guy doesn't pay his tax bills? Well that's embarassing. However, it shows (as it would in court) that this man resists the rules and doesnt feel he needs to follow them.
Just because someone speaks out against you with the truth doesn't mean that you should then attack their character.
Again, as someone said earlier, Frimark brings out the worst in people.
We gotta move forward.
Anon@12:20 --
Of course you did.
Still, the comment about the lack of property tax payment by Howard Frimark was irrelevant to the business before the Council and only served to inflame the Aldermen.
It was a foolish and stupid comment that only served to distract from the issue at hand and put the already defensive Aldermen into a more rigid and defensive mode.
Frimark's deals [ inside ] the community have proven to be quite interesting but what about his [ outside ] the community deals as well.
The Daley/Frimark mtg way back
also cost this community a ton.
For Bach to take a stand that he's all of sudden questioning the ONCC in how they want to deal out the SP
- speaks volumes.
The post statement that the outcome of the decision NOT to go after him - only proves once again that they have turned the city of Park Ridge and its residents to the wall!
What a discrace Mr. Frimark.
Post a Comment