Park Ridge City Hall is going to be a busy place this evening!
The festivities will begin with a quickie meeting of the Liquor License Review Board, beginning at 6:15 pm. The City Council will then hold a Workshop on the Flood Study Report, set to start at 6:30 pm.
The most entertaining portion of tonight's gathering promises to be the regular City Council meeting scheduled to start at 7:30 pm. The agenda includes the usual niceties and consent items. However, tonight's City Council agenda also includes two items we hope people will pay close attention to.
The first item is the City Attorney's report on the ethics violation issue concerning former Mayor Howard Frimark. The City Council will first decide whether to hold their discussion in closed or open session -- of course, the PRU Crew thinks it should be held in open session since there is hardly a soul that doesn't know the issue involves the former Mayor, and it is no secret there are Aldermen with whom the former Mayor has personal and economic relationships.
The Aldermen, with whom Frimark has shared personal and economic relationships, will have a choice to make before deciding what to do with the report from the City Attorney. Those Aldermen can choose to disclose their economic relationships with former Mayor Howard Frimark, and then they can freely engage in discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Or...those Aldermen can choose to recuse themselves from discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Recusal allows elected officials to avoid full disclosure, as recently demonstrated by Mayor Schmidtzkrieg here (.pdf), but recusal also demands elected officials not engage in discussion, debate or a vote on an issue. We believe the choice of either disclosure or recusal is required whether or not the City Council holds the discussion in closed or open session.
It should all be terribly interesting to watch!
The second item on tonight's City Council agenda which we hope people will pay close attention to is item b. Approve first reading of Ordinance for proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Case Number TA-09-02, under the Planning & Zoning Commission report.
The PRU Crew has discussed the issue both here and here. And our opinion on the matter still hasn't changed. This is a very important issue moooooving forward.
And we look forward to the videos for tomorrow!
November 2, 2009
Your City Council Triple Feature!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Pru, this is an easy one. The aldermen will close the doors then vote to drop the whole thing.
If a closed session is an option for discussion of the ethics violation, wouldn't that have had to have been listed on the agenda?
The required public notice for the meeting...but, isn't public notice also required for closed sessions...with a cite to the exception...?
...trying this again...
Should have written...The required public notice for the regular meeting has been provided...but,>>
Bean:
No. The meeting notice has been posted correctly. Public officials can go into closed sessions during the meetings without including it on the agenda.
Anonymous @ 11:23,
Danke mucho. That's what I suspected...but thought I'd ask anyway.
10:46:
Nail on the head. No way will they be open about it or follow through.
They do have to take a final vote in the open though.
Frimark approves changes to the development agreement without the city council and he then tries to get the insurance business.
What a scammer.
Howard Frimark is the worst thing to ever happen to Park Ridge. Hands down.
Perhaps the former mayor of Niles (Blase?) has room in his cell for Frimark.
Anon 12:19, I think the worst thing to happen to Park Ridge is the OHare expansion.
I do think Howard Frimark could be the most embarrassing thing to happen to Park Ridge.
If Howard Frimark had kept his eye on the O'Hare projects instead of telling us he "didn't know" about it, then perhaps we wouldnt have a noise problem. I'm not saying it would have stopped it. But he chose to ignore it. Too busy with the back room deals.
I, too, am glad he is gone.
I want to see an example made out of Frimark. Let this be a warning to anyone who tries to pull a fast one here in Park Ridge.
Grab your torch and pitchforks!!!!
1:55, Frimark does have that Frankenstein Moster frown down pat.
I was considering dressing up as Howard for Halloween, but I didn't want to permanently scar the neighborhood children. He is, after all, the scariest thing in Park Ridge.
I understand wanting to make an example out of the old mayor but that is just revenge.
I understand the insurance was cancled. Why go after this and spend money on prosecuting the case?
It will all be revenge and wasted time and money.
While everyone is reveling in the possibility of a Frimark prosecution, let's not forget to ask some other questions. Like what is it going to cost? Not just in revenue but in people time. Seems like this town is great a screaming about things like PADS and TOPR and a pile of leaves on Prospect (oh my god!!!). But what progress has been made in the last year at fixing the "nuts and bolts" that are a part of a government running and what about those basics that we all should be taking for granted, like a sewer system that actually drains water?? I have seen virtually no progress on the budget issues (here comes the tax man) and I have seen a flood task force that is taking 6 months to produce a report. I do not find either of these to be thrilling performances.
Anonymous at 4:01,
No matter the cost(s)...you don't sell-out your principles.
Anonymous at 4:04,
Friday, Nov. 6th will be the 6 month mark of the Schmidt administration. I too have been exceedingly disappointed with some things...but neither I, nor anyone else, should have any expectations that the neglect of the last few years can be solved...or even reasonably shown to have been mitigated...inside of 6 months.
...and the current raft of aldermen are not exactly paragons of cooperation...
Bean:
I was not to attack Schmidt. I like him and voted for him. Of course 6 months is not enough time. All I am saying is I will be looking at the basics of government (like can they make a builder actually follow code) as well as things like the budget, Ohare, the Casino (a saftey plan please), Flooding as measurements of success - not whether Frimark was or was not prosecuted.
As for Howard, I think not being Mayor is his worst punishment. I used to see him all over town glad handing (he really seemed to enjoy it). I don't think I saw him once all summer. I did see him in line at a store in Uptown a few days ago chatting with some folks. I heard him explaining this whole thing using the words political vandetta. Honestly, it was more than a little pathetic.
Anonymous at 5:48,
I was only pointing out what I believe to be a "fair and balanced" p.o.v....and your point is taken and agreed to by me...not that it matters.
As for HOward Frimark...heh...have you ever in your life seen a spotted Zebra? ...some things never change...
Anon 4:32
Agreed. Otherwise why bother having laws if they cost too much?
was anybody at th emeeting last night? what happend?
SOOOO, what happened last night? I had to leave at 10:00 PM.
Short version is:
> City Attorney Buzz Hill got prodded into making a recommendation that the council vote to prosecute Frimark. This was done with him kicking and screaming and wishing he didn't have to do it but in the end he said the facts showed that Frimark violated the ethic ordinance and, in a court hearing, a judge might likely find against Frimark.
> Jack Owens got up and spouted off about how Frimark didn't know what he was doing... there was no intent. And then he started parsing words... "broker" versus "agent" and the meaning of "consideration".
> Several people got up to speak in favor of prosecuting Frimark. A couple commented on the council's ability to be objective since 6 of the 7 of them either gave and/or got money to/from Frimark during the last election cycle.
A couple of people got up to talk about what a great gut Frimark was, how this was all a mistake and that the prosecution was out of proportion to the act.
Oh, after that someone commented on if Frimark were such a great guy and a man of character why he didn’t pay his property tax bill... not sure what this has to do with the issue but it was good theater as the place went a little up for grabs.
> It went to the council and became quickly obvious that the majority would vote to NOT prosecute. Allegretti then went on a tirade about how this was all too political and mean-spirited. When the video comes out Allegretti's "speech" is a must see.
Joe Sweeney was the only alderman who spoke in favor of letting a court do its job... once the aldermen voted to prosecute.
> The vote took place... every alderman voted NO to prosecute... including Sweeney who voted after the Mayor... who incredibly also voted not to prosecute. I think the general feeling in the room after the 8 - 0 vote not to prosecute was one of genuine surprise... especially the actions of the Mayor and Sweeney-after his earlier comments.
So in summary... it was good to see what happened in open session (there was a chance this could have gone to closed session); as "sausage making" goes it was probably par for the course - definitely fugly.
In the end, Frimark probably comes off looking bad to those who pay attention... but for the many who do not he will look as if he was "acquitted", so to speak.
And in the end, he did lose the business and presumably the related commission that would have been paid since PRC pulled the related insurance policy from him (there was no explanation as to why this happened) after just one month in force.
Bottom line... many are left to wonder about the teeth in the ethics ordinance if the end result in this matter is any example of how it is enforced.
Finally, the matter could actually be continued if someone files a complaint with a sworn affidavit, at which point the City Attorney is bound to hire a Special Investigator to look into the matter. Any takers?
Post a Comment