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?

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!

Press Release from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg!

For your reading enjoyment --

Good afternoon-

Attached is the text of the message I delivered to the Council last night vetoing appropriations for community groups. Pursuant to state statute, the City Council will automatically debate overriding the vetoes at the next City Council meeting on September 20.

You will hear some claim that the vetoes were unnecessary and should be overridden because the total amount involved is a small percentage of our overall budget. That is nonsense. Every single dime we have available to us must be spent wisely and solely for the benefit of the taxpayers, not private organizations, nor anyone or anything else for that matter.

As I mentioned last night, the perceived nobility of the purpose does not change the fact that it is still an expenditure of public funds to private entities without any determination that an essential public need is being met through the expenditure. Wrongfully spending taxpayer funds because politicians determine the cause is "just" or the amount involved is "slight" does nothing to make it right.

More importantly, this issue is just part of the bigger picture which involves defining the role of the city government and ensuring that we finally get our fiscal house in order lest we end up in the same financial condition as the State.

This is a public debate. I encourage everyone, regardless of their opinion, to let the aldermen know and me how you feel and to attend the September 20 meeting if you can.

-Dave

Mayoral Veto 09072010

For our part, the PRU Crew is getting the idea that Mayor Schmidtzkrieg has developed a political tin ear.

Hump Day PRU Briefs!

To our Monday night post, the following comment was added last evening --

Anonymous said...

The average daily flights, over Park Ridge, on the runways 9L/27R and 4L/22R(these are the paths over P.R), arrival and departure combined, according to the data on the ONCC website are:

Nov 2008--------343 prior to new runway,
Nov 2009-------283,
Feb 2010-------213

Obviously far fewer flights over P.R. regardless of path, with the new runway added.

Now, before someone says this is because there are less flights overall…guess again. There were the same number of total arrivals and 50 fewer total departures when comparing Nov 2008 and Feb 2010; same data source. If you doubt the number just go to the ONCC website and confirm for yourself. I live on the south end right under the new flight path….RIGHT UNDER. It sucks! I got used to it.

What I will not get used to are people talking down my property value by continuing to speak about how bad it is to live here, when it has clearly gotten better for P.R. as a whole.

Lastly, investing anything on an environmental study is just asinine. Park Ridge paid for a study several years ago that shows the air quality in P.R. sucks. I have some news for you; we live next to a major airport, several major expressways, and the 3rd largest city in this country. The air quality will always suck.

June 8, 2010 7:35 PM

The PRU Crew has not taken the time to verify the information in the comment above, but at this time we have no reason to suspect the Anonymous comment as being wrong or intentionally false. And we did find the effort at seeking out and sharing actual facts and data rather refreshing. The Anonymous commenter obviously isn't following the PROAC-scripted version of ineducable ignorance on the part of the citizenry.



Email Release -- from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg
to: presscontacts(at)electdaveschmidt.com
date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
subject: Fwd: Park Ridge, Illinois

To: staber@calairlaw.com

Good afternoon, Mr. Taber, I am the Mayor of Park Ridge. I want to thank you again for coming to Park Ridge to make your presentation. As you may have gathered, I am skeptical of the efficacy of further litigation regarding the O'Hare expansion ("OMP"). However, I have vowed to keep an open mind.

By way of background, I am an experienced litigation attorney and pride myself on being able to assess the viability of a claim or defense. Without going in to too much detail, I have enjoyed great success over the years by consistently approaching potential litigation through a careful process of review and analysis. I view the potential of litigating the OMP issue as I would any other type of potential litigation: before I do anything, I need to see an assessment of the relevant facts, the applicable law, an analysis of how that law would apply to the given set of facts, and then I need to be comfortable with the conclusion before I advise my client regarding whether to proceed. That would be especially true in this situation because I am dealing with taxpayers' money. I cannot achieve the required analysis through a telephone conversation. Rather, I am accustomed to approaching potential litigation by preparing a legal memorandum addressing the aforementioned matters or reviewing a memorandum prepared by an associate.

To that end, if you want to try to convince me that litigation is a viable option for the City of Park Ridge, I would need to first see a detailed legal memorandum which lays out the relevant facts as you see them, your view of the applicable law, your analysis of how that law would apply to our particular set of facts in Park Ridge, and your conclusion which would include an honest assessment of the City's chances of prevailing.

If you desire to take this course of action, please prepare a legal memorandum and submit it to me for my review. Please be advised that the memorandum will NOT be kept confidential. As our City Attorney has correctly pointed out, any discussion regarding proceeding with litigation, and the reason for doing so, must take place in open session.

I look forward to hearing from you.

-Dave Schmidt
Mayor

Mayor Schmidtzkrieg is obviously not following the PROAC and CAL legal team-scripted version of secrecy concerning public policy, at least not on this issue. And the PRU Crew finds that refreshing too.



In an online Herald-Advocate article -- Community group handouts still face veto at mayor's desk -- we read, "Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt says he will veto any City Council-approved financial contributions to community and social-service organizations."

The article continues, "Schmidt, who believes the 2010-11 budget contains inflated revenue projections and does not take into account potential losses in income-tax revenue from the state, said he will not support disbursements for not-for-profit city groups.

"My intention is still to veto it if and when it goes to the council," he said of the motion. "My hope is that the council will see the light and there won't be a need for a veto."

The PRU Crew once again reminds the Mayor that he has the power to wield a discerning red pen over making the choice to swing a total veto axe.

We find the Mayor's threat to veto all community group contributions in total, without either demanding an accounting of each group's expenditures and--or making a value judgement between the services provided, to be as mindless a course of action as the Council's choosing to make across-the-board cuts of 12% for each contribution.

And as others have repeatedly pointed out, expenditures on tree trimming and planting, as well as fireworks displays and staff support for other special events, aren't essential city services either -- why the nearly complete silence on those expenditures, Mr Mayor?

A Really Big Shoo Tonight!

It's a really big shoo set to take place at 505 Butler Place! The agenda (.pdf) for tonight's City Council meeting includes the long anticipated Budget Veto Message from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg. And as we expected, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg intends to pass the hot potato budget buck back to the City Council -- our expectations were confirmed in an email Mayor Schmidtzkrieg sent out last week.

From: "Dave Schmidt" dave@parkridgemayor.com
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com

Good evening-

Most of you know that the City Council passed a budget resolution on April 17 which I termed as "hopelessly flawed." On the surface it appears to be balanced, but I have analyzed the projected revenue figures and believe they are overstated, perhaps by as much as $1.2million, possibly even more. Meanwhile, the budget which was adopted will result in the layoffs of six police department personnel and members of the fire and public works departments. Additionally, the City's non-union staff has been cut, and those who remain will have their salaries frozen for a second year in a row.

Against that backdrop, the Council voted to spend over $350,000 on contributions to community groups and to fund the fight against O'Hare expansion. I have received many phone calls and e-mails from residents who have implored me to leave those expenditures in the budget, and even more calls and messages insisting that they be removed. I have also received much advice on whether I should veto the entire budget or simply veto those parts of the budget that I feel are unnecessary or unwise expenditures. Some believe that the latter course of action is the only way I can exhibit "leadership" on the budget issue.

I have given the matter a lot of thought and consulted with the City Attorney on the extent of my powers. I have also played out different scenarios in my mind, and I have concluded that the best course of action is to veto the entire budget and try again. I plan to explain the basis for my projected revenue concerns and the reasons for the veto in greater detail on Monday evening, but for now I can summarize my thought process as follows:

First, I cannot line item veto inflated revenue projections, only expenditures. The City Council needs to take a much harder look at those projections and adopt a far more conservative approach than it has to date. Once those revenue projections have been revised, then the Council needs to decide how to increase revenues and further cut expenditures to achieve an actual balanced budget.

I will recommend that the aldermen start with the O'Hare and community group expenditures. The aldermen should also consider additional staff reductions and/or furlough days to reduce the City's overall personnel expense, something I also cannot do by way of a line item veto. The Council also needs to look once more at the library's budget. I do believe that the library is an essential part of the fabric of our town, but not every program offered by the library is, itself, essential.

I know the aldermen do not relish more budget discussions, but we were all elected to do a job, and it is essential to the financial survival of the City that we do the job right. It is my hope that the aldermen will recognize their obligation to the citizens and sustain my veto.

We're looking forward to hearing Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's analysis of City Manager Hock's projected revenues, and we cannot wait to hear Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's recommendations for cuts to community group expenditures and additional staff reductions.

It promises to be one helluva really big shoo tonight!

Decisions!

"Decisions" by: *laura242 at deviantart.com


Most of us are predominantly guided by either our heads or our hearts.

Achieving the right balance requires judgement, and the healthy temperance of both.

Have a good weekend.


-- Addendum -- press release

Dave Schmidt dave@parkridgemayor.com
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM
subject: State income tax receipts
11:35 AM (2 minutes ago)

Good morning. I am writing to set the record straight on my position regarding Governor Quinn's plan to slash the amount of state income tax receipts that the state sends to municipalities like ours. An article in this week's Herald-Advocate misstates my position.

Under Governor Quinn's plan, Park Ridge stands to lose approximately $930,000 which is presently included in our budgeted revenues for next year. A couple weeks ago, I was asked whether we should be factoring the proposed cut into our budget. I unwisely said that I did not believe so, because I viewed it as a political ploy on Governor Quinn's part to push through an income tax hike. However, given the horrendous state of Illinois' own budget situation, I should have taken Governor Quinn at his word.

At the budget workshop last Saturday, I asked our State Representative, Rosemary Mulligan, if she believed we could count on that money. She expressed her view that Park Ridge should plan on the reduction. I then cautioned the aldermen that they should heed Rep. Mulligan's warning. I reiterated that warning on Monday night at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting during my mayor's report. However, the Herald-Advocate article incorrectly implies that I still do not believe we need to worry about the reduction in state income tax revenue.

Unfortunately, taking the reduction into account is going to necessitate further budget cuts in addition to those already proposed by City Manager Jim Hock. This is not going to be pretty folks, but our long-term financial survival depends a great deal on what we do over the next few weeks. I encourage you all to attend the meetings and stay informed about this process. Have a great weekend.

Press Release!

While we wait for the Crew to complete review of the Melidosian Motionbox magic, we thought we would share with you the following press release we received from Mayor Dave Schmidtzkrieg this morning --

Park Ridge - The day after a City Council Committee-of-the-Whole meeting, Mayor Dave Schmidt expressed continued frustration with the City Council's lack of progress in addressing the City's current budget deficit.

"For months, I have asked the Council to adjust water rates so the taxpayers are not forced to keep subsidizing the largest users' water bills," said Schmidt. "However, they continue to drag their feet as our deficit continues to grow. Every time a drop of water is used in this City, we have to dip into the taxpayers' savings account, the City's reserves, to make up the difference between the water charge and the City's costs. On top of that, those who use the least amount of water are charged more per gallon than those who use the most. It is completely inequitable."

At the meeting, Schmidt asked the aldermen to at least agree in principle that the City should charge enough for water to offset all of its costs in delivering that water. Instead, the aldermen engaged in what Schmidt termed a "bull" session which accomplished nothing other than to postpone a solution yet again.

"It is this kind of failure to act in the taxpayers' best interests which has been an unfortunate hallmark of this Council," said Schmidt."They cannot continue to fiddle while Rome burns to the ground."