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
October 21, 2010
City Council 10-18-2010 Video!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
On another topic, I went to the O’Hare commission forum at the Park Ridge Library on Saturday. Apparently they have been asking several candidates to come and talk about various O’Hare issues. Saturday’s guest was Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. I later found out that the invitation the candidates received, and I would assume Schakowsky herself got, was signed by all of the City of Park Ridge Elected officials.
I got there late, but when I arrived Schakowsky was in the middle of a discussion of various O’Hare issues and then took several questions. Most of the conversation seemed to center around the method for measuring the average noise levels in a given area. This was an interesting topic of contention. All in all it was a good open discussion of the issues.
Afterwards I had this feeling that something was bothering me and couldn’t quite put my finger on it until now. The crowd included members of the community, members of the O’Hare Commission, the Mayor of Des Plaines, The Mayor of Harwood Heights, The City Attorney from the Village of Niles and several others. The Number of elected officials from the City of Park Ridge was zero. That’s right zero. Nobody came.
This Commission was appointed by the Mayor and the City Council. They have utilized their council extensively in the past few months. The Mayor and The City Council invited these candidates to come to Park Ridge and discuss a significant issue of conflict within the community. Now I can understand that people have conflicts but this was the United States Congresswoman and this is an issue that is overseen by the federal government and no one could make it?
Wow what a show. What is up the Mayors ass? Some lawyer buddy of his looking for a new client?
I bet I can guess who...er...what is up the Mayor's ass...
The whole city mgr. contract brouhaha is interesting, at best.
I think I now understand why the city's legal counsel, Seyfarth & Shaw, didn't have a problem with the contract language 2 yrs. ago...the rules were different.
The IRS changed the rules...so now the contract language has to be altered...for BOTH Hock and Chief Kaminski's contracts.
...but where's the rending of garments from Mayor DipSchmidt on the Chief's contract? It sounds like he's peachy fine with simply "changing the language"...even though, presumably, the issues are identical.
Could this be another one of those "who" vs. "what" treatments in relation to employees...?
In any case...Mayor DipSchmidt, as an attorney, should be well aware of the legal boundaries. The contract language is what a court would concern itself with...not a bunch of blowhard blathering from local pols...and it's more than likely the INTENT of the local pols, for meeting a target compensation level, that would be viewed by a court as primary...
I think the city attorney was very right about that...but if those fine points were allowed to be highlighted, then Mayor DipSchmidt couldn't have carried on with his "transparency" show...which I've come to view as being more full of hot air than substance...
As for decorum...Mayor DipSchmidt, chairman of city clowncil meetings and charged with the responsibility of seeing to it the rights of ALL members of the assembly are upheld, should have been subject to an immediate call for "point of order!" His conduct was reprehensible...but so was the absence of a demand for a point of order.
Every damn thing is blown up into some big controversey. They all make me sick.
I love the "wink and a nod" comment!!! Of course no person from Park Ridge would ever push the envlope with the IRS! Heavens!!
Anonymous @ 12:56,
...well, if you can believe what various reports have said about internal studies conducted by the IRS...
The upper levels of wealth in PR are the folks *most likely* to...heh..."push the envelope with the IRS"... The IRS, itself, refers to the practice as "misreporting."
Bean:
That is my point!!! The Mayor hears the statement/opinion from the city attny related to the wording of the contract and if there would be a violation related to tax exempt status and gets all huffy....."I cannot bleieve my ears".....give me a break!!! We all scream about our tax rate and then do every thing we can to lower it (wink nod). How many Wisconsin plates do you see in your neighbors drive way, registered at the lake house to avoid the high sales tax (I am guilty of this one).
Related to the Mayor, why did he not ask this question of the city attorney prior to the meeting??
Anonymous @ 1:22,
Yes, I was agreeing with you...
In my neighborhood, my family would be most likely to have Wisconsin plates (registered to our lake home)...but we don't, because that's dishonest. ...and even though we bought a canoe in another State (10 yrs ago), and use it exclusively in still another State where it is registered, Illinois still dinged us for sales tax on it, which we paid...and then dinged us again this year for penalties for underpaying the sales tax (10 freaking yrs ago!), even though we originally paid what they originally told us to pay. I just ♥ the State of IL. record keeping... ...apologies for the mini-tangent...
To your point...I agree. It's comical to watch the huffy shock, as if...and as a lawyer he should be as "sensitive" to contract language, and the demands of the law, as anybody
To your other poit...you cannot seek to reduce your tax burden by means that are not legal. Doing so otherwise is perfectly acceptable.
As for why the questions weren't asked prior to the meeting...I have no idea. I refuse to engage in any conversations with Mayor DipSchmidt.
...but I will tell you my observation of the meeting; hardly anybody (possibly, nobody) had a clue about what the most current version of the contract said.
I'm wondering if any of them received copies in their packets (if not, why not?)...and if they did, then why the hell didn't they know what it said?
The fact that yet another NEW version will begin this process again should make for plenty of comedy on down the line...as the clowncil offers up amendment after amendment to try to put into the contract what they want...
Lord help us all. It could be, the final version of this thing gets approved...and there will be a whole 6 months max, left on it before the lunacy starts again. That is...if the Mayor doesn't wait another year before he gets to the task...
I bet the Mayor will wait to even start until he gets his new aldermen in there.
Anon@3:10 --
Your speculation is worth considering.
One way around that is to make the contract term good for one year from the date of final approval.
The city manager has not had a contract for over a year and he has still been working and receiving a paycheck and his other benefits, so what's the big deal about a contract? Most of us who pay his salary don't have contracts either.
4:36:
Most of us don't have to work for politicians either. God! Could you imagine having Bach or Ryan as your boss? I would have to be paid damn good with guarantees before I took a job answering to all of these guys.
Congresswoman Schakowsky was far better prepared for the discussion than her opponent who a week earlier only said we couldn't fine for fly-quiet-at-night violations because that would raise airplane ticket costs and Lord knows we couldn't have that. Schakowsky outlined the numerous things she has tried to do for us in re the airport and it was a rather impressive list. Of course, none of the rabid were there because what if they heard that she had tried to do something? She's a Democrat, so that could not be heard. Only George Kirkland, himself a Republican, showed up from the active crew of anti-expansioners because he actually wants solutions and not just partisan squabbles. Not one of the 100% Republican council and mayor showed up because getting help and info for us is less important than continuing to snub our Congressional representative.
Same reason the prior mayor couldn't be bothered.
@ 6:28
I will take you at your word as to which candidate was more prepared and articulate during their appearances, noting that this is not a big issue to those residents of the 9th District outside Park Ridge.
Historically, however, it has only been Republicans who have been steadfast in their opposition to airport expansion and, if you check the records, I would bet that Congresswoman Schakowsky voted for expansion.
It was U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald and Congressman Henry Hyde who single-handedly kept airport expansion at bay. After Hyde's district was re-drawn to remove the airport from his jurisdiction and Fitzgerald was thrown under the bus by the state Republicans, Mayor Daley was free to proceed with his plans without any federal hindrance whatsoever.
So, for those of us with more than short-term memories, you'll have to forgive us if we don't fall all over ourselves patting Jan on the back for half-hearted and, in our opinions, disingenuous platitudes about how much she cares and wants to help. Both she and Senator Durbin revealed their true colors back when they cast their votes.
Based upon her performance over the years and current stands on issues, I believe that while candidate Pollak may not have all the answers I desire, I would trust him much more to represent my interests than I would Ms. Schakowsky.
That being said, I agree whole-heartedly with the statement that all Park Ridge elected officials should have attended the meeting. Engaging a person with whom one disagrees, armed with fact based arguments and suggestions, is always better than ignoring them and letting their assertions and proposals go unchallenged.
Judging by the comments from PRU and others on this site, however, expecting our elected officials to have such a command of the issues might be too much to ask. :-D
On another topic, I noticed that my Alderman, Wsol, has announced he will not be seeking re-election. Let's say I might be considering picking up a packet and running for election as PRU suggests we should do, let's just say.
I would be VERY interested in what PRU would look for in a candidate because, in all honesty, I would not take on such an effort knowing I did not have at least a neutral chance, if not backing. No false modesty, PRU, you have the ability to make or break a candidate. Not saying it's right or fair; just stating the obvious.
On another topic, I noticed that my Alderman, Wsol, has announced he will not be seeking re-election. Let's say I might be considering picking up a packet and running for election as PRU suggests we should do, let's just say.
I would be VERY interested in what PRU would look for in a candidate because, in all honesty, I would not take on such an effort knowing I did not have at least a neutral chance, if not backing. No false modesty, PRU, you have the ability to make or break a candidate. Not saying it's right or fair; just stating the obvious.
Anon@2:34 and 2:38 --
The last election of the PRRPD provides evidence to the contrary of our ability to make or break a candidate.
In light of the evidence, we find your assertion about our "ability" neither right nor fair.
2:38, it doesn't look like you are off to a good start with PRU.
PRU - Fair is subjective, but no disrespect was implied. Right is another matter. You cannot congratulate yourself on how many people visit your site each week, and then pretend you do not have substantial influence over what happens in this city.
IMHO you, and you alone, were responsible for the demise of Howard Frimark and the ascendency of Dave Schmidt. I believe both of them would agree, although Dave is probably regretting taking your continued support for granted. I would also venture that the number of Alderman who have chosen to not seek re-election are also a direct result of your efforts at exposing their duplicity and failings.
Whatever your perceived or actual results in a Park District election, anyone seeking/holding office in Park Ridge would ignore your position on issues at their political peril. That does not mean someone who disagreed with you could not be successful; just that they should carefully consider your opinion, and have a well thought out and defensible alternative if they so disagree. In that case, I would hope you would respect the person regardless of their vote. Maybe not.
So, I will repeat my original question: What do you look for in a candidate for Alderman? Not how they would vote on any given issue, but what would you like to see a candidate bring to the table? Financial background? Legal? Business owner? No business ties so as to avoid conflicts? Someone who will work for the good of the whole city, or vote how the residents of their Ward dictate? Someone who is very active in the community, or who can devote all the time required to the job?
You have been very critical of some, if not all, of our current public servants; to the point of being downright insulting on occasion (yes, I get the whole irreverent thing, but lately you seem to take your role with a greater sense of purpose). It's very easy to find fault with another and point out their inadequacies. Much harder to lay out your vision and leave yourself open for critical review. Easier to sit on the sidelines and point out flaws.
My bet is that PRU will not rise to the bait. At least that's my fervent hope.
M. Anderson --
Not to worry.
2:38 & 11:10 & PRU:
Well, then don't complain when people who have accomplished something in their lives and want to contribute don't run.
Thanks for helping me make up my mind. Resume your bitching.
10:04AM,
As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen. Saying people who have accomplished something won't contribute and run for office because PRU won't tell them what to do and they might be criticized for their ideas is pure stupidity. Maybe you and the people who feel like you do could accomplish growing a backbone and some thicker skin before you think about running for anything.
Anon 2:34:
Your memory isn't good. The original modernization plan was called the Ryan/Daley plan. Expanding the airport has been a bipartisan plan all along with a few local Republican exceptions. Get your facts straight on the history before you shoot your mouth off.
Pollak is a tea bagger retard. The guy is out of step with the mainstream to the extreme.
You didn't say what issues you don't think Schakowsky represents you on, but if you're like most idiot Republicans no matter how she voted on anything wouldn't make you happy. I bet she voted for the Obama stimulus program too and you don't like that because you would rather pay more money in your federal withholding taxes. Idiot.
Anon@4:53 unpublished --
The source you are relying on for what you claim to be facts may be the most worthless piece of shit we've ever read.
We will not publish a link to it.
Anon@5:11 unpublished --
Yep. The report you are relying on for your so called facts is a worthless piece of shit. If that's the best you can do, you have our sympathy.
If you have something else you can provide as a credible source of information, we will consider posting it for you here, so you can make your case to our readers.
PRU:
Just guessing but is this guy relying on FOX???
Anon@5:31 --
We've relied on Fox News for information, which we've shared here.
If the would-be commenter were relying on a source as reputable as Fox news, we'd probably not have an issue with posting a link.
Post a Comment