Light It Up!

electric sheep

Enjoy the weekend!

Reader Soapbox! & Freewheeling!

Quality of Writing in Terry Ekl's 2008 Audit

The writing quality in Terry Ekl's Park Ridge Police Department 2008 Audit is not high; it seems, to me, more like a first draft than a final report. This may seem a trivial issue, since the meaning Mr. Ekl intended can be determined, in most places, without great effort. It concerns me nevertheless, because I have no direct way of getting a sense of the quality of the investigation itself, as the report omits many details on which conclusions were based. I am also aware that the report was bought at a much lower price than those proposed by other firms. So I find myself asking: if the writing is this sloppy, to the extent that it wasn't even run through a spelling/grammar checker, was the same laxness applied to the investigation itself?

The report is highly redundant, and I was reminded of writing assignments from my school days, in which I didn't have much to say yet tried to take as many pages as possible to say it. There are multiple spelling errors, many of which would have been caught with the spell checker in Word. Commas are omitted where they are needed, and added where they shouldn't be. Many sentences are conflicting in the use of number, and some preposition choices are… interesting. The underlining is even misaligned with amazing frequency for such a simple task, as if done in great haste.

This issue is best appreciated while actually reading the report, but I've made some observations below.

Some Spelling Problems

Commander Jogmen's name is always spelled wrong.

“Swobada” for “Swoboda”

“Manger” for “manager” twice, one time in the fifth row

“affect” for “effect”

“effect” for “affect”

“there” for “their”

“it's” for “its”

“motived” for “motivated”

“recurrent” for “recurring”

“catlyst” for “catalyst”

“thief” for “theft”

“alderman” for “aldermen”

“who” for “whom”

“whom” for “who”

“may” for “might”

“cover-up” used as verb

“first hand” for “firsthand”

“under-age” for “underage”


A Few Excerpts

(I don't set them off by quotes, and my comments are in square brackets)

There is often two sides to how…

Once I received an accusation by a citizen against an officer, it was important to determine whether the allegations made by the citizens against the police department are credible.

…bias or agendas…

elected officials…put aside any personal agenda

…civilian complaints none of which resulted finding of “sustained”. [Note all three errors.]

…it is not possible for me to make what amounts to a credibility decision as to
whether a citizen who has complained about the conduct of an officer or whether the
officer is being truthful as to how the event actually occurred.
In evaluating my findings and suggested changes, I provide you… [He is evaluating his own findings?]

…unfair in both the administration of discipline or…

…my staff and I interviewed individuals whose identity was learned as a result of conversations with others as potentially having information relevant to the investigation of the police department.

I was able to review the videos as well as compare the statements made at the time of the incident by the persons involved and any witnesses to the information I received during the interview process with my staff.

There appears to be a sincere desire on the part of the officers to bring about
change and improvement to the department. [Followed shortly by:] There
appears to be a sincere desire to bring about improvement within the
department…

…investigation of the complaints have…

…has, in many occasions…

The promotion system provides unlimited discretion in the Chief…

…the mixed message being given to the police over enforcement of under-age drinking laws, as officers were supported by the previous city council in aggressive enforcement of these laws, however, when residents began to complain to the current elected officials, this policy changed;
When it is clear that an officer engaged in misconduct the discipline has, in
many occasions…

…she was, in fact, the victim of identity thief.

…need to impose more severe discipline to officers…

I interviewed labor attorney, Robert Smith,…

This finding should not be confused with those officers…

This perception is extremely detrimental to (1) the morale of the department; and (2) for effective law enforcement.

Love of Quotation Marks

I was asked to make “findings” as to whether…

There will be circumstances where police officers make “mistakes”…

…significance I place on the “perceptions”…

The following are “recommendations” I am making.

What can best be described as a “mixed message”…

Submitted By: C. Elegans

Oh, The Cow Goes...

Mooooooooove forward!



Thanks for your patience PRU fans -- we've had some technical glitches today.

The highlights of the City Council COW can be summed up by saying that Mayor Howard is a pandering coward and most of his council alderhacks are firmly under his control.

Also under Mayor Howard's control is ooh, pick me! pick me! I wanna be police chief real real bad, Tom Swoboda, who offered a not-so-cleverly spun recitation of how PADS sites in other towns haven't posed a serious problem, on site, for police departments in those towns. When questioned by Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) about information Swoboda has been given by a Chicago Police Dept. 16th District Commander, regarding the 513 arrests of PADS clients outside of PADS shelters, Swoboda offered that the information would have to be looked at more closely and broken down, which is another way of saying, "Give me time and I'll find a way to dismiss these facts in favor of the position preferred by Mayor Howard."

For his part, Mayor Howard tried to be clever and ask the city attorney that if the 500 foot restriction remains in the ordinance along with the demands of city building codes regarding sprinklers, how many churches would qualify to be homeless shelters. City attorney Buzz Hill said he couldn't answer that, to which Mayor Howard replied, "I can answer! The answer is zero!" Mayor Howard also stated that PADS gives "health exams" and remarked that the city is "constitutionally on thin ground with regard to fingerprinting". At which point the city attorney said, "No. I never said that." Mayor Howard also stated that he had "called 14 Mayors of other towns today" -- today? Jeeze Howard, what's your hurry? -- and that the 6 that responded to him all said that, in short, PADS is terrific! The PRU Crew would suggest that no other response could possibly be forthcoming from those Mayors, since those Mayor's would then have to answer to their constituents about why they aren't doing anything to address the issues surrounding PADS shelters in their towns.

Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd Ward) said he does not believe that a 500 foot restriction that prevents homeless shelters from operating inside schools will have any effect, and that children do not play within the "little circles" that comprise the 500 foot buffer. Ald. Bachtard also let everybody know that he is tired of listening to arguments over the constitution and didn't want to hear any more. Later, as if to demonstrate his disinterest in hearing anything about constitutional rights, Bachtard suggested that "security escorts" be provided during PADS shelter exits to "escort" PADS clients to buses and trains. And as we can see, Park Ridge's very own Constitutional UNscholar seems to not have gotten past the First Amendment to take a look at all those other pesky constitutional amendments, or this piece of stunning idiocy would never have left his mouth. But we're only speculating on that since that requires the assumption of his ability to understand information.

Alderman Frank Wsooolman (7th Ward) offered that he would like to see the 500 foot restriction language in the ordinance left as-is, with the addition of language stating "while children are present". He also seemed to indicate his support for limiting the hours of shelter operation, and months of operation, as well as shelter operators being required to co-apply for either special use or licensing. Ald. Wsooolman's best question of the evening came when he confirmed that shelters will be allowed in all residential zoning districts, and then he asked why the B4 (business district) zoning district was excluded for special use by homeless shelters. Acting Director of Community Development, Carrie Davis, responded that the purpose of that exclusion was to "limit the impact" of homeless shelters on the business district. And people, we have to tell you, when we read that in our various reports this moring...well...we just don't know what to say about that -- the total disregard for the impact on residents of Park Ridge is so unbelievable, we are left virtually speechless.

Alderman Tom Carey (6th Ward) was the only alderman to address the issue of whether or not the question of Park Ridge supporting the opening of a homeless shelter could go to referendum. Ald. Carey also indicated that it is the City Council's responsibility to find a "healthy balance" between the desires of the community and constitutional laws, and this issue has been very divisive to the community.

~~THUD!!!~~ Who is this guy??? This can't possibly be the same guy who took office just 17 short months ago!!! Has anyone checked under this guys bed for a pod?

What a concept! Send to referendum what 2nd Ward Alderman Rich DiPietro himself described as "the most controversial issue" he's seen in his fourteen years of council service.

Alderman Carey, we can only hope that you will pursue this matter by proposing a resolution of the City Council approving a referendum that asks the voters whether or not they support the opening of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge, and if appropriate, under certain restrictions.

Speaking of Ald. DiPietro (2nd Ward) -- his suggestions were that St. Paul of the Cross erect a partition that will keep PADS clients from accessing other areas of the SPC building. DiPietro also wants bike racks installed for PADS guests who are into pedaling their way from shelter to shelter, from town to town.

Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) was...can you guess?...absent from the meeting. But he did submit a statement to Mayor Howard to be read at the meeting. Essentially, Ald. Ryan believes there is a need in the community for a homeless shelter and that Journeys from PADS to Hope has a proven process for addressing the issue of homelessness. Benedict Ald. Ryan also wants to eliminate the 500 foot restriction on where shelters can open, wants St. Paul of the Cross to be the only applicant in the special use and licensing, wants to allow medical services to be provided inside shelters, adjust the ordinance to add that temporary overnight shelters provide continuous parking on site or adjacent to the shelter property, and that to address the issue of loitering, shelters not operate within a 1/4 mile of each other in the Uptown area.

Alderman James Allspaghetti (4th Ward) let it be known that when dealing with the constitution, it "puts religion in a special place". Allspaghetti went on to say that when he talked about what the Park Ridge Police Department was doing in enforcing the zero tolerance law, that what they were doing the constitution says they can't do, which may explain why then Chief of Police Caudill issued a memo to his department that zero tolerance was not to be enforced as they have been doing. But of course, this leads the PRU Crew to wonder why Allspaghetti's buddy, Terry Ekl, so strongly suggested that the directives in that memo from then Chief of Police Caudill be immediately rescinded? Anyone? We can't make heads or tails of this "logic".

Finally, Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) was once again the champion of the residents of Park Ridge, and the representative who challenged his fellow council members to answer the mandates in the zoning code which address the fundamental considerations and purpose for zoning text amendments. Schmidt's council peers were stunningly silent on that issue. Schmidt also read from a rather long dissertation on health issues in the homeless population, pointing out that there are reasonable concerns among those who question whether or not opening a homeless shelter inside a school could expose children to air borne illnesses. Schmidt also questioned the costs that would be undertaken by the city in regard to providing police and ambulance services to a shelter.

Mayor Howard addressed that issue later by pointing out that residents are not charged when police vehicles answer their calls, which of course ignores who it is that provides all the tax revenue used to fund services like police and fire departments -- but, the PRU Crew has come to understand that Mayor Howard doesn't know much about who is actually funding the government he's running. Mayor Howard also presumed that residents of the Youth Campus are not charged for ambulance services, but Chief Gjelsten corrected him on that point, so Mayor Howard offered that maybe the city could charge for ambulance services to any homeless shelter.

Schmidt went on to try to refute much of the unfounded claims of his fellow council members, such as Ald. Allspaghetti's incorrectly stating the City Attorney's position on the 500 foot restriction, and Ald. Bachtard's hair brained idea of "security escorts" out of town for shelter clients. Finally, Ald. Schmidt supported Ald. Carey's question of putting the issue to a referendum vote before the people of Park Ridge.

After Mayor Howard had his final say on the issue of homeless shelters, Ald. DiPietro moved that the matter be referred as an action item on the next City Council agenda.


---------------------------------------------------
And now, a recap of the highlights of last night's City Council regular meeting, which was held at its usual time, interrupting the committee of the whole meeting that took place before and after the regular City Council meeting --

The City Cluck, Betty Henneman, asked the council to vote on a change of venue for the October 20th and 29th meetings of the City Council; those meetings will take place at Washington school.

Next, City Manager Jim Hock offered that he had reviewed the details of the interviews conducted by attorney Terry Ekl in his audit of the police department. Mr. Hock assured the council that the background interview material used by Ekl to write his final report looked okay, and the council can now pay Ekl's outstanding bill. It was moved by the Lord of the Manor, 2nd Ward Ald. Rich DiPietro, that the council pay Ekl $52,381.25 -- seconded by 4th Ward Ald. James Allspaghetti.

First ward Alderman Dave Schmidt moved to demand that Ekl not be paid the balance of his bill to the city, and that fees already paid to Ekl be refunded to the city. That motion died for lack of a second.

Schmidt went on to say that Ekl had stonewalled the council on every issue and that he would not be voting to pay Ekl his final bill.

On a roll call vote, the council approved final payment of the Ekl bill by 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Carey, and DiPietro) to 2 (Wsol and Schmidt).

The next item was a discussion of how to best proceed with accomplishing the needed improvements in the air quality system at the award winning Public Works Service Center. The council had to reject all the bids received in order to eliminate having to accept the lowest bidder, because the lowest bidder provided an inconsistent and incomplete bid; in addition to not meeting the standards required in the staff's reference checks. The city has been actively engaged in this issue, regarding the physical health of city employees, since January, 2007, and at one point it seemed a correction of the Public Works air quality would be deep-sixed due to budget constraints. So the PRU Crew will not stand for even an ounce of whining from any PADS asshats who think the city hasn't moooooooooved forward fast enough on some dumbass homeless shelter, while our own city employees have endured another nine months of talk talk talk over matters surrounding their personal health.

The next item on the city agenda was a discussion of the purchase of four new trucks for the Public Works department. Ald. Schmidt (1st Ward) asked why the city should purchase these trucks now, in light of the city budget deficit of approximately $1.7 million? The answer was that the vehicles are old, 19 years old, and their maintenance costs could skyrocket, and the city may not "get lucky" next year and have these trucks operable. Schmidt then asked City Manager Hock if the city could wait on this nearly $500,000 purchase. Mr. Hock responded that the funds set aside for the purchase of new trucks can't be used for certain things such as payroll, but that it could be spent on things such as fixing roads, to which Schmidt responded that fixing roads in town are a need and that he believes these trucks are a want. Hock then remarked that the longer the city waits to purchase new trucks, the lower the trade-in value for the older trucks become. Several remarks from the audience seemed to suggest that it would be best for the city to either wait on this purchase or find alternatives to buying new trucks, but in the end the City Council voted 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Carey, and Wsol) to 1 (Schmidt) to purchase the new trucks.

Then under the Public Safety agenda line item, the city council voted to finalize raising ambulance fees.

Finally, City Cluck Betty Henneman reported on her recent trip to Park Ridge's sister city of Kinver and Ald. Schmidt reported that he is going on a trip to Fatima Portugal where he has promised to offer prayers for his City Council peers. We would suggest that Ald. Schmidt not waste his energy on his council peers and instead pray for the residents of Park Ridge who are suffering the idiocies of his council peers.

And shortyly after that, the city council adjourned their regular meeting and got back to moooooooooving forward on discussing the issue of regulations for homeless shelters in Park Ridge.

More PRU Briefs!

The Aldermoorons meet again!



Tonight the City Council COW discussion among the aldermen will take place at City Hall beginning at 6PM. As PRU readers know, the topic is about the proposed text amendment.pdf and licensing standards.pdf to be added to the city's zoning code, which will allow for the opening of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. Do note that the agenda for tonight's meeting says "The meeting will commence with discussion among the Aldermen, Agenda Item #4", which is a nice way of saying "comments from the audience will not be continued or accepted."

Look for the adlermoorons to contort themselves into pretzels in their attempts to justify compromising over the text amendment and licensing standards for any temporary homeless shelters. All that compromising will function as the lube designed to enable our local politicians to act as the lucky Pierres between the pro-PADS PRMA and the thinking portion of the Park Ridge community.

We also expect to receive reports about a certain cow on city staff who is expected to once again chew gum with her mouth hanging open while she feigns detachment at the goings on.


Bellowing for the homeless!



We hear the bagpipes were a big hit last night at the St. Paul of the Cross protest march held to bemoan the delay in opening a PADS shelter in Park Ridge -- we're going to call it a "protest march" because another source tells us there may have been between 300 and 400 people blocking traffic as they marched across the six corners intersection in Uptown. According to the news report linked above, 12 churches are promoting the PADS shelter for Park Ridge. 12 churches? 400 people? That's only an average of 33 people per church! Not quite the turnout the good shepherds may have hoped for from their faithful flocks.


Deadline Tomorrow!



Are you registered to vote? Tomorrow is the deadline to register and be able to walk into your polling place and cast your vote, or participate in early voting. There is a 14-day grace period to register, but there are restrictions.

More information can be gotten from the Cook County Clerk's web site.

Just Imagine...

Enjoy something out of the ordinary!

Have a great weekend!

Guest Essay -- Seeking Nessie!

Today we have the privilege of offering a guest essay from a PRU reader, Seeking Nessie, that takes a broader view of the process of public policy creation, as well as some of the legal foundations and guiding principles of tax-exempt organizations that engage themselves in political activity.

It's long. And we very much feel it's worth your time. We hope you find it as well researched and written as we did.



Dear All,

I write to you as "Seeking Nessie In Park Ridge." Like the famed Scottish beastie which exists solely in folklore (and, perhaps, in a few grainy pictures), sound city governance in Park Ridge, free of cronyism, back-room deals, and fiscal ineptitude, seems to be a mythical thing, hiding somewhere deep and unconfirmed in the back rooms of City Hall, or perhaps, in the dark waters of Murphy Lake. I'm still looking for it, perhaps - probably - in vain. I may be better off focusing my efforts on tilting at windmills. But for now, I remain Seeking Nessie.

First, a brief primer on the rules of what kinds of activities exempt organizations can engage in without endangering their exempt status. Lobbying by nonprofits is perfectly legal and supported by the Internal Revenue Service's regulations. There are several categories of exempt organizations, including those exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) (charitable, scientific, educational groups) and under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) (social welfare or action groups). Under IRS regulations, entities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) - such as churches, and integrated auxiliaries of a church or of a convention or association of churches - have strict limits on the amount of lobbying they can conduct.

While there are treatises on exempt organizations that are tremendously dense and highly informative, one would surely have consumed a yearly supply of roughage by the time one digested even one of them. However, the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ("AAFCS") provides about as good of an explanation as any of what constitutes "lobbying" as is available for the general public:

The following excerpt from the AAFCS site (http://www.aafcs.org/PPToolkit/advocating.htm) is helpful:

"Lobbying Activities: . . . lobbying (or more precisely, "influencing legislation") is defined in Section 4911 of the Internal Revenue Code as:

"Any attempt to influence any legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segments thereof; or

"Any attempt to influence any legislation through communications with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of the legislation.

"According to IRS regulations, a tax-exempt organization is attempting to influence legislation if it:

"Contacts or urges the public to contact members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation; or

"Advocates the adoption or rejection of particular legislation.

"Section 4911 of the IRS Code also lists exceptions to the term "influencing legislation." These activities include:

"Making the results of non-partisan analysis, studies, or research available.

"Providing technical advice or assistance in response to a written request by a government body, committee, or subcommittee.

"Appearing before, or communicating to, any legislative body with respect to a possible decision by that body that could affect the organization's existence, powers, and duties, its tax-exempt status, or the deduction of contributions to it.

"Communicating with its members regarding legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the organization or its members, unless the communication directly encourages the members to become involved in direct or grass roots lobbying.

"Communicating with government officials or employees on routine matters."

NonProfitExpert.com (http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/political.htm) also provides some useful information:

"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."

Sound like something we've seen around Park Ridge lately? I thought so.

There is certainly a colorable argument that what the "Bully Pulpit Crew" ("BPC") is doing falls within the definition of "influencing legislation". The members of the BPC would be well-advised to look hard at the responsibilities they must shoulder when bestowed with the benefits of being tax-exempt. I would like to suggest that they take a moment to review a straight-from-the-horse's-mouth guide (where "horse" equals "Internal Revenue Service") which has been written at a reasonably readable level. The IRS's version of "Tax Exempt Organization Rules for Dummies" may be found at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf.

I realize that "reasonably readable" is a relative term, but bear with me.

Now, let's talk about one of the horrible little hoops that the BPC's various organizations must jump through in order to maintain their tax exempt status.

Entities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3), excluding churches and private foundations, can choose between two sets of guidelines for measuring whether their attempts to influence legislation constitute impermissible lobbying activities: a measure based purely on expenditures (the" Expenditures Test"), and a more facts-based "Substantial Part Test". The Expenditure Test is mathematical and set out under the Internal Revenue Code, Sections 501(h) and 4911. The Expenditures Test requires dividing the amount of funds used by an entity for lobbying purposes by the total budget of that entity to determine if the lobbying expenditures exceeds a permissible percentage. It also requires determining if certain types of lobbying exceed a permissible percentage of the total permissible lobbying expenditure.1

Fortunately for the purposes of this little foray into the world of exempt organizations, we don't have to look at the Expenditures Test, because after all, math is hard. Or at least one would surmise it to be for those who believe that the opinions of a few control the governance of the whole. But I digress.

Groups that do not - or can not - elect to use the Expenditure Test must submit to the "Substantial Part Test." As the name would imply, an organization’s attempts to influence legislation may not constitute a "substantial part" of its activities. The IRS measures compliance with the “Substantial Part Test" on the basis of “all the pertinent facts and circumstances of each case,” determined under a variety of factors such as the time devoted (by both paid and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted to the activity by the organization. Courts have interpreted this test in a variety of ways, from a 5% safe harbor (1955), to a ruling that percentages test are inappropriate (1972). Although the precise percentage of activities that rise to the level of "substantial part" has never been fully defined, the definition of lobbying under this test is not limited to expenditures of money. In other words, activities of volunteers to influence legislation must also be counted as lobbying.

While it seems clear that the BPC is attempting to "influence legislation", the harder question remains "Do the lobbying efforts of the various BPC entities constitute a "substantial part" of their activities?"

This I could not opine on - I simply do not know enough about any of these congregations, and as someone who once owned a t-shirt that read "I Survived Catholic School", I don't care to.

Moreover, while I am an attorney with more than a passing familiarity with tax law, I don't profess any particular expertise in the subtleties of exempt organizations. I have to imagine, however, in the great wilds of Park Ridge, there exists SOMEONE with enough expertise and experience in the matter to provide a reasonably informed judgment on the issue. Perhaps he or she is hanging out with Nessie.

I can tell you that the IRS has been focusing more scrutiny (and will continue to do so in the coming audit cycles) on the activities of exempt organizations. Exempt organizations as a group are undergoing far more scrutiny now on a number of fronts (excessive officer compensation, below-market loans to key company officials, and other interactions with officers placing the company in an unfavorable position). However, "political intervention" is an especially hot topic, given the pending election season.

A report issued by the IRS in 2006 (
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2006paci_report_5-30-07.pdf) found a "disturbing amount of political intervention" by churches and non-profit groups during the 2004 presidential campaign. The IRS survey of 82 non-profits and churches found nearly three-quarters "engaged in some level of prohibited political activity." The IRS's Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI) will remain in effect for the 2008 election season.

Again, as to whether the activities of the BPC rise to a prohibited level, I am not qualified to opine. But they sure do tend to give me the cold and pricklies.
And finally, because I'm feeling particularly expository today, I note that the PADS issue can very easily become a very tricky electoral issue.

Without dismissing the importance of the numerous other issues to be considered in the next round of local elections, such as the pandering to "pay to play" campaign contributors (cum zoning variance seekers), the favoring of environmental cleanup dodgers, and the grubbing around in other financial boondoggles (the City is paying what for the Ekl report? the City proposed to spend how much on a feasibility study for the Frimark Memorial Highway and Underpass?), the PADS issue has proven its potential as a divisive, galvanizing topic. While one hopes that it will not be the case, PADS might - just might - have the potential of sneaking past - or at least running even with - pocketbook politics or kitchen table economics in the minds of voters.

Those voters who don't comprehend the fundamental wrongness of what the BPC and its minions are trying to accomplish, on both the "undue influence on government" front and the "imposition on the rights of the larger community" front, could easily seize on a mayoral or aldermanic candidate's stated opposition to permitting PADS to come rampaging into town as an unrestrained Godzilla (PADSzilla? with all appropriate imagery intact) as a basis to reject that candidate in the next round of City elections.

Obviously, there is a critical difference between "our city prohibits ALL homeless shelters" (with the subtext of "you bad, bad, uncaring, bigoted, and selfish people") and "our City chooses to regulate the location and operation of homeless shelters." For some, this difference presents a degree of subtlety that they are incapable of grasping.

I would say that (sadly) an unacceptably high percentage of residents in Park Ridge either (a) are not tuned in to the critical analysis of the issues offered by the PRU, PubDogs, or those individuals who have worked so tirelessly to craft sensible and reasonable regulations; or (b) are aware of, but actively choose to ignore, such analysis. These individuals are far more likely to take the easy and less mentally challenging route of voting for the pro-PADS candidate that their BPC leaders direct them - or coerce them - to vote for.

We can ill-afford to under-estimate the logistical and strategic concerns that will be faced by those current and potential leaders who actually understand the issues and the problems associated with PADSzilla in their bid to win or retain positions in the next round of City elections. But more importantly, as residents and social commentators (action item coming up!), it would be prudent to remind folks early and often that everyone can complain as loudly as they want to about the (in)competencies of certain of our elected leaders, but if one doesn't take the effort to campaign for, volunteer for, advocate for, or at the very least, vote for candidates whom one feels will do a better job, one becomes part of the problem.

Best regards,
Seeking Nessie In Park Ridge

Ready To Move Forward!

In today's edition of the Journal and Topics, Mayor Howard has announced that "We're ready to move forward." It's one of Mayor Howard's favorite phrases, though we're not sure if that's because he has a limited vocabulary or a limited memory; he can't remember any other catchy phrases.

The article goes on to say "Frimark feels the report indicates that there was no pattern of misconduct. 'As far as I'm concerned, it sort of verified what we expected was there."

The report may "sort of" verify that there is no pattern of misconduct...among police officers. The report is woefully short from verifying whether or not there has been any misconduct on the part of elected officials -- elected officials Ekl refused to name in his report, but instead chose to name city employees.

We don't have the documentation to prove it, but some of our better sources tell us that certain elected officials have attempted to go well beyond mere "micromanagement" of police matters, and that the interference by elected officials was not merely calling the police department to inquire about constituents concerns, nor was it only about the zero tolerance idiocy of Aldermen James Allspaghetti (4th Ward) and Don Bachtard (3rd Ward), which by the by, took place at an open public meeting, rightly or wrongly, but nevertheless in response to some constituent complaints.

As for misconduct on the part of police officers, the PRU Crew has always believed the vast majority of the Park Ridge Police Department are stand up and be counted guys and gals. We sure do wish that members of the local business community had the same backbone, because then not only would the citizens of Park Ridge come to understand which police officers may have been misconducting themselves, but also on which elected official's behalf they were doing so.

When the City Council originally discussed whether or not the Ekl report would be released to the public, the council ultimately decide that they would release the report to the public, "warts and all." So the PRU Crew is wondering why Ald. Allspaghetti is allowed to get away with saying to his fellow council members and the public --

Ald. Allegretti cautioned the Council, "Be careful what you wish for. " He stated that Ekl might have withheld certain information from the report that is included in the back-up material. He said Ekl might have done this for a reason - it may open the City up for suit.pdf -- City Council meeting minutes.

Ekl might have withheld certain information? By whose authority did Ekl do that? What happened to the thorough investigation that was supposed to do more than just "sort of" verify what has been going on with the Park Ridge Police Department? What happened to providing the citizens of Park Ridge with a report that included "warts and all?"

Remember people, you are paying for this bullshit. In fact, you will be paying 15% more than the originally contracted fee of $75,000.00 for this bullshit.

Hard to swallow? Don't worry -- Mayor Howard will give you a Big Gulp of kool-aid to wash it all down.