Freewheeling -- 2/24/10!

At Monday night's City Council meeting, there were a number of interesting discussions. The PRU Crew feels anyone interested in highlighting any of the low lights from the meeting should feel free to do so here.

For our part, we found the discussion about reinstating the position of City Treasurer to be extremely entertaining. The City Cluck, Betty Henneman, never fails to provide a laugh on the rare occasions she decides to open her mouth.

But 3rd ward Aldermoron Bachtard was his usual idiot self as well and we laaaaauuuuughed! Did Ald. Bachtard really say he thinks "another set of eyes" watching the City budget could be "a benefit?" Why yes, yes he did. Someone should ask Ald. Bachtard if maybe 7 more "sets of eyes" could be "a benefit?" But we're told Ald. Bachtard previously said in a letter published in the local rags a few years ago that he didn't feel there are enough "quality individuals" in Park Ridge to accomplish such a task. And that opinion would seem to make populating a Finance Commission a rather difficult task, no? Or, has Ald. Bachtard changed his mind about the "quality individuals" who populate Park Ridge? Or maybe Ald. Bachtard only feels there aren't enough "quality individuals" worthy of holding elected office and having an actual vote on public policy issues and the City budget?

Today's Pub-dog post deftly addresses the comedic musings the 5th ward's Benedict Ald. Ryan offered at Monday night's meeting. We hate to break the bad news to Benedict Ald. Ryan, but not everyone moves to Park Ridge for the schools -- the Park Ridge population with school-age kids remains a distinct minority. The Park Ridge population apparently has enough "quality individuals" to offer financial advice to the School District 64 Board though. And it would also appear the Park Ridge population has enough "quality individuals" to actually vote yes to increasing their own property taxes in support of School District 64. We're guessing Benedict Ald. Ryan forgot that part of the financial equation.

For his part, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg didn't seem to grasp the idea that he and the Council are the representatives of the people and are the very same people who are supposed to be "the people's eyes and ears for financial matters." Mayor Schmidtzkrieg also seems unaware that former City Treasurer Brauweiler wasn't much of a set of "eyes and ears" -- at least not when it came to protecting the $650,000.00 Peotone investment. How many relief sewers or sewer liners could that have purchased? How many sidewalk squares could that have paid to replace? How many trees for reforestation could that have paid to plant? The list of possibilities is endless really. Heckuva job, Brauwy!

Mayor Schmidtzkrieg seems to be reaching through the dark -- or taking highly questionable advice from somewhere -- in looking for ways to get the City Council to do their jobs. If the City Council won't listen to him, or the City Manager, or the former City Finance Director, then by God, they'll have to listen to a newly appointed or elected City Treasurer, right? Place your bets ladies and gentlemen...

All in, as we said in our Monday post -- on the Finance and Budget front, business as usual at 505 Butler Pl.

We're Baaaaaaaaaaack!

From -- nps.gov (national park service) -- photographer unknown

We hope everyone got a chance to relax, spend some time among family and friends, or just hibernate over Spring Break.

Did our faithful PRU readers miss us? Thank you to each for the very nice email notes -- that were mixed in with some not very nice email notes. Jeez!

As we told one of our friendly correspondents, we've been plowing through the mountains of slush left unattended while the Crew was on break.

And now we're back!

We think we will commence and dispense with an email note -- forwarded to us by a faithful PRU reader.

Some people should learn not to play with fire.



Below for your review is an unsigned email sent from Mary Seat of Wisdom. The sending email address is pads@maryseatofwisdom.org. We have chosen to delete the names of 134 of the 136 recipients, as they are not responsible for the action of this email being sent, nor for being selected as recipients, and they are private citizens, as opposed to public figures. The recipients whose names remain listed are that of City Clerk Betty Henneman, who is running unopposed for re-election, and Mary Seat of Wisdom Pastor Gerald Gunderson.

From: Pads At MSW <pads@maryseatofwisdom.org>

Subject: Park Ridge Mayoral candidates and support for PADS

To: bhennema@parkridge.us, ggunderson@maryseatofwisdom.org

Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 7:16 PM

I am writing this brief email in response to recent queries I have received regarding my observations of the Park Ridge mayoral candidates and their position regarding support for a PADS site in Park Ridge.

As many of you know I am an active volunteer at a local PADS site and supported the initiative to find a site in Park Ridge.

I should start by stating the obvious - the best way to understand a candidate's position is to enter into a dialogue with them directly.

That said, during the period that this was a topic of discussion, I attended many of the meetings and hearings. I observed first hand the clear and determined opposition to the PADS initiative demonstrated by Alderman David Schmidt. This contrasted with Mayor Frimark who was supportive of finding a method to support a shelter locally.

I am sharing this information as it has been brought to my attention that this level of detail is not widely known outside those who attended the meetings.

For the benefit of City Clerk Henneman, Pastor Gunderson, and any interested parties we are providing the following level of detail and a link --

IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (.pdf)

On page seven of the guide you will find the following level of detail --

Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

The IRS tax guide provides further level of detail on page 8 --

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

* whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office,

* whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions,

* whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election,

* whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election,

* whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office,

* whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election, and

* whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Other interested parties may want to read this link for more level of detail.