Have A Very Merry Christmas!

He who has not Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree.
-Roy L. Smith

To our faithful PRU readers and other drop-ins, we wish you all a joyful holiday!

PS To our kind and gracious Santa at last Monday night's meeting -- thank you very much for the generous gesture. We hope you and yours have a great Christmas.

City Council 12-20-2010 Video!

And a jolly good time was had by all, if you're a fan of clusterf#%&$!

The PRU Crew would like to point out that we strongly believe, on the issue of voting to appeal from the decision of the chair regarding his ruling on the motion to reconsider being out of order, the Council is in violation of the law.

In support of our belief, we offer --

Appeals that cannot be entertained

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised states that "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." Demeter's Manual recommends using the mnemonic devices F, T, R, L and J, O, D to remember that no appeals can be taken from the Chair's rulings which arise out of known Facts, evident Truths, established Rules or operative Laws, but can be taken only from rulings which are based on his personal Judgment, Opinion or Discretion.

The City's Zoning law, an established operative law, providing fact, truth and rule is unequivocally clear -

H. Limitations on denials

"No application for a variance which has been denied by the City Council or Zoning Board of Appeals shall be reconsidered for a period of one (1) year from that date of denial."

And we note the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. We also note the City Council's lack of understanding the necessary fine point of the language denying an application versus preventing applicants from coming before the public body more than once in a given year. It is reasonable to deny repetition of specific applications while allowing applicants to submit as many different applications before the public body as he or she can possibly muster.

So gentlemen of the City Council, if you are going to cite and follow the rules provided for by Robert's Rules of Order and the City's laws, then it appears you've once again screwed the legal pooch.

Hey Baby, What's Your Sign?

For our faithful PRU readers, who've had the dubious privilege of attending a meeting in the City Council chamber at City Hall, you may have noticed there are signs on either side of the Council horseshoe -- No Citizens Beyond This Point.

The PRU Crew feels very strongly, we need new signs. See above.

The practical effect of the new signs may be reducing the number of Alderdunces allowed to sit at the Council horseshoe, but the voters of Park Ridge have already shown their approval for reducing their representation. What could possibly go wrong?

For those interested in watching the smaller, more efficient Council in action -- there's another City Council meeting tonight, set to begin at 7:30 pm. If you're interested, you can review the revised agenda (.pdf) and then send Ald. Allspaghetti and possibly Ald. assWsol a thank you note -- so much for Allspaghetti's continual harping on talking issues to death! The Council is reportedly set to entertain a motion to reconsider the Hoffman Homes project (.pdf) proposed for Touhy Avenue. Because as we are all learning, "no" does not mean "no."

The meeting will also include another veto (.pdf) from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg -- this time, of the Police Chiefski's salary. Approval of the proposed City Manager's contract (.pdf), is also up for discussion and a vote, and we look forward to more unsubstantiated claims by those expected to whine their way through discussion of suspending the City's Facade Improvement Program (.pdf).

B.O.H.I.C.A. humbug.

COW 12-13-10 Video!

The City managed to get last Monday's COW meeting video posted by this morning -- damn thing's been up all day but has only gotten 20 views. Come on, people! Take the weekend to relax and give your local government some of your time and attention!

There's more fun yet to come at the next City Council meeting on Monday night!

Bah Humbug Grab Bag!

The PRU Crew is in a bad mood. Sorry. Not really.


For our faithful PRU readers who look forward to viewing the City Council meeting videos, it appears you may have to wait longer than usual. The City did manage, after 48 hours, to post a 3 minute video of the Special City Council meeting -- aren't they all? -- from Monday night, but hasn't managed to post the video of the regular City Council meeting as of 10:00 AM this morning. We may have thought somebody would get a clue and realize that 3 video views in 24 hours means people aren't very interested in what's been made available, and are instead waiting for something more substantive than the Council rubber stamping approval of the tax levy. Apparently not.

The PRU Crew is wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the delay.


For our faithful PRU readers who thought there was any hope of city officials getting the message through your majority votes on referendums, guess again. As covered in an online article by one of the local rags, we learn "no" does not mean "no." Just ask the O'Hare Airport Commission people -- they'll explain it!

And remember, way back when, we explained why Police Dept. brass was willing to keep on keepin' on with "the golden fleece boy, who answered the siren's call - hi there, Hoopty Lou, how's it going in traffic? - [who] can be kept safe for future use as a PRPD pitchman; there are not too many coppers with the ability to speak and write impressive sounding bullshit as well as Hoopty Lou can."

A new proposal for renovation and expansion of the Park Ridge Police Dept. was offered for review at the City Council's budget workshop on Tuesday night. And the PRU Crew now understands very well why no supporting documents were included on the City website for review prior to the meeting.

The PRU Crew is again wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the lack of supporting documents being made available for public review -- and the limited demands of the law should not be an acceptable excuse.


Covered in another online article in one of the local rags is the anatomy of a travesty. While the PRU Crew more than understands the legal questions, as well as the risk of precedence, we cannot get past how thoroughly and completely the City process screwed the Vine Ave. residents.

We don't know what the answer is, but we know we haven't heard it yet. And we strongly encourage the City Council and staff to find a way to make those residents whole. What has happened to them, throughout this saga, is unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen again.


Finally, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board will be meeting tonight (agenda .pdf). They are scheduled to go into closed session, which is expected to last a very very very long time. We hope the discussion includes talking really really really bad about these people!!!

In all seriousness, we wish calm heads and reasoned consideration for the Park Board as they contend with the task ahead -- it's certainly a loss, but not the end of the PRRPD world as we know it.

Good luck.

Have Some! And a Welcome Note!

Have Some Cow pie!

For our faithful PRU readers who may want to take a break from the holiday madness, may we suggest some madness of a different sort? How about a COW meeting!

If you're up for some assorted madness, you can attend tonight's City Council COW meeting -- the agenda (.pdf) offers topics for discussion and action on subjects for every City Council committee!

The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussions on a number of issues. We feel the pending agreement with Lutheran General Hospital, on the issue of the parking garage tax, should be of extreme interest to the people of Park Ridge. And we look forward to learning precisely what community health care services the City has been providing, in addition to ambulance and paramedic services, since the community groups listed on exhibit A (last page) of the supporting documents (.pdf) are not City-provided community health services. But the PRU Crew is mighty intrigued by the idea of being able to contract for the rescinding of tax ordinances and then earmarking payments to government for preferred program support!

We're also wondering about Lutheran General Hospital's ability to use the proposed agreement to help satisfy legal requirements for providing charity care.

The PRU Crew expects the Mayor and City Council will support the addition of "advice and consent of the City Council" when reviewing department head hiring, and express approval of the City Council, by vote, of severance payments. And we feel this is a cluster f%$# waiting to happen. If history provides any instruction and-or insight, it is likely this Mayor and City Council would have approved the extra severance payment made to the former Director of Economic Development, while voting against any extra severance payment to the former Director of Community Development. And their doing so would have been highly subjective and rife with personal sentiments. But hey, discrimination lawsuits are always interesting!

Finally, we expect the residents on Vine Ave., seeking reimbursement for engineering costs (.pdf), may want to be prepared to bend over and grab their ankles. But some of the residents on Bonita Drive may have better luck with the City Council, right after explaining what they are really after is enforcement of the current truck parking ordinance -- versus the inexplicably stupid cover memo (.pdf) which states, "There seems to be two groups of thought – one believes the restrictions on truck parking should be stronger and the other group believes they aren’t strong enough." Just more of the same nonsense of the continuing saga of Meatgate and one family's adventures in local government!


Welcome Note!

Today was the first day candidates for local office could submit their petitions for inclusion on the ballot for the upcoming spring elections.

We're told, as of noon today, current Aldermen Joseph Sweeney (1st ward) and Rich DiPietro (2nd ward) have submitted their petitions to the City Clerk for inclusion on the ballot.

We're also told relative newcomers to the fun that is local City of Park Ridge government, Franklin Ramirez (7th ward), Sal Raspanti (4th ward), and Dan Knight (5th ward), have also submitted their petitions to the City Clerk for inclusion on the ballot in the same aforementioned elections.

Welcome! The PRU Crew is very much looking forward to your campaigns!

Let The Friday Fun Begin!

'The Cocktail Hour' by Joseph Catanzaro
at chicagocontemporaryart.com


Have an enjoyable and relaxing weekend
with your contemporaries!

Mayor Schmidt -- Email -- Budget Hearings

From: Dave Schmidt
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com
Subject: Budget hearings

I wanted to let you all know that we will be starting budget discussions much earlier this year. The first session will take place this coming Tuesday, December 14, beginning at 7pm at City Hall. The first session will involve a capital budget review, an overview of goals and priorities and a review of revenue projections. The next scheduled meeting is January 31 when the actual budget booklet will be distributed to the Council. However, it is entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there will be one or more additional meetings between those dates.

Last year's budget hearings we by far the best-attended in any one's memory. Although I obviously was not satisfied with the final product, I was pleased that there was so much resident involvement. I strongly believe that it has an impact, and I encourage residents to participate again this year. I hope to see you Tuesday.
(sic)

City Council 12-6-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers!

We suggest viewers pay special attention to the discussion of the vote to override the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program, which begins @ the 0:23:13 mark of the video. It would seem Mayor Schmidtzkrieg may have made a new frenemy!

Residents Mr. Declan Stapleton and Mr. Ed Berry, of O'Reilly's Public House fame, address the Council beginning @ 0:24:00 mark of the video. And the PRU Crew feels it's very sad how little understanding Mr. Stapleton has not only for general municipal accounting practices, but also that Mr. Stapleton has less than zero understanding of TIF district financing in general, or the Uptown Redevelopment TIF district, specifically.

And despite the PRU Crew's strong suspicions that the Council doesn't understand either municipal accounting or TIF district financing much better than Mr. Stapleton, they somehow managed to vote to sustain the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program -- which they plan to discuss and amend again at the December 20th Council meeting.

Under Citizens Wishing to Address the Council on Non-agenda items, we hope people will give consideration to the remarks offered by resident and local builder, Mr. Rob Lohens, begining @ 1:14:02 mark of the video. Unfortunately, while Mr. Lohens' comments on public employee salaries and pensions have much merit, his grasp of the Crook County property assessments and the property tax system is lacking.

For others who may not quite get how the whole mess currently works -- as simply as we can state the matter -- property value assessments are created for the purpose of apportioning shares of the property tax burden, within any given taxing district. You can have your property tax assessment reduced and you still may end up paying as much or more in actual property tax dollars. Why? Because until the local taxing bodies actually reduce the tax levies -- the actual total dollars they ask for from the taxpayer pool -- taxes will generally continue to remain the same or rise. Place your bets, people!

Thus concludes our PRU civics lesson for today.

The discussion of the proposed Hoffman Homes project, as recommended to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission, begins @ 1:20:51 mark of the video. And we found the discussion of affordable...er...no...make that, attainable housing very entertaining.

The Aldermen voted 3-yes (Sweeney, Bach and Allegretti) to 3-no (DiPietro, Ryan and Wsol) on the matter. Mayor Schmidtzkrieg attempted to break the tie by voting "no," but the City Attorney advised him his vote was not necessary as a tie vote means the request for approval of the special use dies for lack of receiving a majority.

The project developer, Mr. Hassinger, then took the opportunity to let the Council know he would not be back with a new application. So there!

Enjoy the rest of the show!

Comments In the Spotlight

Under our post yesterday, one Ken Hubbs remarked --

"Did anyone see the Spokesman? Is the Mayoral opinion piece a message to the community or a campaign 2011 mail piece? He goes way beyond discussing the issues at hand and lays direct blame at the feet of the Council. He cites three separate issues and then goes on to heap blame directly on “The Council”. I’ve seen previous Mayors use the Spokesman before as a tool to disseminate information on issues. I’ve even seen the prior Mayor use it as a tool to pursue his political spin on various issues. However not even he ever used this publically funded mail piece to directly attack other elected officials."(sic)

For those who may have missed the latest issue of the Spokesman, and the particular Mayoral message being discussed, here you go --



A further exchange took place later --

Anonymous said...

"Hubbs,

You can call it "blame," but each thing Schmidt said the Council did is what the Council did. That would make it fact. Do you have something against facts?"

December 7, 2010 9:03 AM

Ken Hubbs said...

"No I have something with people using taxpayer funded resources for political purposes. What happened may be fact, but the implied reason is opinion."

December 7, 2010 11:25 AM

The PRU Crew felt our faithful PRU readers may wish to review what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg had to say about the use of taxpayer dollars and resources for the promotion of political agendas, in a discussion regarding Veterans, PBS, and Bill Moyers, back when Mayor Schmidtzkrieg was still just a lowly Alderdunce --

"I do not relish the thought of my tax money going to fund someone like Moyers so that he can despouse his agenda on my dime. And that, my friend, is my fair and balanced view."(sic)

As for the PRU Crew, we're wondering if Mayor Schmidtzkrieg still believes "The Spokesman provides a service which is a cost-effective way of distributing information to the citizens," given his statements about the City of Park Ridge being on the "brink of financial disaster" and his repeated professions of his preference for "fiscal conservatism" and only spending on "essential City services."

Is the Spokesman an essential City service?

Are You Paying Attention?

The PRU Crew and all our faithful PRU readers should, by now, have come out of our Thanksgiving turkey comas.

If you have been paying attention, then you know there's a City Council meeting tonight, at City Hall, beginning at 7:30 pm.

And if you have really really really been paying attention, then you also know the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the residents of Park Ridge be spared the blight of non-conforming signs.

However, P&Z Commissioners Arrigoni, Piche, Wells and Rifkind believe it is in the best interest of the Park Ridge community to allow a 70% increase in density (8 additional units over the zoning code limit of 12 units for this "high density" district) for the proposed Hoffman Homes condominium development at 1963-1975 W. Touhy Ave., and have recommended the City Council grant a special use for the 3-story, 20-unit condominium development. Did we also mention the allowances for additional lot coverage and decreased set-backs? Flooding, schmudding.

The PRU Crew takes particular note of Commissioner Rifkind's observation of the economics involved -- we must have missed the part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's mandate to ensure economic benefit to developers who ask for lots of extras.

Of course, when developers come asking for extras, they offer amenities to the community from which they are asking for those extras. What will Park Ridge be getting? Affordable housing units.

Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!

Nobody saw this one coming, right? Oh. That's right. We did.

The rest of tonight's City Council agenda should be entertaining, as well -- included under the action items for the Finance & Budget Committee is a "First reading for approval of December 2010 Property Tax Levy – For the Budget Beginning May 1, 2010 and Ending April 30, 2011." B.O.H.I.C.A.!!!

Have A Happy Thanksgiving!

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

COW 11-22-2010 Video!

Another fine performance for your viewing displeasure!

They'll Be Discussing Our Mooney Again!

The City Council will be holding another COW (committee of the whole) meeting tonight, after a special 10 minute Council meeting (.pdf) to discuss the appointment of the City's new Director of Finance!

As usual, the COW agenda (.pdf) includes some items of interest -- the PRU Crew is looking forward to the discussion of the Financial Report (.pdf). Over all, it doesn't look too bad, and the Mayor's concerns for some of the revenue streams appear to not be as nearly doomy and gloomy as he feared. However, we would like to hear an explanation for the increased legal counsel expenses -- we're wondering if the increase has anything to do with the City appearing to have lost the case against the Napleton rezoning, a change initiated by the City Council and supported by the Mayor, which you can get a flavor for here (.pdf - page 2).

The Procedures and Regulations portion of the meeting will cover topics ranging from expanding the "occupancy limit" (.pdf) for the Youth Commission to consideration of restrictions on occupancy limits for residences (.pdf). The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussion about who gets the honor of hiring City Department Heads (.pdf). So far it looks as if the City of Park Ridge will continue to operate under a City Manager form of government. So far.

Today's Post Possibly NSFW --

-- depending on how nannified your IT department is.

The PRU Crew feels the recent news over the brouhaha surrounding the enhanced screening procedures instituted by the TSA just prior to the holiday travel season could be quelled with an enhanced marketing campaign.

Of course, any successful marketing campaign requires a popular celebrity spokesperson.

We would like to suggest musical artist Janet Jackson.

As you can see, Ms. Jackson is already familiar with enhanced pat-down procedures -- and she would be an excellent spokesperson for a new TSA marketing campaign. The TSA could contract with Ms. Jackson to use her 'Janet' album cover for posters placed in airport terminals, which would demonstrate for airline passengers what lies ahead for them as they snake their way through the security lines.

Enjoy your own escapade this weekend!

City Council 11-15-2010 Video!

For our faithful PRU readers who've got a couple hours to kill.

The PRU Crew believes the Mayor's pre-ramble, before his remarks about his veto of the amended and then suspended facade improvement program, was a disclosure of some kind. We get the impression the Mayor found the matter pesky. However, we were pleased to hear the Mayor treat the veto subject as he did, though we are wondering why the Mayor chose not to issue his traditional email blast to supporters explaining his reasons for exercising his veto authority. We hope the City Council will choose to moooooves forward accordingly -- allow for the completion of the last remaining facade reimbursement agreement and reject any further applications, then fully suspend the program. We also hope that should any future Council choose to reinstate the program, they also demand a financial accounting to support the claims on which the program is predicated.

As for the discussion of the PROAC recommendations to retain the Taber Law Group for consulting on fighting O'Hare expansion, the PRU Crew found Commission Chairman Sue Perschke's offerings very entertaining. Where the former chairman had nearly perfected the damsel in distress approach, we find Ms. Perschke's baffle them with bullshit approach rather refreshing!

Two PRUdos are due!

The first goes out to City Manager Jim Hock for his ~~THUD!!!~~HOLY WOW!!!~~ inducing comments opposing a request, by Uptown developer PRC Partners, to grant a zoning text amendment and special use to again allow the developer to lease space to a non-retail, non-sales tax generating business. Mid-America Real Estate Group, the partner in the PRC Partnership which is responsible for retail leasing, may want to read their own rather up-lifting Retail Review – Fall 2010 Newsletter, then study their own 2010 Retailer Demand Study, and get to work.

Our second PRUdo of the day goes to resident Ms. Pat Livensparger for so clearly pointing out that an appeals process of any kind, in this instance the Tree Preservation on Private Property ordinance, must include criteria on which an appeal may be based. Spot on, Ms. Livensparger!

Enjoy the show, people!

Ready! Fire! Aim!

Hey Chiefski, are you running for office? A little more circumspection in consideration for the judicial process may have been better for all concerned.

PressRlseLeavittNov2010

For our faithful PRU readers who may have missed the conventional press coverage of this story, the Herald-Advocate has an online article for your reading displeasure.

In the article, the following is reported -- "Following the settlement of the lawsuit the State's Attorney's Office, assisted by the FBI, began investigating the Police Department" -- things that make us go hhhmmmmm. We aren't experts on such matters, but we're pretty sure the State's Attorney's Office doesn't make a habit of opening investigations into settled lawsuits. We wonder what their source of investigative inspiration may have been?

Ladies and Gentlemen! Boys and Girls!

c1899. Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress

The circus we've come to know as our Park Ridge City Council will be meeting tonight at City Hall. For our faithful PRU readers, interested in live entertainment, the show is set to begin at 7:30 PM.

Tonight's program (.pdf) features two acts which hold promise for providing special excitement!

First, Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to amaze the audience with another veto! This time Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to make the City's amended and then suspended facade improvement program disappear! The PRU Crew has serious reservations about how this vanishing act will be conducted. And we are again hoping discerning consideration will win out over ham-fisted treatment of this budgetary issue, but we have our doubts.

The second act we are looking forward to is the discussion of the O’Hare Airport Commission's Recommendations regarding the Taber Law Group (.pdf). A friendly correspondent worded concerns surrounding this issue as --

First we will get, and I quote, "a strongly worded letter with this presentation to the FAA," which it is anticipated will not work.

Then we will get Mr. Taber to, and I quote, "select these experts [for "air quality and noise impacts" studies] based on his substantial experience with EIS law and science and Mr. Taber's firm would also outline the scope of work." And presumably, since Mr. Taber will be researching various avenues for funding these studies, Mr. Taber's fee does not include the costs of these experts and these studies. What is the ballpark/range of such experts and studies and why, exactly, do we need Mr. Taber to select these experts, why shouldn't the members of the OAC be doing this research? After all, they were able to dig up Mr. Taber.

Then finally we will again have Mr. Taber, and I quote, "submit another letter to the FAA, again requesting a supplemental EIS based on "significant" new information." I presume this letter too will be "strongly worded."

So, for the nice tidy sum of $8,987.50 the actual work product Mr. Taber, himself, will be producing for the city of Park Ridge is two letters to the FAA requesting a supplemental EIS study; $4,493.75 per "strongly worded" letter, the first of which it is presumed will fail in its' goal.

Though there is cold comfort in knowing that, for $8,987.50, the city will get two "strongly worded" letters to the FAA, which is a better return on investment than we got from "investing" $650K for a Peotone study.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls -- enjoy the circus!

Ponder the Possibilities!

Give yourself time to think, relax and enjoy the weekend!

Veteran's Day 2010 -- Observance

In observance of Veterans Day - Again today we will set aside any discussion of politics, government, elected leaders, and policy concerns in order to offer our deepest gratitude to those soldiers who have served our country to protect our freedoms, so that tomorrow, and every tomorrow to come, we may again freely discuss politics, government, elected leaders, and policy concerns.

To all our veterans near and far, thank you.
May God bless you all.

COW 11-8-2010 Video!

The Committee of the Whole meeting was again very long, and we again encourage people to make the time to watch the making of municipal sausage.

The Aldermen managed to talk the Tree Preservation On Private Property ordinance to death, for over an hour and a half, without actually doing too much damage to it.

The PRU Crew was pleased to hear Alderman Carey ask City staff exactly what we were wondering about -- explain exactly what sections and which "language in various sections of the Municipal Code related to parkway maintenance responsibilities" the Public Works Department is proposing "to consolidate and clarify." The PRU Crew also got a chuckle out of Alderman DiPietro's having asked if the issue of parkway maintenance was related in any way to the infamous "meatgate" incident. We're hoping everyone in the room took special note of the City Manager's remarks on the subject, despite the Director of Public Works' denial of any relationship between parkway trees and the proposed housekeeping of the municipal code as it relates to parkway maintenance.

And for those who manage to make it through to the end of the COW video, you may find it interesting to hear Police Commander Keller talk about how our Police Chiefski has been "meeting with parties" concerned about more and less enforcement of the truck parking ordinance in the City's zoning code. Some of our faithful PRU readers may be aware that the issue of truck parking arose from the frustration of some of the neighbors surrounding the residents on Bonita Drive directly involved in the "meatgate" incident. The PRU Crew is unaware of a precedent by which the Chief of Police consults residents on their preference for enforcement of any of the City's codes, but we understand there's a first time for everything. And we're finding the dynamic taking place between City staff and the Bonita Drive "meatgate" people very very very...interesting.

Enjoy the show!

Monday PRU Grab Bag!

#1 -- For our faithful PRU readers interested in more City circuses, you're in luck! There's a COW meeting tonight (.pdf - supporting documents), beginning at 7:00 PM at City Hall. The PRU Crew is looking forward to hearing all about the Public Works Department's plans for Amending Article 9 to include Parkway Maintenance Responsibilities (.pdf), as neither the cover memo, nor the draft ordinance (.pdf), explains exactly what sections and which "language in various sections of the Municipal Code related to parkway maintenance responsibilities" the Public Works Department is proposing "to consolidate and clarify."

The tree huggers among our faithful PRU readership may also want to take note of the Tree Preservation Task Force's recommended ordinance for TREE PRESERVATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY(.pdf) -- it turned out better than we expected it to. But we have every reason to believe our Alderdopes will try their very best to screw it up.


#2 -- For our faithful PRU readers interested in looking deeper into the recent press coverage on School District 64's recent ISAT test results, you can do so here (.pdf), starting at page 89 -- from the supporting documents for the D64 School Board meeting held on October 25, 2010. The PRU Crew also found these results better than we expected, and we appreciate what appears to be continual growth in the number of D64 students who exceed State testing standards. However, we would like to hear somebody explain how this growth in the exceeds category of testing does or does not correspond to the issues raised in an October 18, 2010 report by the Chicago Tibune -- New ISAT lets kids pass with more wrong answers. Think of it this way, we're just asking for the chiiiiildren!

We've also heard some people grumbling about the announced changes to the middle school lunch program -- specifically, the memorandum of information from the District's Purchasing Manager, Betty Lattanzio (page 144 of the supporting documents), letting the Board know the middle school lunch program will no longer be accepting cash payments for lunches beginning January 4, 2010. In other words, chaaaaarge it! RevTrak, the company so graciously offering this new school meal accounting software interface to the District, has got to love the idea of having likely modest but multiple deposits on account!


So there you go, faithful PRU readers -- pick your public policy poison!

Froize! Fantastic!

via GEEKDAD on wired.com

Have a great weekend!

City Council 11-3-10 video!

Some hair of the dog for your viewing displeasure!

Hump Day Post-election Hangover?

We hope our faithful PRU readers are recovering from any post-election hangovers. However, for those who believe in the hair of the dog cure, we suggest giving the City Council some of your time and attention this evening.

What passes for our local representative government will be meeting tonight at City Hall, beginning at 7:30 PM.

The revised agenda (.pdf) isn't as jammed with entertaining possibilities as usual, but there are some important topics under consideration. Supporting documents for tonight's meeting are available on the City website, here.

We Feel The Same!

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan

Happy Halloween!

Have a screamin' good weekend!

COW 10-25-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers! It was one helluva long meeting, but we strongly encourage people to make the time to view the video.

Mr. Mayor, you come off like a jackass on a handful of issues. The 6th ward's Ald. Tom Carey kicked your backside on the topic of the City Manager's contract -- for a figuratively blind, squirrely guy, on rare occasions Carey's flush with nuts! And the PRU Crew thought Procedures and Regulations' Chairman Allegretti acted fairly in his recall of events surrounding severance payments.

The PRU Crew was pretty pleased with the general discussion and vote on the issue of the Facade Improvement Program and we look forward to the Council's future action -- we hope we aren't speaking too soon.

As far as the Taste of Park Ridge discussion is concerned, we were again almost taken in by the warm and fuzzy effervescent spewing. But we've now gotten a look at TOPR's 990 tax return. We've taken a good long look at their expenses, we've listened to their statements about the need to maintain a "rainy day fund," and we are more than certain it's now time for the Taste of Park Ridge, Inc. to reimburse the City for costs, gentlemen! We'll have more to say on this subject in a future posting.

PRUdos go to City Manager Jim Hock for what 7th ward Ald. Wsol described as "thinking out of the box." Despite Ald. Wsol's negative approach, we hope the Council will seriously entertain City Manager Hock's funding idea for Community Groups.

Mayor Schmidt's attempt to appeal to the ids, egos, and superegos of the Aldermen, on the subject of appointment authority for department heads, was laughable in its' transparency. Suuure, Mr. Mayor --the PRU Crew is suuure your intention is to secure the voice of the City Council by suggesting they should consider whether or not they "have a say" in the appointment process of City staff below the level of City Manager. The PRU Crew is also pretty sure it would be pretty convenient for the Mayor if that "voice" were filtered through his involvement in the process of appointing individual department heads -- an authority goal long dreamed of by his predecessor. Given the performance of the Mayor on the contract issue of the already appointed City Manager, we're going with the 2nd ward's Ald. DiPietro in agreeing, "the City Manager should manage," and any conflict in the language of article 3 should be "cleaned up" and clarified to allow the City manager to manage. Or we may be inclined to begin referring to Mayor Schmidtzkrieg as Mayor Schmidtstain -- we briefly considered using "Mayor Small Fri--," but we liked the sound of "Schmidtstain" better. Elected officials with the ability of bestowing employment on department heads is a recipe for patronage disaster -- and that's not just your average Schmidstain mess, that's 7 square miles full of manure!

Finally, PRUdos to the 5th ward's Alderman Ryan -- your suggesting the City review the process by which residential improvements are approved, especially as they pertain to land grades and drainage, is timely. We've heard about a number of problems with the City's inability to address residential engineering and construction issues, and it's about damn time the problems were addressed.

You Are Cordially Invited!

Good afternoon, faithful PRU readers! We think tonight's COW meeting may be one of those times it's in your best interest to get dressed, get out of the house, and go keep an eye on what your local City government may be planning to do to for you!

Beginning at 7:00 PM, in the Council Chamber at Park Ridge City Hall, the Finance and Budget, and Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole will be meeting.

On the City's website you will find .pdf file links to the supporting documents for tonight's meeting -- the PRU Crew is particularly interested in the following --

•Budget Policy -- worth a look.

•Spending Authority of the City Manager -- be careful what you wish for!

•City Manager's Employment Agreement (draft) -- here we go again!

•Facade Improvement Packet Info. -- more evidence Park Ridge is unfriendly to business! The PRU Crew feels the program should be suspended until somebody in local government gets their ass in gear and provides proof of the programs claims -- notably that "The City of Park Ridge (City) promotes the improvement of existing facades to make properties more attractive and increase long-term property values." The program has been in place long enough for an analysis to be done so a more informed decision can be made. While we appreciate being told what the City has so far spent on subsidies to private property owners for improvements of their private properties, we sure would like to see that hoped-for "increase in long-term property values." And maybe we missed it but, we would add the condition that any property owner receiving City Facade Improvement money is precluded from filing a property tax assessment complaint for at least two property tax assessment cycles.

•Public Information Coord. Agreement -- and here we all thought the Spokesman produced itself!

•Taste of Park Ridge Analysis (rev) -- time to reimburse the City for costs, gentlemen!

•Financial Report -- or as we are calling it, a post-mortem of last year's DOA budget.

•FB Monthly Report -- no, this is not a report on the Mayor's monthly FaceBook activity.

•Severance Payments -- looks like the Mayor and Council were for 'em before they were against 'em!

•Community Group Funding -- why the hell this was posted on the City website we have no idea. It's no more informative than an agenda line item.

•Code Clarifications - Dept. Head Appt. -- clean up on aisle 3! Which code language gets cleaned up will be very telling about the mindset of certain elected officials!

Something for everyone!

Deal!

Embrace your weekend and enjoy your little ole self!

City Council 10-18-2010 Video!

Another City Council clusterF --

A refresher on Roberts Rules of Order may be a good idea.

This would be as good a place to start as any -- Decorum in Debate

Sticky Note!

The PRU Crew was hoping by now the video of Monday night's City Council meeting would be done processing on the City's YouTube channel so we could embed it here for your viewing displeasure. No such luck.

We were also hoping somebody on City staff or from the elected body would have noticed the wrong audio file has been pinned to the City calendar page for last Monday night's meeting and see that the error was corrected. No such luck. Finally corrected -- better late than never! Thank you to whomever!

In the mean time, our faithful PRU readers can continue to discuss the merits or demerits of cell towers. Or, cruise Face Book -- we've been told Face Book cruisers may find an unofficial campaign page for a candidate for one of our local governing bodies.

Tuesday Quick Hits!

For those interested in a quick hit update on the doings at last night's City Council meeting, this one's for you!

Last night the City Council, in a vote of 4 (Sweeney, DiPietro, Carey and Wsol) to 3 (Bach, Allegretti and Ryan), upheld the Mayor's veto of City Manager Hock's contract. We can't account for the apparent change of heart in Alderman Carey, but the PRU Crew approves. As we previously stated, the original contract offer was more than generous. We also believe it is in the City's best interest to make sure all payments to employees are contracted for properly. What we do not approve of is the foot-dragging irresponsibility of having let this issue languish for so long. Like it or not, that kind of irresponsibility creates instability throughout the internal workings of the City. And if controversy is added to the matter, undertaken in public discussions, multiply that instability by 100.

Also last night, despite the issue being, in our opinion, improperly listed under the Mayor's report -- because it is the City Manager's responsibility -- the issue of the vacant Finance and Budget Director position report and discussion was handled by the City Manager. We understand information about potential candidates to fill the vacancy will be given to the Mayor and City Council in the coming days. The PRU Crew is wondering if the City Manager, in hopes of cajoling our elected officials, is bringing them into the process to obtain their approval prior to his hiring a new Director of Finance -- perhaps particularly in relation to an employment contract. Otherwise, the PRU Crew is at a loss to explain what role the Mayor and Aldermen have in this process -- other than micromanagement of personnel issues by elected officials.

The O'Hare airport Resolution – Request for Supplemental Environmental Impact Study passed the Council with...we can't resist...flying colors. We're pleased this action didn't cost anything.



Also at last night's Council meeting, it was reported that there are a number of 1st ward residents concerned with a proposal by the Park Ridge Park District for the installation of cell towers at Northeast Park -- which we first discussed here. As we told one of our recent correspondents -- We fully understand the concerns expressed and strongly encourage people to make those concerns known to the PRRPD Board of Commissioners. We also understand that, while the Park District's budget is in reasonable financial shape, there are always spending pressures and unavoidable cost increases on units of local government, and we are open to ideas for ways in which those units of local government can generate revenue for the benefit of residents without attempting to increase property taxes. We hope people will keep an open mind on the subject of alternative revenue generation.



After last night's open meeting, the Council adjourned to closed session to to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employee(s), pursuant to 5 ILCS 120/2 ( c ) ( 1 ) -- but as we understand it, Park Ridge now has a new Chiefski! This time for the Park Ridge Fire Department. Our sources tell us congratulations go to Mr. Michael Zywanski, who will be leaving his current position as Deputy Fire Chief in Naperville, IL.




For our faithful PRU readers who take an interest in local school issues, and for any of you School Board hopefuls, the PRU Crew thinks you may find a recent report by the Chicago Tribune very interesting -- New ISAT lets kids pass with more wrong answers.

The above report comes on the heels of another Chicago Tribune article -- School days shrinking in Illinois.

The PRU Crew would be mighty pleased to hear the current School Board and candidate hopefuls discuss these issues and share their opinions.

Of course, the PRU Crew has opinions on both of these matters but we want to hear what the school district whizzes have to say about them first.

Dream Big!

Enjoy a colorful weekend!

COW 10-11-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers. It was a very long meeting, but we strongly urge people to take the time. As we said in our Monday post -- the agenda for this meeting was flush with consequential issues. And we feel strongly that these subjects deserve your attention.

Special City Council 10-11-2010 Video!

The agenda for the special meeting --

O’HARE COMMISSION REFERENDUM INFORMATION
a. Should the City of Park Ridge disseminate information to the Park Ridge residents?
b. If so, what information should be provided to the residents?
c. How should the information be disseminated?
d. How much should the City spend to disseminate the information?

Previously provided referendum information documents --

OACReferendumInformation

Now, if our faithful PRU readers were to email a link to this post to all their fellow townsfolk, we may be able to save the City more than a mere $750.

Another Happy COWlumbus Day!

From fun to collect.com

Well faithful PRU readers, it looks as if the City is staying with the posted agendas for tonight's City Council meetings, and not adding more supporting documents for your reading displeasure!

First up is a Special City Council meeting -- aren't they all? -- beginning at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. The agenda (.pdf) includes the following --

O’HARE COMMISSION REFERENDUM INFORMATION
a. Should the City of Park Ridge disseminate information to the Park Ridge residents?
b. If so, what information should be provided to the residents?
c. How should the information be disseminated?
d. How much should the City spend to disseminate the information?

The PRU Crew cannot wait to hear more about how the residents of Park Ridge need to be edumacated on the issue of O'Hare Airport and the referendum question which will appear on the November election ballot. Because, according to the current PROAC chairman, people in Park Ridge are confused, very confused, by the referendum question.

"Shall the City of Park Ridge allocate funding in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to seek expanded and accelerated noise abatement solutions intended to address the negative impacts of O'Hare airport's expansion on residential property values, local schools and the overall quality of life in our community"

Clearly, the question is quite a referendum riddle!

Should the City Council vote to approve funds for a direct mail piece, to edumacate residents, we can all just think of it as a tuition payment. And should the City find itself incurring attorney's fees as a result of any legal challenge, we can all just think of it as another tuition payment for earning our collective post secondary education -- the education we seem to collectively continue to need, post Peotone fiasco.

Also scheduled for this evening is another COWlumbus Day City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, set to begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. The revised agenda (.pdf) is filled with fodder for all manner of municipal fun!

The PRU Crew is looking forward to a number of expected discussions. But we are gratified to see the Council will finally have an opportunity to address the City's Facade Improvement program (.pdf), which we first mentioned more than a year ago and have continued to mention as being something of which we disapprove -- not only because we find the basis for the program highly questionable, but also because the current expenditure will be coming out of the City's TIF fund, which has relied heavily upon loans from the City's General fund to stay afloat. What this means for residents outside the TIF district is, not only are taxpayers subsidizing the Uptown development directly, but also providing subsidies to other commercial properties in the TIF district, beyond merely the redevelopment project alone, while incurring higher property taxes outside the TIF district and reduced City services, in general. We guess the facade improvement program didn't make Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's radar when he was blipping about non-essential expenditures.

However, the PRU Crew will be tempted the next time somebody says, "Park Ridge isn't friendly to business," to firmly plant a pair of Doc Martens up their ass.

All in, there's a wealth of issues scheduled for consideration this evening and we strongly encourage residents to pay close attention to what their elected representatives will be doing in their name.

What the PRU Crew finds most unfortunate is, under the best of circumstances, this Council can't seem to figure their way out of the proverbial paper bag -- with an agenda flush with consequential issues, the odds are pretty good these guys will screw something up.

Enjoy The Ride!

-- by request, an added suburban anthem --

Wherever your road takes you, have a classic weekend!

Quick Hits and Questions!

In an online Journal & Topics article -- "Arts Funding Dries Up; Now What?", readers learn of plans by the "arts community" to hold a ""Collaborative Funding Forum" on Tuesday, Oct. 26, at the Non-Profit Center, 720 Garden Street, at 7 p.m."

The PRU Crew feels that's an excellent start to efforts long over-due.

The article goes on to report, "Perry Fisher, president of the Cultural Arts Council, said in a flyer circulated to fine arts members recently. “We are all interested in preserving, maintaining and enriching the arts in Park Ridge. Let’s put our nose to the grindstone, dissolve or hide our respective organizational hats, and work together to foster and nurture all the arts for our town."

The PRU Crew feels that middle phrase, "dissolve or hide our respective organizational hats," is more than a little odd. Have there been instances of artistic ego conflicts and infighting?

The article also reports, "The [cultural arts] council has served as an informal umbrella group and grant coordinator for such groups as the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra, the Fine Arts Society, the Brickton Art Center, and the Historical Society."

Huh.

So in addition to the City's previous contributions to each of those individual organizations, the City also made contributions to the Park Ridge Cultural Arts Council, which then also made "grants" to those individual organizations?

Huh. Double dipping for your pleasure and double dipping for your fun. Emphasis on fun.


In an online Herald-Advocate article -- Funding woes: Teen Center's future hangs in the balance, news readers again learn about further troubles on the fun front.

The article begins with, "The Board of Directors of the Park Ridge Teen Center will meet next week to discuss how -- or if -- the facility will continue to operate without financial support from the city of Park Ridge."

Bummer.

The PRU Crew hopes the Board of Directors of the Park Ridge Teen Center will be able to come up with a way to fund the facility so they can keep it open. After all, we would hate to see 7 out of 8 of the kids pictured in the article, who are reported as being residents of Chicago, not have a place to hang out and play video games.

As the article notes, "Charging teens a fee to use the center may also play into the discussion, she said. Use of the center is now free and teens do not need to be Park Ridge residents to drop in."


The Herald-Advocate provided another online article -- "Park district ponders name changes for buildings" -- full of fun!

The PRU Crew has no opinion on whether or not the Park Ridge Park District chooses to change the names of its' buildings in an effort to better brand themselves.

However, we were pleased to read, "As for the Senior Center, [Executive Director Ray] Ochromowicz is hoping to encourage other uses of the building when the seniors are not there.

"If we want to expand the use of the building, perhaps the name of the building should be addressed as well," he said."

Hey there Big O, we may know of some Chicago teenagers looking for a place to hang out and play video games in the near future! Unless the Seniors take their Wii console and go home.


In our final quick hit at the Herald-Advocate, the PRU Crew read the following article -- "City personnel: Unemployment filing violates ex-director's separation pact".

For our faithful PRU readers who have been paying attention, you know the article is about former Director of Community Preservation and Development, Ms. Carrie Davis.

And if you've been paying close attention, you know the article headline is not quite true. Because if you read the whole article, then you know, "As she was laid off the past summer Davis was paid $25,000 and agreed not to collect unemployment benefits, according to the separation agreement she entered into with City Manager Jim Hock.

Last month Mayor David Schmidt pointed out that the City Council should have voted on the $25,000 expenditure because it exceeded the $20,000 discretionary spending authority the city manager has. The council then rejected a motion to approve $5,000 of the total payment, rendering the separation agreement void, according to City Attorney Kathie Henn."

Is it possible to violate a separation agreement that has been voided by Council action?

Good old Action Ridge, where not all the action is all that good.

Dumbasses. We can't wait to see the legal bills for this stupidity.

City Council 10-4-2010 Video!

Amazing men on their flying trapeze!

The Circus Is In Town!

AP Photo/KEYSTONE/Eddy Risch at http://animal.discovery.com/

The three-ring circus we fondly refer to as our City Council will be putting on another show tonight! Come one, come all -- watch as our Alderclowns, lead by our duly elected Ringmaster Schmidt, make a freak show of the democratic process! You'll be amazed and astounded by their depth-defying leaps in logic! You'll thrill to the sounds of Alderclown amendments and motions to defer! And you'll grip the edge of your seat as you witness Ringmaster Schmidt welcome ladies, gentlemen, and children of all ages to the greatest veto show in town!

Interested and faithful PRU readers can check out the revised agenda (.pdf) for tonight's show! And for a sneak peek at Ringmaster Schmidt's act, you can read the following press release --

from: Dave Schmidt
to: presscontacts@electdaveschmidt.com
date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM
subject: Fwd: Mayoral veto of City Manager's contract

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the City's Ordinance, I am vetoing the City Manager's employment contract which was approved by the City Council on September 20, 2010.

There are several reasons for this action. The first reason involves the payment of approximately $8500 in deferred compensation in return for the City Manager opting out of the City's health and dental insurance plan. I have serious reservations about whether the payment complies with federal law. I have no reservations at all that the payment is inappropriate, even if technically legal.

When Mr. Hock was first hired in 2008, then-Mayor Frimark negotiated a cash payment of $7720 to Mr. Hock in return for his opting out of the insurance plan. In July 2009, one of the City's attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw, wrote a letter stating that such a payment likely violated Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, because it discriminated against lower-paid City employees who were not given the same option. The attorney's concern was that the payment could jeopardize the City's tax exempt status which could have adverse tax consequences for the City and its employees.

In the subsequent contract which I attempted to negotiate with Mr. Hock, Mr. Hock purported to remedy the tax issue by calling the payment "deferred compensation." Since the City Attorney who drafted the new contract apparently believed this would solve the tax problem, I agreed to the payment, but at a lower amount, approximately $3500. This Council subsequently voted to reject my recommendation, and then voted to actually increase the amount of the payment to $8500.

Upon further reflection, I am not convinced that using sleight of hand to call the payment "deferred compensation" would avoid running afoul of the IRS provision. However, I need not make that determination, because I am convinced that the payment is inappropriate since it discriminates against lower-paid City employees who have not been given the same option to receive deferred compensation in lieu of insurance coverage.

I fully understand that some will claim I am reneging on a promise made by Mayor Frimark to Mr. Hock. However, that contract provision was unfair from the outset, and it put the City's tax exempt status in jeopardy. It is my duty to make sure that error is not compounded. I can and must do what I believe is right, and approving this payment is not right.

A second and equally important reason exists for vetoing this contract. The citizens of Park Ridge have the right to a completely open and transparent government. However, the non-disparagement clause in the contract is the antithesis of transparency. The City Manager is the highest paid official in Park Ridge, earning almost nine times the combined salaries of the mayor and all seven aldermen. The taxpayers are paying his salary. He answers to them as much or more as he answers to the aldermen and me. As written, the clause would effectively prevent any elected official from explaining to the taxpayers why certain action regarding the City Manager was taken. I cannot condone such enforced secrecy against the citizens of Park Ridge.

Finally, the constructive discharge clause is also inappropriate. Mr. Hock's original contract contained no such provision, and I see no reason why it should be included now. In effect, the provision would tie the Council's hands if it decided that a salary reduction for the City Manager was necessary and/or appropriate, because it would trigger a potential severance payment which could cost the City up to $100,000 or more. It is simply unwise for such a new provision to be included in the contract.

I ask the Council to support my position and to come up with a contract which is in the taxpayers' best interests and which is fair to other City employees.

Enjoy the show!