#1 -- For our faithful PRU readers interested in a mini recap of last night's City Council meeting, we provided the following in response to a comment request --
Alright -- per our sources --
The various proclamations were well received.
Anne Lunde's history presentation was the answer for those seeking non-pharmaceutical sleep aids.
The City Attorney recommended the Council take action to approve the severance contracts or the City could be open to litigation. The Council seemed pissed off.
The City Manager's contract was approved by a vote of 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Sweeney, DiPietro).
More than ever, there is no love being lost between Mayor Schmidtzkrieg and Benedict Alderman Ryan.
The Pickwick theater received a unanimous vote for landmark designation, becoming the first historic building to receive the designation under the new historic preservation ordinance.
Discussion of the Taber report about the airport was deferred.
The Mayor's veto of community group contributions received sustaining votes on all but three line items -- Center of Concern, Maine Center for Mental Health, and Meals on Wheels.
We told ya so, Schmidtzkrieg!
We're also told, under new business a certain Unfriendly Ghost attempted to make ethics ordinance amends by finally disclosing a $5million economic relationship his engineering firm has with the O'Hare Modernization Program.
The fun never ends at 505 Butler Place!
#2 -- Speaking of airport noise mitigation efforts, the Tree Preservation Task Force will be meeting again tonight at 6:00 PM to go over a revised version (.pdf) of the private property tree preservation ordinance they intend to forward to the City Council for consideration.
The PRU Crew noticed in the minutes from the last meeting (.pdf) a curious little blurb --
As we understand it, the Task Force chairman invited the Public Works Director to pass out and discuss the memo before the Task Force Committee members.III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Director Zingsheim handed out a memo he received from City Forester Gliot regarding parkway trees, stating that he was distributing it solely as a courtesy for the Committee to have the information. Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland, said that it shouldn’t be given out, as it was not the agenda. Director Zingsheim replied that although he disagreed with her about it being required on the agenda, he would collect the memo back from the Committee members. (Note: City Attorney Hill has verified that the distribution of the memo was not required to be on the agenda.)
In any event, we see the City Attorney has assured everyone that the courtesy offered to the Committee members was perfectly legit, despite the memo not having been listed among the supporting documents for the last meeting, nor placed on the agenda for distribution and possible discussion, and the Task Force chairman's apparent knowledge of the intended courtesy.
So the PRU Crew is wondering why the courtesy isn't being offered to the Task Force Committee at tonight's meeting?
19 comments:
Didn't the Mayor say he was going to veto the City Manager's contract?
Anon@1:24 --
Yes, he did.
When will he veto it?
Anon@1:48 --
If Mayor Schmidtzkrieg chooses to follow through on his veto of the City Manager's contract, he will likely issue his veto announcement two weeks from now, at the October 4th City Council meeting.
Then, two weeks later at the October 18th City Council meeting, the Council may choose to vote to override the Mayor's veto or let it stand.
If the Council chooses to override the Mayor's veto, the City Manager's employment contract in it's current form will take effect.
If the Council chooses to sustain the Mayor's veto, the contract ceases to exist and the Council will be required to consider passage of another form of the City Manager's employment contract.
We won't even venture to guess how long it may take the Council to undertake a do-over of the City Manager's employment agreement.
However, looking at the calendar and, if we understand the terms of the contract as it now stands, should the Council approve a contract at the end of October and Mayor Schmidtzkrieg finds it acceptable, the contract will be in effect for a whopping 6 months.
And the negotiating process can then begin again. Unless the Mayor and Council decide to relieve the City Manager of his position at the end of that 6 months and begin the process of finding a new City Manager all over again.
We hope that answers your question.
It answers my question and then some! Thank you.
Maybe Mayor Dave thinks a city manager is another one of those nonessential expenditures.
This whole Hick thing is an example of what is wrong with our local government. I hear people talk about running our government like a business. Someone (I believe on the other blog) went on about hiring a CFO for a mid size company. The way our elected officials have handled this is so completely "un-business like" it is absurd. Can you imagine an executive at a major corporation having to deal with this.
PRU, based on your post he left last nights meeting knowing that any answer was basically a month away. What a joke!!!
If they decide to remove Hock and look for someone else, the only person they will get is someone who has nothing else and no other choice. A potential candidate would research PR and see all this crap in the news. They would probably even take a look at the blogs. If they had half a brain and any other opportunity their conclusion would be very simple - RUN AWAY!!!! FAST!!!
Not quite the "change in leadership" we all might have been hoping to see...
Veto-itis isn't leadership.
I'm not sure exactly what the objections to the contract are...but I get the sense there's much more going on here than objections to addition/maintenance of $1,833.00, and the *possibility*, at this point, of 8 mo.'s severance...
Anon@4:00 --
We agree -- this matter has been handled in an extremely unprofessional and un-business like manner.
However, it's possible a regular visitor to our blog from the Village of Glenview may have a continuing interest in the position of City Manager for Park Ridge.
PRU:
Without asking for detail, if he has a current job with Glenview or any other opportunities, I question his sanity.
4:00 PM
A lot gets said on the other blog and most of it's crap.
The Mayor also talked about accountability and contracts for the human needs services like they do on the other blog. If accountability and contracts is what the Mayor was trying to get then wanting to cut off all funding instead is a funny way to go about it.
My hat is off to the Aldermen who voted for human needs services but made the hard decision to tell the other groups no. This economy has been hard on people. Now is not the time to pull back from helping our neighbors but it is the time to stop spending on frills.
Anonymous @ 6:53,
Alderman, only one...
If the story I got is right, only Rich DiPietro voted for the charitable contributions and against the...as you call them..."frills."
The rest of the Aldermen voted Yes and No down the line.
Bean
I stand corrected. I was not aware of how each of them voted. I think I'll keep my hat on then, except for Rich DiPietro.
So much drama and vitriol over such small issues. As if providing needed help to people is the very worst thing government does! Somebody here said it could have been the same result with better leadership. I concur.
I noticed the the PRU crew put Airport noise mitigation and TREES together in the same paragraph. As if to imply that one has anything to do with the other (said with sarcastic tone).
How many do you think actually understood the segway?
As I hear, tress have become quite an issue, at least for those who are directly affected by the careless removal of them.
I can hardly believe that something as simple as trees in a community can turn into such a controversy. I mean even the local newspapers ran stories about it. Now the City Council is involved, with opinions from the City Attorney. One could only assume that when politicians and lawyers are involved, there is a little stench in the air.
Can't wait to hear how this turns out.
Anon@7:55 unpublished --
Our standing rule is no libel, no bullshit.
Your lack of understanding the issues and your false attributions are rife with bullshit.
Your comment has been flushed.
Anon 8:11,
I don't think it's the trees that are creating the controversey. I think it's what people suspect happened that has them up in arms.
The people had an agenda and they finally got what they wanted. I agree with you there is a stench in the air.
When I arrived a few minutes early at the meeting on 8/31, Director Zingsheim said he had a memo he'd like to share with the Task Force. When the meeting was convened I invited him to present the memo. There was an objection, he removed the memo. When preparing the agenda for last night's meeting I asked if he would like it on the agenda and he declined, saying that the subject of the memo had been discussed at the Public Works COW and is again on the agenda for the Public Works COW on 10/11, at which time the author of the memo will be present to discuss the memo.
TREE PRES TASK FORCE CHAIR --
Thank you for offering your clarification.
Post a Comment