Free! Free! Freewheeling!

Feel free to express your independence and independent thoughts here!

The PRU Crew will be on vacation through the July 4th holiday, but we'll be checking-in periodically and posting your comments as necessary.

1937-2008...shit...

Thanks for the laughs, George.

Enjoy a long weekend and remember to laugh!

Whhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyy???

Tonight's City calendar includes a meeting of the Fair Housing Commission. Among the documents listed for the meeting is a draft letter to the City Council.

The PRU Crew is going to ignore the extreme hyperbole and misinformation contained in the draft letter and simply offer our opinion as to whhhyyy whhhyyy whhhyyy the City Council's Procedures and Regulations committee seems to be pulling up the reins on the Fair Housing Commission and the unelected appointees who populate it.

The Fair Housing Commission, chaired by the infamous Nan Parson who is so ably aided and abetted by former 3rd Ward Alderman, Sue Bell, has consistently failed to recognize that they are not, never have been, and are unlikely to become a political action committee for affordable housing and other do-gooder social justice causes.

The Fair Housing Commission has consistently overstepped its mandate of carrying out city policy, as determined by the City Council, and has continually sought to expand its role in determining that policy.

The Fair Housing Commission's chairman, Nan Parson, cannot seem to remember the difference between the issues of "fair housing" and "affordable housing"; hint: they aren't the same things!

The Fair Housing Commission has aggressively sought to determine city policy through almost constant bombardment of the city attorney with requests for legal work to change the city's fair housing ordinance.

The Fair Housing Commission has sought to use the Park Ridge - Niles School District curriculum to advance their social agenda by requesting that the district include in its elementary school curriculum special attention to the narrow issue of fair housing.

In short, the Fair Housing commission, and particularly Nan Parson and Sue Bell, have been real pains in the ass; incessantly whining, grabbing for policy-making power, attempting to influence district 64 curriculum, and consuming city resources of attorney and staff time at a Nascar clip!

The PRU Crew applauds Alderman James Allegretti (4th Ward), Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st Ward), and Alderman Thomas Carey (6th Ward) for kicking your asses back into line.

Carry on, gentlemen!

A Kinder, Gentler "Inquisition"

The Inquisition – the real Inquisition, not the Monty Python version – was a dark time in this planet’s history. People were questioned and threatened with death, usually by members of the clergy (claiming to be acting in the name of God) assisted by local governmental officials, if they did not tell their inquisitors what they wanted to hear. Because these proceedings were conducted in secret, however, an accurate account of what was said and what kind of threats caused it to be said was rarely available.

Today we reverse the process and offer our own mini-“inquisition” of a member of the clergy: Fr. Carl Morello. But unlike the original Inquisition, we don’t claim to be acting in God’s name, since Fr. Carl and the Park Ridge Ministerial Assoc. seem to have beaten us to that endorsement. And also unlike the original, we are conducting this one in public with no threats or intimidation.

We just want to hear Fr. Carl's answers to the questions his own parishioners, and also a lot of non-parishioner residents of Park Ridge, have been asking about how St. Paul of the Cross school became the new PADS homeless shelter site.

Let’s start with this baker’s dozen, Father:

1. When did you first hear any mention of a PADS shelter being set up in Park Ridge?
2. When did you first become involved in the planning of a PADS shelter here?
3. What specifically did you do to inform yourself about PADS and its overnight shelters?
4. Did you ever visit a PADS shelter; and, if so, how many and where?
5. Why didn’t you tell your parishioners about PADS when planning first began?
6. With whom did you consult before committing to support a PADS shelter in Park Ridge?
7. What alternatives to a PADS shelter have you personally explored?
8. How many homeless people have you let stay in the St. Paul rectory in the past two years?
9. Why don’t you consider rectory stays a viable alternative to a PADS homeless warehouse?
10. With whom did you consult before committing to host the PADS shelter at St. Paul?
11. Why did you demand secrecy from your school board members about the St. Paul PADS?
12. Who asked Atty. Jack Owens to represent you, St. Paul or the Archdiocese re PADS?
13. Are you personally guaranteeing the safety of the St. Paul schoolchildren?

Fr. Carl, feel free to post your answers as a comment to this site. We promise to print them, in their entirety.

Taking Attendance! Great Idea!

In last week's Park Ridge Herald-Advocate there were two items covering the attendance of Aldermen at City Council and committee meetings, while today's Pub-dog piece is also about Benedict Alderman Ryan's need for an attitude adjustment.

The PRU Crew is going to give ourselves a big old pat on the backs for getting people to pay attention to the issue of attendance.

And you're all very welcome.

The Evolution of Dance!

Boogie down and have a great weekend!

Once again, we're starting ours a day early.

I Don't Like Sparklers and Snakes!

An article in last week's Journal & Topics was brought to our attention by a PRU reader -- Firework Crackdown Includes Common Items.

In the article, Park Ridge Fire Department Lt. Jeff Sorensen is quoted as saying, "My whole thing is just life safety." We appreciate your thing, sir, but sparklers and snakes?

The piece offers the following: "The ordinance bans anything that produces "a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion or deflagration or detonation." That includes items like sparklers or snakes that are legal under state law."

The article goes on to explain, "There have also been reports of injuries from fireworks, including the sparklers that parents often give to their children.

He said a parent once told him her 2-year-old was too smart to be burned from the 1800-degree rod in his hand."

Our PRU reader submitted the following remarks on the topic:

Open letter to Lt. Jeff Sorensen:

What is next for regulation in this town? My stove? In your explanation regarding the new ordinance, you are quoted as saying "anything that could hurt people or start fires." I am left thinking that since it has a flame, and you have jumped to conclusions that we are incapable of parenting our children, that perhaps that is next.

Or maybe it will be the hot water heater. Again, since the assumption is that we cannot control our children, then we can't be trusted to monitor the gauge so as to keep them from being hurt. Snakes and Sparklers are no longer available for purchase or to be used in Park Ridge? Good grief!

This used to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family. Now it is a constant wonder of big brother and lousy government. Give us a little credit. Any parent that would hand a sparkler to a two-year old and say they are too smart to get burned will need a lot more coaching than your just banning sparklers.

Crack down on the criminals who are transporting illegal fireworks over the state lines; who keep us up at night with their illegal activity; who raise the potential of burning branches or property damage and who risk personal injury. Leave us alone with our simple display of independence and let us have our sparklers and snakes back. I will read with great interest the time a tree is burned down by a snake!

It seems to the reader, and to the PRU Crew too, that the new ordinance and Lt. Sorensen may be a bit over-zealous in attempts to keep the children of Park Ridge out of harms way.

We get the feeling that the next child-protective ordinance the City will pass is that all children under the age of eighteen will be required to wear bubble wrap!



And the whole sparklers and snakes ban reminded the PRU Crew of another item we recently read in the local press -- Decorative blue stones have downsides for library leaders.

In that article readers learn that Library Director, Ms. Janet "Van De Carr said members of the board are unhappy with the look of the bluestone and the fact that it is often kicked outside the area and tracked into the library. The board has also expressed concern about small children putting the stones in their mouths and about larger rocks around the tree being thrown." (emphasis added)

The PRU Crew knew about kids eating bugs and boogers, but we have to admit we had no idea about them eating rocks. Throwing rocks, yes. Eating rocks, no. We learn something new every day. Whether we like it or not.

Still, we can't help but feel that either somebody got children and chickens confused, or some parents may need to consult a nutrition expert about what may be missing from their kid's diet. Barring that, we'd like to suggest an old standby...



A little strip over the little kid pie hole and you're good to go for a trip to the Library!

Silence is golden! Duct tape is silver!

And while we're on the subject, we'd also like to suggest...



...for dumbass parents who would give anything combustible to a two year old!

A Tuesday Two-fer!

First -- Council Meeting Highlights!

1. Under agenda item: Citizens Wishing To Address The City Council On A Non-Agenda Item.

Several Saint Paul of the Cross parents addressed the Council and related their concerns and dismay that a PADS shelter has been proposed for their school gym. Several stressed their concerns over issues of health and hygiene.

We are pleased to learn that some brave souls are willing to stand up and be counted on this public policy matter, even if it earns for them the nasty wrath of their fellow "christians." We hope they will continue to be brave enough to stand up and be counted when their parish pastor tells them, "talk to the hand."

The PRU Crew is fairly disgusted with this entire process. We understand why these parents and others were at the Council meeting to address our elected officials, and we would encourage them to continue to do so. But we can't help but feel that these parents and others were given no other choice of a forum in which to voice their concerns; their pastor announced the plan the day before school was dismissed for the summer, then he high-tailed his butt out of town.

2. Under agenda item: Standing Committees

-- Procedures and Regulations Committee

The PRU Crew is very pleased to learn that the Council decided not to give Mayor Howard carte blanche power over the Council committee appointment process.

The 2nd Ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro, offered an amendment to the new ordinance that will require the "consent" of the City Council in approving the Mayor's committee appointments. The vote was 4 to 3, with Aldermen Schmidt (1st), DiPietro (2nd), Bach (3rd) and Wsol (7th) voting to require City Council consent, while Aldermen Allegretti (4th), Ryan (5th) and Carey (6th) voted to continue being Mayoral lapdogs.

-- Public Works Committee

In what the PRU Crew considers to be the wisest path of action, the Council did not approve the adoption of a no-bid contract for the Source Capture System at the Public Works Service Center.

While this does mean that our city employees will have to wait even longer to see the air quality at the Public Works Service Center improved, something the PRU Crew has been watching and pushing to see done, it should also ensure that the scope of the work and any system put in place is detailed. And the bid process is also supposed to ensure that taxpayers get the best rate possible for the job.

Second -- A Comment in the Spotlight!

We asked for and we received the following response on our Morrelleon post. We feel that the issues raised in this comment are probably not too dissimilar to the sentiments held by a lot of Park Ridgians. We disagree with much of what this poster has concluded on some of the issues, but we thought it was well stated and considered.

June 17, 2008 8:28 AM - Anonymous said...

PRU:

Apologizes in advance for the length of this post.

My concerns are no different then the concerns many have posted here. I was responding to a comment by Mike about “more homeless people in certain places”. Is this going to dramatically increase the traffic and make up of the current homeless population? Is this population going to adversely affect businesses in PR? Are there going to be safety and security issues (children)? How will police handle these? Will there be attempts for future shelters and funding (tip of the iceberg)? Is going to the library with my daughter going to become a dramatically different event? If I let it, my mind can race to various scenarios I have read about from members of other communities who have shelters –various bodily secretions in the park, pedophiles (you know the drill). While some of my concerns may turn out to be wrong and or fear based, I feel they are reasonable. After all, to some degree I am fighting instinct. There is an innate part of me that thinks about me and protecting my family first.

The second point you asked about was simply that I see some of the arguments used to support a conclusion of no PADS shelter fail to address what I see as the real issue. Some have said that they would only want a shelter that services those that are from Park Ridge. By silly, I meant that it avoided the real issues (if that was the wrong choice of words I am sorry). There are valuable non-profits who service both people from PR and neighboring towns that people in the community support. Many of these have been here for awhile and there have been no major issues or backlash. They just target a narrower segment of the homeless community and therefore there is less perceived risk to the community. Another example was the whole location/St. Mary's issue. Some people actually thought that this was going to change people’s opinions. I am sure that those who live next to St. Mary’s were happy about this but it did not address the issue of bringing additional risk to the community.

Another example is the argument about PADS success rate. I am not a doctor and I have not written a thesis on homelessness in America, but my gut tells me that the reason their success rate is low is that they choose to service those same people that many perceive as a risk to PR. I have said this in other posts and I will repeat it. Having had general experience seeing close relationships battle addiction issues, I can say that the percentage of people who achieve any long term “clean time” is very low. I will leave the mental health issue to those with more experience in the area, but my guess is the percentage issue is the same. As long as a shelter is open to the full range of homeless people, they will not reach some arbitrary acceptable percentage.

I have also heard arguments that PADS is not willing to take responsibility for those they service once they leave PADS (again about risk). We all know the answer to this. I am not a lawyer but I know that once they leave the shelter PADS cannot force them to go anywhere.

I have also heard the “enabling” argument – that somehow there is a major portion of the human race that has figured out they can play the system by being homeless. I guess this comes down to everyone’s individual gut feel. I have not seen any data that breaks down the homeless population into this category. I am sure there are people who play the system but I feel that the vast majority of homeless for a variety of reasons are in a place that I can in no way relate to. Put simply, for most homeless I do not believe this is a “lifestyle choice”. I cringe when I hear that!

Now we will hear about St. Paul’s and how could they locate this at a school. If PRMA moves it to another PR church we will hear from those neighbors. Why? Because, again, the real issue has not been addressed.

All these arguments have some validity but they also all avoid what I see as the real issue. When I look at the various positions against PADS in PR I ask two questions. Is it something that based on laws and peoples freedom can be changed? If it was changed would a shelter in PR be acceptable?

The answer to these questions for me is no. If there was a vote on PADS in PR I would vote no. Not because of servicing people outside of PR. Not because of an unacceptable transition percentage. Not because it was at St. Mary’s or now St Paul’s. Not because we are enabling people. Not because of the way PRMA and or PADS has handled this whole thing.

To me if you bring a shelter that services the entire gamete of the homeless community then there is risk. This is who PADS is. That does not mean they are evil people. That does not mean that these people are not worthy of help. What it does mean is I am not willing to take the risk.

I am sure there are people at PRMA and other “people of faith” in PR would tell me that this is the essence of the struggle. That I am supposed to face my fears and that ultimately our purpose is to help each other. I am trying but, as of this writing, I have failed.

That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!!

Public Art!

There's great public art...


Flickr photo by: iceman9294 - "Cloud Gate" a.k.a. "The Bean"

And there's Park Ridge public art...


Park Ridge Spokesman Oct. 2007 (.pdf) - "Celebration"

The photo of the "Celebration" statue above is admittedly of poor quality; our PRU Tech had a better photo at one time but couldn't find it for this blog post.

The PRU Crew was recently considering the issue of public art. We like it. We like some of it a lot. We don't like some of it at all.

What we profoundly concluded is, art appreciation is subjective and personal. Who knew!!??!!

Of course, "appreciating" anything as subjective and personal as art can lead to some big, BIG, disagreements when it comes to spending public money. And when already tight municipal budgets get squeezed even tighter, public art becomes a sort of cruel joke on taxpayers eager to see their streets paved, sidewalks fixed, sewers repaired, and parkway trees trimmed.

So! We thought we'd ask PRU readers for their thoughts on the subject...

Jazz It Up!

Enjoy the weekend!

Morelleon?

St. Paul's to extend mission with PADS
Herald-Advocate 6/12/08

"Morello said most of the feedback he has received from St. Paul parishioners and parents has been supportive. There have also been opponents, he said, adding, "I will listen to them, but they won't alter my decision to go forward with this."



A dictator is as a dictator does, despite the slick offering of "a continuing spirit of partnership and cooperation" from the PRMA's report in today's newspaper.

Three Items -- Three Stooges?

In today's Journal & Topics we are treated to a brief article about the theft of a bicycle and charges being brought against the pair allegedly responsible for it.

What we don't read in the article is that one of the pair, Mr. Kevin Barry, is considered by many in the Fairview Ave. area to be one of our very own local "homeless" persons -- if you consider living in a garage as equating to homelessness. It seems Mr. Barry doesn't get on well with the Mrs.

It is also rumored that Mr. Barry is a sometimes "guest" at area PADS shelters, though we could not confirm that information.



A second item in today's Journal & Topics is a letter to the editor from a familiar character -- The Park District's Own Mr. Haney! Mr. Dick Barton has penned a missive in support of the proposed PADS homeless shelter at St. Paul of the Cross Church; though today Mr. Barton was careful to let everyone know right from the start that he was writing his letter in his capacity as an SPC parishioner.

We agree with Mr. Barton's statement that we have homeless in Park Ridge, as many consider the character in the above article to be one of them. We also agree that a PADS shelter is, as Mr. Barton himself states, "a minimal effort".

What we do not agree with in Mr. Barton's letter is that we should invite more homeless characters into Park Ridge. The PRU Crew feels we should prove our ability to truly help the homeless, out of homelessness, by helping those already in Park Ridge before taking on any more.

We would also like to point out that while there are indeed "fortunate" people and "unfortunate" people, most people find their fortune (or misfortune) at the ends of their arms. The vast overwhelming majority of those who enjoy the "fortunate" lifestyle to be found in Park Ridge have earned it, continue to earn it, and continue to pay for it. And fortunately, we do not live in a theocracy where religious leaders get to dictate public policy.



Our final item from today's Journal & Topics is an article headlined with a question:



The PRU Crew's answer to that is "YES! They need a permit!" And we have every reason to believe the courts would agree, even if Ald. Allspaghetti (4th Ward) isn't sure about that.

In the absence of the PRMA's and PADS' agreement to obey the law, the question becomes: Do the members of the City Council have what it takes to enforce our laws?

"Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk..."

By Special Request.

Lets all remember this Sunday
when we attend the church of
our choice - Det. Gene Gargano
who served the people of cook
county for over 25 years + as a
Sheriff's detective. Gene passed away
from cancer which he fought a great fight.

Gene had gained the respect from all
levels of law enforcement during his career.

Gene will be waked at Algrim's
located in Schaumburg on Golf Road
tomorrow June 11th starting at 3pm to 9pm.

Thank you.
Gene Spanos

cc: PRU - Please Post - Thank you.

" Dedicated Twice By Choice"
Police - Marines
Det # 553 MCL

------------------------------------------------

Dear Eugene,

Our condolences on the loss of your friend.

The PRU Crew

Made Us Feel Like Dancing!

ComEd gives us that 'Saturday Night Fever'! We loved the strobe light effect produced when the lights repeatedly went on and off -- made us feel like dancing!

Once again, the thunderstorm season is upon us. We can all look forward to more of the "light shows" provided by the on-again, off-again power supply provided by ComEd. And the 'Jive Talkin' on the part of ComEd and our elected officials makes us want to put on our 'Boogie Shoes'!

Remember the Ten ComEdments, and say a prayer that Mother Nature takes pity on us poor power customers this summer.

A Comment In The Spotlight!

On June 5, 2008 8:36 PM

Anonymous said...

"PRU, enjoy the weekend. Police Department members won't since many of them will be thinking about yesterday:

Members of the police department were told (and told and told and emailed and encouraged and informed and advised, etc) that Terry Ekls and his associates would be available at 5pm on both Tuesday, June 3rd and Wednesday, June 4th to listen to any department members who wished to voice concerns of any kind for the investigation/audit. The PD members were told that Ekl and his staff would stay as long as it took to ensure all voices could be heard. These two dates were to cover all four patrol shifts since 6pm is the end of the day shift tour and the start of the evening shift tour.

So when at least five department members went to speak with Ekl and his people after the previous shift's end and the oncoming shift's 6pm roll call, there was no one to be found. Where did they go? Ekl was tracked down climbing into his vehicle in the parking lot. He was leaving at 6:30 pm. He was confronted by several of those who wished to speak with him. He said he was done. He said he thought no one wanted to talk to him, so he sent his people home. No, no, no, we have people who want to speak to you! Who need to speak to you! Who have important things to say! Come back in. Please! You're just here in the parking lot. Let's walk right back inside. Your staff must have cell phones, right? Call them and have them turn around and come back. You're being paid $75,000 to conduct an investigation but you're only staying an hour and a half? (and you were late after 5pm.) You didn't check with a supervisor to see if maybe there was an emergency call that tied everyone up so that was the reason no one just walked into your conference room? You didn't know shift change was at 6pm? That's why 5pm was the set time! You just decided, I'm outta here?

He handed out a fistfull of business cards to pass around. Just have everyone call me. I gotta go! Bye!

Low bid. This is what you get. And the truth is what you'll be missing...."

Alderman Wsol, you are the chairman of the Public Safety committee. This police department investigation was your idea. While you allegedly had another firm for your first choice to do this investigation, you went along with the first choice recommendation of your two fellow City Council subcommittee members, Mayor Howard Frimark and Alderman Jim Allegretti, in selecting the firm of Ekl Williams to do this investigation.

Alderman Wsol, you were the point-man who insisted that the City Council defer consideration on former Chief Caudill's amended separation agreement, to ensure his full cooperation with the Ekl Williams investigation of the police department; even though that assurance was already part of the separation agreement you previously agreed to in full. Will you be relying on the word of Ekl Williams in assessing the former police chief's level of cooperation? Will you be relying on the word of Ekl Williams in assessing the level of cooperation Mr. Ekl, himself, demanded from the police department in his meetings with City staff (.pdf)?

Alderman Wsol, did you see to it that there were provisions in the agreement between the City and Ekl Williams to ensure that Ekl Williams would fully cooperate with members of the police department in this investigation? Is there any potential for deferred or withheld compensation to Ekl Williams for their failure to cooperate in this investigation? Whose word will you rely on in assessing the level of cooperation and effort made in this investigation by Ekl Williams?

Alderman Wsol, what are you going to do about this?

Mayor Howard and Alderman Allegretti, Ekl Williams was each of your first choices for the investigation of the police department. What are you going to do about this?

Remember folks, there are two sides to every story. The PRU Crew can't wait to hear this one.

Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005

To all the recent Park Ridge graduates, at all levels of education, congratulations!

The above video is of one of the best commencement speeches ever delivered; it's worth watching.

Our wish for you is that you find what you love -- stay hungry -- stay foolish.

We're starting our weekend early. Enjoy yours too.

PRU Briefs!

Greetings, PRU readers! We had planned to do a report on last night's Procedures and Regulations meeting, but our plans were changed by events beyond our control.

So today we are offering a set of PRU Briefs (or PRUpourri) for your reading pleasure. It was a split-decision among the Crew, but PRU.ADMIN prefers colorful skivvies to a bowl of smelly, dead flowers.

If you haven't had a chance to do so, check out a couple of fledgling Park Ridge related blogs:

1. Cumberland Patriot -- Not a bad start.

2. No Police Enforcement On Prospect -- It's not the most creatively named blog we've seen, but the concern is legit.

3. Park Ridge Pedestrian -- some of you may have noticed this addition to our link list; it's not exactly a blog, but somebody has put in some serious effort on this topic.

Finally, we'd like to again point PRU readers in the direction of the Pub-dog's. Their Monday post has some interesting comments. And today's Pub-dog post raises some interesting points.

Council Capers Recap!

Again, we thank our PRU readers for being patient while we organize our sources.

At last night's City Council meeting, our illustrious representatives again voted to go into closed session to discuss the acquisition of property for a new police station. Our sources tell us Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st Ward) reminded the Council that they had not yet decided the key issues of size and expense for such a project. Ald. Schmidtzkrieg further stated that they cannot discuss the acquisition of property without deciding those issues, in open session.

The 4th Ward's representative, Alderman Allspaghetti, then asked Schmidtzkrieg if he would "respect" the vote of the Council to go into closed session or if he would disclose what was discussed. Schmidtzkrieg responded that he "didn't know what [he] would do", but he would abide by the rules of the Illinois Open Meetings Act and that he was prepared to be "condemned" again for his actions.

Then Alderman Frank Wsooooolman (7th Ward) offered that his intention in asking for this closed session was in accordance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act which allows public bodies to discuss "strategy for obtaining real estate", and that this was a protection of the taxpayers from those who may try to "manipulate" the market. What Ald. Wsooooolman doesn't seem to realize is that public bodies have the right to condemn property and pay fair market value for it, should anyone attempt to "manipulate" the market. What Ald. Wsooooolman also doesn't seem to realize is that the issues of size and expense for a police station should be determined before the Council engages in their "strategery" on land acquisition.

And the entire PRU Crew is willing to bet their briefs that the property discussed in closed session last night was the now shuttered Napleton Cadillac dealership, a prime piece of private commercial property on two main drags. Mr. Bill Napleton, a very special Friend of Frimark, is no doubt grinning from ear to ear about this real estate flip. Why work selling cars when you can "manipulate" local government into a deal that may provide you with a windfall of as much as $5 million? The PRU Crew has suspected for a while now that Bill Napleton never had any intention of maintaining a Cadillac dealership in Park Ridge, and the more we watch this deal evolve, the more convinced we become.

Also at the City Council meeting last night, Adrienne Timm of St. Paul of the Cross read a statement saying that the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and St. Paul of the Cross "continue to be sensitive" to the concerns of the community and will now seek to open a PADS homeless shelter at St. Paul of the Cross this coming October, instead of at St. Mary's Episcopal church. Ms. Timm was standing in for Father Carl Morello, who was presiding over SPC's eighth grade graduation festivities and waxing pastor-al about taking the "higher road" in life.

Apparently Father Morello's "higher road" doesn't include telling his congregation about things like the proposed PADS shelter coming to St. Paul of the Cross even while waxing pastor-al about the PADS program this past Sunday. While leaving out details from one's discussion of a topic isn't the same thing as telling a lie, and while telling a lie isn't one of the "Seven Deadly Sins", failing to mention key details probably is considered bad behavior.

But maybe Father Morello was so proud of his sermon last Sunday that he simply forgot to mention the new location of the proposed PADS homeless shelter. By the way, Padre, pride is one of the "Seven Deadlies." But you already know that, right?

After the PRMA--St. Paul of the Cross announcement, Cumberland Avenue resident Mr. Chris Harris addressed the Council to ask about the funds requested from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's office. Mr. Harris also asked "who will benefit" from the "Cumberland Avenue Connector Project". Mr. Harris noted that the request for funds also included that the project "proposes to increase speed" in order to move traffic through Park Ridge faster. He went on to say that Park Ridge is primarily a residential community that already gets more than its fair share of truck and cut-through traffic. Mr. Harris concluded his remarks by asking, "How does this (the proposed Cumberland extension) benefit residents and businesses in Park Ridge?" The PRU Crew feels that is an excellent question, Mr. Harris. We can't wait to hear what the pols' answer is.

Finally, Mayor Howard's rubber stamps on the Council took the opportunity to stick it to former Chief of Police, Jeff Caudill. As we told you yesterday, the Council was supposed to "approve payment to former Police Chief Caudill." Instead, in a vote of 4 to 2 (Bach, Allegretti, Carey and Wsol to Schmidt and DiPietro -- Ryan missed another meeting) the Council chose to hold the payment over the head of the former Chief of Police to ensure his "full cooperation" in the Ekl Williams investigation of the Park Ridge police department; even though the original separation agreement calls for Mr. Caudill to do exactly that. We're not sure about PRU readers, but the Crew feels that this dangling carrot bears the faint aroma of a bribe. More bluntly stated, it now appears as if Caudill's "cooperation" will be measured by the pleasure or displeasure of Council members and the Mayor in reaction to whatever information Caudill gives to Ekl Williams. And the delayed consideration of agreeing to the payment may reflect that pleasure or displeasure.

And we can't get past the Council's double-dealing on the terms of the agreement. If waiting until after the investigation to agree to a complete severance package for Caudill, to ensure his cooperation, is now so important, why wasn't it important before? Before the investigation began? Before "progress" reports had been received?

And finally, how the hell do you screw over a 30+ year employee like this? By nearly all accounts, Caudill served this community well. And we have yet to hear any substantive grounds for why the Mayor and his rubber stamps pushed for Caudill to resign.

We guess this is what passes for "doing business" in Park Ridge.

Buckle up, Park Ridgians! Remember to keep your hands and feet inside the hand basket, and try to enjoy the ride.

Our Own Star Chamber!

"The Star Chamber" (1983)

Yes, PRU readers, once again Park Ridge's own Star Chamber will be meeting again tonight. On the City Council agenda (.pdf) is yet another closed session to discuss the acquisition of property for a new police station. Place your bets folks -- which Friends of Frimark do you think will be in line for another heapin' helpin' of taxpayer money?

Of course, all of the questions that were outstanding the last time the Council discussed acquisition of property for a new police station remain unanswered. But as we all know, Mayor Howard never saw a parcel of property for sale that he didn't want to use taxpayer money to buy, especially if such a purchase can help feather a friend's nest.

Also on the City Council agenda, under the Finance and Budget committee report, is item "b. Approve payment to former Police Chief Caudill", which is rather presumptive considering that the Finance and Budget committee will be meeting a mere half hour before the Council meeting to discuss the issue -- the sole action item on their meeting agenda (.pdf). And the PRU Crew finds it rather curious that there are no supporting documents available for public review under either the Finance and Budget committee posting or the City Council posting on the City web site.

You don't suppose any discussion of the issue has taken place out of the public light, do you? Of course not, our fine elected officials wouldn't do such a thing. And they sure wouldn't be trying to hide the information from public review either, would they?