Reminder #1 -- If you're up for bearing witness to another municipal mad COW meeting, you can do so tonight, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall! The revised agenda (.pdf) promises something for everyone -- if the something you're into is Public Works, Finance and Budget, or Procedures and Regulations.
The PRU Crew enjoyed reading the two, count 'em!, TWO cover memos concerning supermajority voting! We've downloaded copies of both should something funny happen to either one of them. And we can't wait to hear the twisted explanations about why a change to a zoning ordinance isn't a change, it's just correction of a "drafting error," despite the lengthy discussions and vote which took place on the original supermajority zoning ordinance.
Reminder #2 -- Public policy is never about a politician, public policy is about the public. So the Crew got a big kick out of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's personal email to personally appeal to his supporters for their personal support of him, personally.
From: Dave Schmidt dave@parkridgemayor.comNot to rub anyone's nose in their own short-sighted stupidity, but isn't concentrating power in as few as 4 aldermorons' hands exactly what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg supported when he supported cutting the City Council from 14 to 7 aldermen?
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM
Subject: Attempt to diminish mayoral powers
To: supporters(at)electdaveschmidt
Amidst the very real problems associated with the budget, another danger is lurking beneath the surface that you should be aware of.
You may recall Alderman Allegretti was pushing a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow billboards in Park Ridge. It first went to the Planning and Zoning Commission which voted unanimously against the billboard amendment. Meanwhile, Alderman Bach pushed through a change in the zoning ordinance allowing the City Council to override the Commission by a supermajority vote. However, to the chagrin of Aldermen Bach and Allegretti, when the billboard issue made it the Council, the City Attorney correctly interpreted the term"supermajority" to be two-thirds of the aldermen AND the mayor, meaning 3 "no" votes for an override would be enough to sustain the Commission's rejection of billboards.
Knowing that two aldermen and I had expressed opposition to the billboard ordinance, Alderman Allegretti saw the writing on the wall and withdrew his billboard amendment. But he has found a new angle. Alderman Allegretti is the Chairman of the Procedures and Regulations. He went behind the scenes and asked the City Attorney to draft an amended city ordinance which would strip the mayor of his vote when a supermajority vote is required. Alderman Allegretti claims he is only"clarifying" the ordinance. The timing belies that claim.
If Alderman Allegretti gets his way, there is every possibility that the billboard issue will resurface, and that when the time comes for the Council to vote on whether to override the Commission, I would be forced to sit idly by while Alderman Allegretti and his Council allies maneuvered through a billboard amendment. And even more importantly, it would set a dangerous precedent where a group of only 4 men would be able to unilaterally make any and all zoning changes they desired, gutting the carefully balanced distribution of authority between the Commission, the Council and the mayor which has served this community well for many years.
The residents should be very concerned about this unwholesome attempt led by Alderman Allegretti and Alderman Bach to concentrate authorityamong a few aldermen. Please contact your aldermen and the newspapers to let them know how you feel about it. And also please pass this along to others. This is about more than just billboards. This is a major power play which is bad for our community. Thanks.
Don't look now Mayor Schmidtzkrieg but we think that loud roaring sound behind you is the Karma Bus coming your way!
Reminder #3 -- Any man is only as good as his word, so when we heard Mayor Schmidtzkrieg promise not to take his $1,000 per month mayoral salary, we took him at his word. As it turned out, the law wouldn't allow the Mayor not to take his salary, but we expected Mayor Schmidtzkrieg would keep his word and find some way to return his salary for the benefit of the community.
As it also turns out a perfect opportunity to return that mayoral salary back to the community for community benefit has arisen in the form of Motionbox demanding payment for hosting meeting videos. It seems Motionbox's virtually unlimited storage has its limits. And Motionbox may be looking for payment as high as $6,000.00
The PRU Crew is wondering what the Mayor has done with his mayoral salary over the last year. We suppose buying ads in various ad books and buying tickets to attend various community events could be very generously characterized as returning his salary to the community for the benefit of the community. But we have to admit, self-promotion, paid for with tax dollars provided in the form of a mayoral salary, doesn't strike us as all that beneficial to the community.
30 comments:
Zoom! Zomm! Look out Schmiiiiiiittttttyyyyyy!
Pru, good to have you back again. Also thank you for the reminders to keep everybody honest.
I didn't know there was a problem with the video account. I've been wondering what was up.
Thank you PRU. Will we get to see the videos from the budget meetings at some point?
Anon@12:58 --
This past Saturday's budget workshop was not video taped.
We don't have an answer to your question regarding last Saturday's budget workshop video.
Allegretti and Bach are going to stick us with these stupid ugly billboards for 20 years!
The mayor sent out an email saying the city attorney referenced laws that say we can't charge for these stupid ugly billboards!
What are Allegretti and Bach going to get for going after this to be done for the stupid ugly billboard company?
This reeks.
Anonymous @ 1:16,
Si tratta di un'offerta Allegretti non si puo rifiutare.
This town is so screwed.
Very good question to ask, what has Mayor Dave done with the salary he promised to give back to the city?
This is why I love this blog.
PRU Crew you deserve credit for keeping them honest and keeping them accountable even when you support them.
I wish the local press had as much integrity.
anon 1:16,
I think you are dead right that something reeks like road kill here.
It makes no sense to try so hard to do any of this when the courts have said you can't charge for it.
There's something else going on behind the doors or under the table on this deal.
Things are crazy everywhere. People are worried about the future and being able to keep their jobs if they are lucky enough to have one still. How will the bills get paid and how will the increased taxes get paid? I don't have the answers. I'm not a money expert. All I know is I pay my bills on time and we don't live on credit. We do without a lot of luxuries and fancy things. In all this the mayor is worried about billboards and his mayoral powers. Unbelievable. In all this the aldermen find time to play political games all for billboards and some out of town company. Unbelievable. They all make me sick.
Anon@9:31 --
We hear you. You aren't alone in feeling sick about what's taking place.
We promise you, looking away or walking away and giving up is not the answer in the long run.
You'll never regret having given it your best shot.
Thanks PRU. It has been a long day.
The most important issue this city faces right now is financial, starting with a balanced budget. Only one elected city official has said he will accept nothing less: the mayor.
Since he promised to veto any unbalanced budget, Ald. Ryan has responded personally, and Ald. DiPietro has responded for all the aldermen collectively. NONE OF THEM have promised a balanced budget.
Instead, they have told the city manager to add expenses for the community groups even as they were being told by Rep. Mulligan that they can expect Gov. Quinn to act on his proposal to reduce state money to municipalities by 30%, which will cost Park Ridge over $900,000.
The aldermen also have come up with sideshows that appear designed to distract our attention from their budget negligence, like Ald. Allegretti's attempt to reduce the supermajority requirement to push through his billboards, or Bach's referendum on whether we need to reinstate the office of city treasurer that was a $9,000, barely part-time position that was discontinued when Carl Brauweiller retired a few years ago.
Schmidt foolishly has allowed himself to get caught up in it shows that even he isn't paying attention to what's really important: THE BUDGET!
Is the mayor in favor of all the cuts being proposed?
11:30 am...
That's a loaded question.
Nobody is in FAVOR of ALL of the cuts being proposed. But somewhere along with the fee and tax increases we are going to see there have to be some cuts. This year... big cuts, widespread cuts.
The Mayor is on record in favor of a balanced budget... how he, the City Manager and the Aldermen get there (and whether all of them favor a balanced budget as well) is an all together different story.
Who favors cutting police, fire or public safety personnel? Probably nobody.
Who favors cutting out the full total of the "community group" conrtibutions the city has made a practice of granting over the years? Probably nobody.
I could go on but the point is that the City is facing another year of having some very limited resources. They can only raise taxes and fees so much. Theoretically, the city needs to keep a decent reserve in case of emergency - the amount might be debatable. Regardless, with a looming +$1 million deficit in the budget as it stands the gang sitting around the horseshoe is going to have to make a lot of cuts whether they FAVOR them or not.
So, the Mayor may FAVOR some cuts and many of the other will have different ideas of cuts they FAVOR; in the end it's not as if any of them - or more importantly, any of us - are going to be happy because they got the cuts they FAVOR.
In the end the best result we can hope for is probably one where no one is really all that happy, meaning they figured out how to spread the pain evenly. Given how things are going thus far... and what a hole the City might be in with a cut from the State for income tax revenue, I'd say it might not be a bad bet that no one ends up happy when this budget is done.
There are no favors here@12:45 --
Should your response be interpreted to mean you believe the Mayor does not care or have any opinion on which cuts are made, and--or which taxes and fees are increased, as long as the budget is balanced?
March 23, 2010 12:45 PM,
I didn't mean to upset you or anyone. I was only aksing because I am curious to know what the mayor's opinion is on the cuts. I apologise for not wording my question in a better way. I will shut up now because asking a question in some way that's not perfect upsets some people.
PRU... the short answer is: nope.
I was picking on the use of the word "favor". Maybe I was being too narrow as I read the previous comment but, as I said, it was to me a loaded question.
I don't suppose you will hear from the Mayor or anyone else: "I favor cuts in the police department". But a simple "yes" answer to the question that was posed might have had all sorts running around town saying, in fact, the Mayor is for (or "favors") cutting police personnel.
Maybe I have been paying too close attention to all the b.s. that goes on around here for too long.
As to whether or not the Mayor cares... I am pretty sure the answer is yes. And as to what his opinions are on the proposed budget cuts I suppose it is best for him to speak for himself, which I think he's done on some matters and I will guess he will do next Monday night.
Why is anybody so concerned about what the mayor thinks about specific cuts?
Preparing the budget is the city manager's job, and passing the budget is the Council's job. The mayor doesn't even get a vote on the budget unless there's a tie, so what's the point?
There are no favors here@1:43 --
All questions posed to a political representative are loaded, in so far as the answers sought indicate the representatives opinion and position.
Anon@1:44 --
For the same reason anybody may care that it has been the Mayor who has called the Aldermen to task and demanded a balanced budget -- promising to veto any unbalanced budget.
If preparing the City budget is the strict responsibility of the City Manager, and passing the City budget is largely the responsibility of the Aldermen -- except in instances of a tie vote -- then why has the Mayor seemingly taken such an active advocacy position on the matter of the City budget?
Whether the Mayor or anybody else now likes it or not, the Mayor has placed himself in a leadership role on the issues concerning the City budget. The Mayor is now obligated to see it through, make his opinions known and clear, and keep his promises to the voters.
PRU:
Exactly what "active advocacy position" and "leadership role" has the mayor taken on the proposed City budget other than his promise to veto an unbalanced one?
If saying he will veto an unbalanced budget isn't good enough for you, what specifically do you want from him? Do you want him to say he will veto a balanced budget if he doesn't like the cuts it contains, or that he will not veto an unbalanced budget if he likes all the expenditures it includes?
Anon@2:21 --
Calling for a Zero-based budgeting process which, by its nature, demands every expenditure be justified. And if an expenditure cannot be justified, then it is to be cut.
Calling for an earlier beginning of the budget process.
Calling for the right of citizens to comment on the budget.
Accusing the Aldermen of being irresponsible on budget matters, apologizing for his own Aldermanic irresponsibility when he served in the same capacity.
And promising to veto any unbalanced budget are all very strong actions and advocacy of his reformed mindset on budget matters.
Those actions and advocacy positions on both the process of the budget and the budget itself demand that the Mayor not now duck responsibility in any way for the budget process. And that responsibility includes sharing his opinions and judgements about what should and should not be cut, and what fees and or taxes should and should not be raised.
We noted with satisfaction the Mayor's advocacy for raising water fees to bring the City's water fund into balance. Should the Mayor not have taken that specific position on a matter of budgetary concern? Why should the Mayor now be allowed to duck offering his opinion and judgement on any other specific areas of concern to the City budget?
It's rather easy for a Mayor to make sweeping pronouncements and then, when dissatisfaction among some segment of the population may follow, duck behind the mantle of Mayor and place all responsibility on the shoulders of the Council.
We once knew a guy like that. That guy used to be the Mayor here in Park Ridge.
Everything about the budget you attribute to Schmidt is pure "process" (most of which was rejected by the Council) except for his "substantive" promise to veto an unbalanced budget.
If you’re referring to former Mayor Howard Frimark, he couldn't place responsibility on the shoulders of the Council because everybody knew a majority of that Council were his puppets, which is why he was so bold he could cast the tie-breaking vote to give $2.4 million to Napleton and then defend giving Napleton the $400K even after Napleton announced it was closing.
But if you long for Howard instead of Schmidt, PRU, I'm sure Howard would be delighted to hear from you. And if not him, how about those New Homeowners types (John English? Steve Huening? John Kerin?) waiting in the wings with their new political party and about $15K worth of seed money for the 2011 aldermanic or 2013 mayoral elections?
Anon@6:15 --
Everyone of the actions we've listed are very much the Mayor's to own.
And do not omit mention of the Mayor's very intentional actions regarding the water rate increases, which the Mayor undertook as a direct action in consideration of the City budget.
We believe we've always been quite clear with regard to our opinion of the former Mayor.
But yours is an interesting leap in logic -- if we dare to hold the current Mayor responsible for his words and actions that means we long for Howard instead? That would be comical in its construction of logical flow, if it weren't so laughable, weak, and wholly intended as apologia for the current Mayor.
As for the new old Homeowners party -- anyone has a right to participate in the electoral process, even under a new party name. We may not anticipate much good coming from the likes of that old boys club, but we fail to see how your own negative anticipation of what may come is relevant to this discussion.
PRU you Rock!
Interesting discussion.
I agree the mayor has addressed the budget process more than the substance of the budget. I would ask, is the budget process the real problem?
I agree with Pru, the mayor has been very active in talking about the budget and he took action to address the water rates. I would like to see the mayor be more proactive on budget substance.
6:15: are you one of those bobble head toys or did you feel like dusting off your pom poms for the night. what an idiot.
Schmidt had more b@lls when he was an Alderman.
DipSchmidt's balls are in the same place and are the same size they've always been...
He's just got different people squeezing them now, for their own different reasons...
Hurts so good, eh, DipSchmidt?
Post a Comment