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!

Enjoy the gold of sunshine!

'Rippled' by Christolakis



Have a great weeked!