The City Council will be holding another COW (committee of the whole) meeting tonight, after a special 10 minute Council meeting (.pdf) to discuss the appointment of the City's new Director of Finance!
As usual, the COW agenda (.pdf) includes some items of interest -- the PRU Crew is looking forward to the discussion of the Financial Report (.pdf). Over all, it doesn't look too bad, and the Mayor's concerns for some of the revenue streams appear to not be as nearly doomy and gloomy as he feared. However, we would like to hear an explanation for the increased legal counsel expenses -- we're wondering if the increase has anything to do with the City appearing to have lost the case against the Napleton rezoning, a change initiated by the City Council and supported by the Mayor, which you can get a flavor for here (.pdf - page 2).
The Procedures and Regulations portion of the meeting will cover topics ranging from expanding the "occupancy limit" (.pdf) for the Youth Commission to consideration of restrictions on occupancy limits for residences (.pdf). The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussion about who gets the honor of hiring City Department Heads (.pdf). So far it looks as if the City of Park Ridge will continue to operate under a City Manager form of government. So far.
November 22, 2010
They'll Be Discussing Our Mooney Again!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Many of us are interested to know the timing of the Napleton lawsuit -- when it started, if/when it went to court, when it was (apparently) settled, and what are the terms. Oh -- we'd also like an explicit notice that it even happened. All we have is the document to which you link. This document magically replaced an original version which was posted up until Friday of last week. Then, Poof! Suddenly this revision, which makes passing reference to legal action and Napleton.
I'm interested to know too. Why wasn't this in the paper?
From tonight's City Council chambers, a wardrobe malfunction from Ald. Tom Carey (6th): The same guy who did not disclose that his employer, Patrick Engineering, had business before the Council, was wearing a shirt tonight that blatantly displayed...the logo for Patrick Engineering. Was this an in-your-face to those who wanted to investigate the conflict of interest? We should now refer to him as Ald. Tom Carey (Patrick).
Anon@10:36 --
Seriously? You seriously take issue with a guy for wearing a work shirt to a Council meeting?
Come on.
If this bothers you then the former Mayor's advertising his insurance business under his City website profile must have driven you batshit crazy.
Carey, in all probability, should have disclosed his company's economic interest in the OMP. We feel that is an egregious misdeed and disservice to his constituents and the rest of the community. And we hope the investigation into that matter will be completed soon.
PubDog, I'm hoping you and I both understand the sarcasm in each other's comments here.
Just to be sure, though: No, I don't care what he wears. I just want the conflict investigated.
Fashion Victim --
You made a wrong turn somewhere in cyberspace.
The story about the Napleton lawsuit is on the Advocate web site today.
Good luck with the U.S. Atty and Special Pros as well who are watching this ehtics inves. of Mr. Big Shot.
Post a Comment