Mayor Schmidt -- Email -- Budget Hearings

From: Dave Schmidt
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com
Subject: Budget hearings

I wanted to let you all know that we will be starting budget discussions much earlier this year. The first session will take place this coming Tuesday, December 14, beginning at 7pm at City Hall. The first session will involve a capital budget review, an overview of goals and priorities and a review of revenue projections. The next scheduled meeting is January 31 when the actual budget booklet will be distributed to the Council. However, it is entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there will be one or more additional meetings between those dates.

Last year's budget hearings we by far the best-attended in any one's memory. Although I obviously was not satisfied with the final product, I was pleased that there was so much resident involvement. I strongly believe that it has an impact, and I encourage residents to participate again this year. I hope to see you Tuesday.
(sic)

Comments In the Spotlight

Under our post yesterday, one Ken Hubbs remarked --

"Did anyone see the Spokesman? Is the Mayoral opinion piece a message to the community or a campaign 2011 mail piece? He goes way beyond discussing the issues at hand and lays direct blame at the feet of the Council. He cites three separate issues and then goes on to heap blame directly on “The Council”. I’ve seen previous Mayors use the Spokesman before as a tool to disseminate information on issues. I’ve even seen the prior Mayor use it as a tool to pursue his political spin on various issues. However not even he ever used this publically funded mail piece to directly attack other elected officials."(sic)

For those who may have missed the latest issue of the Spokesman, and the particular Mayoral message being discussed, here you go --



A further exchange took place later --

Anonymous said...

"Hubbs,

You can call it "blame," but each thing Schmidt said the Council did is what the Council did. That would make it fact. Do you have something against facts?"

December 7, 2010 9:03 AM

Ken Hubbs said...

"No I have something with people using taxpayer funded resources for political purposes. What happened may be fact, but the implied reason is opinion."

December 7, 2010 11:25 AM

The PRU Crew felt our faithful PRU readers may wish to review what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg had to say about the use of taxpayer dollars and resources for the promotion of political agendas, in a discussion regarding Veterans, PBS, and Bill Moyers, back when Mayor Schmidtzkrieg was still just a lowly Alderdunce --

"I do not relish the thought of my tax money going to fund someone like Moyers so that he can despouse his agenda on my dime. And that, my friend, is my fair and balanced view."(sic)

As for the PRU Crew, we're wondering if Mayor Schmidtzkrieg still believes "The Spokesman provides a service which is a cost-effective way of distributing information to the citizens," given his statements about the City of Park Ridge being on the "brink of financial disaster" and his repeated professions of his preference for "fiscal conservatism" and only spending on "essential City services."

Is the Spokesman an essential City service?

City Council 11-15-2010 Video!

For our faithful PRU readers who've got a couple hours to kill.

The PRU Crew believes the Mayor's pre-ramble, before his remarks about his veto of the amended and then suspended facade improvement program, was a disclosure of some kind. We get the impression the Mayor found the matter pesky. However, we were pleased to hear the Mayor treat the veto subject as he did, though we are wondering why the Mayor chose not to issue his traditional email blast to supporters explaining his reasons for exercising his veto authority. We hope the City Council will choose to moooooves forward accordingly -- allow for the completion of the last remaining facade reimbursement agreement and reject any further applications, then fully suspend the program. We also hope that should any future Council choose to reinstate the program, they also demand a financial accounting to support the claims on which the program is predicated.

As for the discussion of the PROAC recommendations to retain the Taber Law Group for consulting on fighting O'Hare expansion, the PRU Crew found Commission Chairman Sue Perschke's offerings very entertaining. Where the former chairman had nearly perfected the damsel in distress approach, we find Ms. Perschke's baffle them with bullshit approach rather refreshing!

Two PRUdos are due!

The first goes out to City Manager Jim Hock for his ~~THUD!!!~~HOLY WOW!!!~~ inducing comments opposing a request, by Uptown developer PRC Partners, to grant a zoning text amendment and special use to again allow the developer to lease space to a non-retail, non-sales tax generating business. Mid-America Real Estate Group, the partner in the PRC Partnership which is responsible for retail leasing, may want to read their own rather up-lifting Retail Review – Fall 2010 Newsletter, then study their own 2010 Retailer Demand Study, and get to work.

Our second PRUdo of the day goes to resident Ms. Pat Livensparger for so clearly pointing out that an appeals process of any kind, in this instance the Tree Preservation on Private Property ordinance, must include criteria on which an appeal may be based. Spot on, Ms. Livensparger!

Enjoy the show, people!

You Are Cordially Invited!

Good afternoon, faithful PRU readers! We think tonight's COW meeting may be one of those times it's in your best interest to get dressed, get out of the house, and go keep an eye on what your local City government may be planning to do to for you!

Beginning at 7:00 PM, in the Council Chamber at Park Ridge City Hall, the Finance and Budget, and Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole will be meeting.

On the City's website you will find .pdf file links to the supporting documents for tonight's meeting -- the PRU Crew is particularly interested in the following --

•Budget Policy -- worth a look.

•Spending Authority of the City Manager -- be careful what you wish for!

•City Manager's Employment Agreement (draft) -- here we go again!

•Facade Improvement Packet Info. -- more evidence Park Ridge is unfriendly to business! The PRU Crew feels the program should be suspended until somebody in local government gets their ass in gear and provides proof of the programs claims -- notably that "The City of Park Ridge (City) promotes the improvement of existing facades to make properties more attractive and increase long-term property values." The program has been in place long enough for an analysis to be done so a more informed decision can be made. While we appreciate being told what the City has so far spent on subsidies to private property owners for improvements of their private properties, we sure would like to see that hoped-for "increase in long-term property values." And maybe we missed it but, we would add the condition that any property owner receiving City Facade Improvement money is precluded from filing a property tax assessment complaint for at least two property tax assessment cycles.

•Public Information Coord. Agreement -- and here we all thought the Spokesman produced itself!

•Taste of Park Ridge Analysis (rev) -- time to reimburse the City for costs, gentlemen!

•Financial Report -- or as we are calling it, a post-mortem of last year's DOA budget.

•FB Monthly Report -- no, this is not a report on the Mayor's monthly FaceBook activity.

•Severance Payments -- looks like the Mayor and Council were for 'em before they were against 'em!

•Community Group Funding -- why the hell this was posted on the City website we have no idea. It's no more informative than an agenda line item.

•Code Clarifications - Dept. Head Appt. -- clean up on aisle 3! Which code language gets cleaned up will be very telling about the mindset of certain elected officials!

Something for everyone!

City Council 10-4-2010 Video!

Amazing men on their flying trapeze!

The Circus Is In Town!

AP Photo/KEYSTONE/Eddy Risch at http://animal.discovery.com/

The three-ring circus we fondly refer to as our City Council will be putting on another show tonight! Come one, come all -- watch as our Alderclowns, lead by our duly elected Ringmaster Schmidt, make a freak show of the democratic process! You'll be amazed and astounded by their depth-defying leaps in logic! You'll thrill to the sounds of Alderclown amendments and motions to defer! And you'll grip the edge of your seat as you witness Ringmaster Schmidt welcome ladies, gentlemen, and children of all ages to the greatest veto show in town!

Interested and faithful PRU readers can check out the revised agenda (.pdf) for tonight's show! And for a sneak peek at Ringmaster Schmidt's act, you can read the following press release --

from: Dave Schmidt
to: presscontacts@electdaveschmidt.com
date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM
subject: Fwd: Mayoral veto of City Manager's contract

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the City's Ordinance, I am vetoing the City Manager's employment contract which was approved by the City Council on September 20, 2010.

There are several reasons for this action. The first reason involves the payment of approximately $8500 in deferred compensation in return for the City Manager opting out of the City's health and dental insurance plan. I have serious reservations about whether the payment complies with federal law. I have no reservations at all that the payment is inappropriate, even if technically legal.

When Mr. Hock was first hired in 2008, then-Mayor Frimark negotiated a cash payment of $7720 to Mr. Hock in return for his opting out of the insurance plan. In July 2009, one of the City's attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw, wrote a letter stating that such a payment likely violated Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, because it discriminated against lower-paid City employees who were not given the same option. The attorney's concern was that the payment could jeopardize the City's tax exempt status which could have adverse tax consequences for the City and its employees.

In the subsequent contract which I attempted to negotiate with Mr. Hock, Mr. Hock purported to remedy the tax issue by calling the payment "deferred compensation." Since the City Attorney who drafted the new contract apparently believed this would solve the tax problem, I agreed to the payment, but at a lower amount, approximately $3500. This Council subsequently voted to reject my recommendation, and then voted to actually increase the amount of the payment to $8500.

Upon further reflection, I am not convinced that using sleight of hand to call the payment "deferred compensation" would avoid running afoul of the IRS provision. However, I need not make that determination, because I am convinced that the payment is inappropriate since it discriminates against lower-paid City employees who have not been given the same option to receive deferred compensation in lieu of insurance coverage.

I fully understand that some will claim I am reneging on a promise made by Mayor Frimark to Mr. Hock. However, that contract provision was unfair from the outset, and it put the City's tax exempt status in jeopardy. It is my duty to make sure that error is not compounded. I can and must do what I believe is right, and approving this payment is not right.

A second and equally important reason exists for vetoing this contract. The citizens of Park Ridge have the right to a completely open and transparent government. However, the non-disparagement clause in the contract is the antithesis of transparency. The City Manager is the highest paid official in Park Ridge, earning almost nine times the combined salaries of the mayor and all seven aldermen. The taxpayers are paying his salary. He answers to them as much or more as he answers to the aldermen and me. As written, the clause would effectively prevent any elected official from explaining to the taxpayers why certain action regarding the City Manager was taken. I cannot condone such enforced secrecy against the citizens of Park Ridge.

Finally, the constructive discharge clause is also inappropriate. Mr. Hock's original contract contained no such provision, and I see no reason why it should be included now. In effect, the provision would tie the Council's hands if it decided that a salary reduction for the City Manager was necessary and/or appropriate, because it would trigger a potential severance payment which could cost the City up to $100,000 or more. It is simply unwise for such a new provision to be included in the contract.

I ask the Council to support my position and to come up with a contract which is in the taxpayers' best interests and which is fair to other City employees.

Enjoy the show!

Another Monday Call To Order!

Once again our faithful PRU readers have another chance to watch what passes for our local democracy in action! The City Council will be meeting tonight at City Hall beginning at 7:30 PM.

The most interesting item, not noted for discussion anywhere on the agenda (.pdf) nor specifically listed under the City Attorney's report, is likely to be discussion of the City Attorney's Authority of City Manager Memo (.pdf).

The memo is the result of "Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt [having] asked for a legal opinion as to whether City Manager Jim Hock overstepped his authority by providing a laid-off city employee with a payment of $25,000 without receiving approval from the City Council." as recently reported in an article in one of the local rags. The article also notes the concern of 7th Ward Ald. Frank Wsol -- "Wsol pointed out that the City Council did not approve a contract with former Public Information Coordinator Aggie Stempniak for Stempniak to produce future copies of the city newsletter, The Spokesman. He has also sought a legal opinion on the matter."

What is most notably absent from the City Attorney's memo is any information regarding the City Manager's authority in reference to the $20,000 severance paid to our dearly departed Director of Economic Development Ms. Kim Uhlig -- presumably because neither Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, Ald. Wsol, nor anybody else asked about that.

All of the above and the absence of specific agenda placement, for discussion of the City Attorney's memo, should make the debate surrounding the City Manager's Employment Agreement (.pdf) all the more entertaining!

Listening Politely!

Sorry people -- this post was supposed to be scheduled for publishing this morning but PRU.ADMIN, not to name any names, somebody forgot!



For our faithful PRU readers interested in the City's efforts to mitigate neighborhood flooding problems, by proposing use of Park District property as we mentioned here a few weeks ago, some of the news does not appear very promising.

As many of you may be aware, the City of Park Ridge has approached the Park Ridge Park District, armed with the recommendations from Burke Engineering -- the City Flooding consultant, about the idea of using park property for storm water retention ponds. The location currently under consideration for discussion are a significant portion of the fields at Northwest Park.

At last week's Park District Board COW meeting, Park District Commissioners were treated to a 90 minute presentation and discussion of the subject with two of the consultants from Burke Engineering, the Park Ridge City Manager Jim Hock, Director of Public Works Wayne Zingsheim, City Engineer Sarah Mitchell, and 2nd ward Alderman Rich DiPietro. City officials attempted to persuade the Park Board of the necessary wisdom of allowing the City to spend $1.9 million for the project, which could probably reduce flooding for 145 homes in the area, but would have the effect of also reducing the availability of the playing fields.

According to the Park Board minutes (.pdf) page 7 of the meeting, in addition to the reduced availability of the fields, Park District Commissioners also expressed concern about field damage and water safety issues.

Park District Executive Director Ray, The Big O, Ochromowicz did offer an alternative option to City officials -- turfing and lighting fields at Centennial Park so they are playable and available for night games. Some preliminary estimates we've heard are that the alternative plan could cost as much as $2 million in additional dollars to the City. Ironically, if the alternative plan were accepted, the total cost would be approximately $4 million -- equal to the amount Burke Engineering has estimated it would cost for underground work at Northwest Park.

The Park Ridge Park District Board has not formally discussed the alternative plan and City officials are said to be requesting the Mayor's involvement in the discussions, moving forward.

Why the Mayor hasn't already been involved in the discussions we can't explain.

In other Park Ridge Park District news, according to their meeting minutes --

"Executive Director Ochromowicz expressed his concern with the [Senior Services] agreement and said the District needs to stop the increasing subsidy. He said subsidy has to be decreased and he believes the senior building is used 99% of the time for Senior Services so the Senior Services should pay 100% of the full-time employees' salaries. Still under negotiations are that all programs that are planned and organized by Park District staff are open to all Park Ridge residents with no penalty." (sic)

~~THUD!!!~~ We're in love!!!

Press Release from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg!

For your reading enjoyment --

Good afternoon-

Attached is the text of the message I delivered to the Council last night vetoing appropriations for community groups. Pursuant to state statute, the City Council will automatically debate overriding the vetoes at the next City Council meeting on September 20.

You will hear some claim that the vetoes were unnecessary and should be overridden because the total amount involved is a small percentage of our overall budget. That is nonsense. Every single dime we have available to us must be spent wisely and solely for the benefit of the taxpayers, not private organizations, nor anyone or anything else for that matter.

As I mentioned last night, the perceived nobility of the purpose does not change the fact that it is still an expenditure of public funds to private entities without any determination that an essential public need is being met through the expenditure. Wrongfully spending taxpayer funds because politicians determine the cause is "just" or the amount involved is "slight" does nothing to make it right.

More importantly, this issue is just part of the bigger picture which involves defining the role of the city government and ensuring that we finally get our fiscal house in order lest we end up in the same financial condition as the State.

This is a public debate. I encourage everyone, regardless of their opinion, to let the aldermen know and me how you feel and to attend the September 20 meeting if you can.

-Dave

Mayoral Veto 09072010

For our part, the PRU Crew is getting the idea that Mayor Schmidtzkrieg has developed a political tin ear.

Hump Day PRU Briefs!

To our Monday night post, the following comment was added last evening --

Anonymous said...

The average daily flights, over Park Ridge, on the runways 9L/27R and 4L/22R(these are the paths over P.R), arrival and departure combined, according to the data on the ONCC website are:

Nov 2008--------343 prior to new runway,
Nov 2009-------283,
Feb 2010-------213

Obviously far fewer flights over P.R. regardless of path, with the new runway added.

Now, before someone says this is because there are less flights overall…guess again. There were the same number of total arrivals and 50 fewer total departures when comparing Nov 2008 and Feb 2010; same data source. If you doubt the number just go to the ONCC website and confirm for yourself. I live on the south end right under the new flight path….RIGHT UNDER. It sucks! I got used to it.

What I will not get used to are people talking down my property value by continuing to speak about how bad it is to live here, when it has clearly gotten better for P.R. as a whole.

Lastly, investing anything on an environmental study is just asinine. Park Ridge paid for a study several years ago that shows the air quality in P.R. sucks. I have some news for you; we live next to a major airport, several major expressways, and the 3rd largest city in this country. The air quality will always suck.

June 8, 2010 7:35 PM

The PRU Crew has not taken the time to verify the information in the comment above, but at this time we have no reason to suspect the Anonymous comment as being wrong or intentionally false. And we did find the effort at seeking out and sharing actual facts and data rather refreshing. The Anonymous commenter obviously isn't following the PROAC-scripted version of ineducable ignorance on the part of the citizenry.



Email Release -- from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg
to: presscontacts(at)electdaveschmidt.com
date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
subject: Fwd: Park Ridge, Illinois

To: staber@calairlaw.com

Good afternoon, Mr. Taber, I am the Mayor of Park Ridge. I want to thank you again for coming to Park Ridge to make your presentation. As you may have gathered, I am skeptical of the efficacy of further litigation regarding the O'Hare expansion ("OMP"). However, I have vowed to keep an open mind.

By way of background, I am an experienced litigation attorney and pride myself on being able to assess the viability of a claim or defense. Without going in to too much detail, I have enjoyed great success over the years by consistently approaching potential litigation through a careful process of review and analysis. I view the potential of litigating the OMP issue as I would any other type of potential litigation: before I do anything, I need to see an assessment of the relevant facts, the applicable law, an analysis of how that law would apply to the given set of facts, and then I need to be comfortable with the conclusion before I advise my client regarding whether to proceed. That would be especially true in this situation because I am dealing with taxpayers' money. I cannot achieve the required analysis through a telephone conversation. Rather, I am accustomed to approaching potential litigation by preparing a legal memorandum addressing the aforementioned matters or reviewing a memorandum prepared by an associate.

To that end, if you want to try to convince me that litigation is a viable option for the City of Park Ridge, I would need to first see a detailed legal memorandum which lays out the relevant facts as you see them, your view of the applicable law, your analysis of how that law would apply to our particular set of facts in Park Ridge, and your conclusion which would include an honest assessment of the City's chances of prevailing.

If you desire to take this course of action, please prepare a legal memorandum and submit it to me for my review. Please be advised that the memorandum will NOT be kept confidential. As our City Attorney has correctly pointed out, any discussion regarding proceeding with litigation, and the reason for doing so, must take place in open session.

I look forward to hearing from you.

-Dave Schmidt
Mayor

Mayor Schmidtzkrieg is obviously not following the PROAC and CAL legal team-scripted version of secrecy concerning public policy, at least not on this issue. And the PRU Crew finds that refreshing too.



In an online Herald-Advocate article -- Community group handouts still face veto at mayor's desk -- we read, "Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt says he will veto any City Council-approved financial contributions to community and social-service organizations."

The article continues, "Schmidt, who believes the 2010-11 budget contains inflated revenue projections and does not take into account potential losses in income-tax revenue from the state, said he will not support disbursements for not-for-profit city groups.

"My intention is still to veto it if and when it goes to the council," he said of the motion. "My hope is that the council will see the light and there won't be a need for a veto."

The PRU Crew once again reminds the Mayor that he has the power to wield a discerning red pen over making the choice to swing a total veto axe.

We find the Mayor's threat to veto all community group contributions in total, without either demanding an accounting of each group's expenditures and--or making a value judgement between the services provided, to be as mindless a course of action as the Council's choosing to make across-the-board cuts of 12% for each contribution.

And as others have repeatedly pointed out, expenditures on tree trimming and planting, as well as fireworks displays and staff support for other special events, aren't essential city services either -- why the nearly complete silence on those expenditures, Mr Mayor?

Comment In The Spotlight!

Thanks to our faithful PRU readers for your patience today -- what follows is a bit long and dry but we feel it's worth your time.



A commenter asked on our post from yesterday, what the Illinois Statutes and Park Ridge Municiple codes say in relation to the Mayor's job and the City budget. We thought we would highlight the question and offer answers in a post for today.

The Illinois statute which addresses the forms of municipal governments and the roles of the corporate authorities and governing body is 65 ILCS and is titled "Municipalities." By the by, for those who may not know, ILCS stands for Illinois Compiled Statutes.

65 ILCS discusses the structure and form of City government. In the statute, you will find --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑30. Mayor presides. The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the city council. Except as provided in Articles 4 and 5 of this Code, the mayor shall not vote on any ordinance, resolution, or motion except the following: (i) where the vote of the aldermen has resulted in a tie; (ii) where one‑half of the aldermen elected have voted in favor of an ordinance, resolution, or motion even though there is no tie vote; or (iii) where a vote greater than a majority of the corporate authorities is required by this Code or an ordinance to adopt an ordinance, resolution, or motion. Nothing in this Section shall deprive an acting mayor or mayor pro tem from voting in the capacity as alderman, but he or she shall not be entitled to another vote in the capacity as acting mayor or mayor pro tem."

The above is likely one of the sources the Park Ridge City Attorney was referencing when he said Illinois law defines "corporate authorities" as including the Mayor, when the Park Ridge City Council was discussing the issue of supermajority voting to override denials by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

65 ILCS also says --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑40. Vote required. The passage of all ordinances for whatever purpose, and of any resolution or motion (i) to create any liability against a city or (ii) for the expenditure or appropriation of its money shall require the concurrence of a majority of all members then holding office on the city council, including the mayor, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Code or any other Act governing the passage of any ordinance, resolution, or motion."

and --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑45. Ordinances; approval; veto. All resolutions and motions (i) that create any liability against a city, (ii) that provide for the expenditure or appropriation of its money, or (iii) to sell any city or school property, and all ordinances, passed by the city council shall be deposited with the city clerk. Except as provided in Articles 4 and 5 of this Code, if the mayor approves an ordinance or resolution, the mayor shall sign it. Those ordinances, resolutions, and motions which the mayor disapproves shall be returned to the city council, with the mayor's written objections, at the next regular meeting of the city council occurring not less than 5 days after their passage. The mayor may disapprove of any one or more sums appropriated in any ordinance, resolution, or motion making an appropriation, and, if so, the remainder shall be effective. However, the mayor may disapprove entirely of an ordinance, resolution, or motion making an appropriation. If the mayor fails to return any ordinance or any specified resolution or motion with his written objections within the designated time, it shall become effective despite the absence of the mayor's signature."

Succinctly -- in terms of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's role on the issue of the City budget, the Mayor followed the minimum of what the Illinois statute demands -- opting to veto the budget in total.

Another Illinois Compiled Statute, 50 ILCS which is titled "Illinois Municipal Budget Law," also addresses elected officials as --

"(2) "Governing body" means the corporate authorities, body, or other officer of the municipality authorized by law to raise revenue, appropriate funds, or levy taxes for the operation and maintenance thereof."

Again the governing body is defined in the Illinois Statute as being the corporate authorities, and the rest of the statute discusses the form and timing of passage of municipal budgets.

In the Park Ridge Municipal Code, Article 2, Chapter 9 is titled "Budget Policy." The municipal code also sets out the roles of city staff and elected officials -- sections 2-9-2 and 2-9-3 establish the powers and duties of the city manager regarding the budget. Section 2-9-4 is titled "Passage of Annual Budget, Effect" and says --

"Passage of the annual budget by the corporate authorities shall be in lieu of passage of an appropriation ordinance. The annual budget need not be published except in a manner provided in Section 2-8-8 herein. The annual budget shall be adopted by the corporate authorities before the beginning of the fiscal year to which it applies. Subsequent to the passage of the budget, an ordinance shall establish the property tax assessment provided for in the approved budget."

The Park Ridge City Council Policy Manual -- which does not appear to have been included on the City's new $19,500 website*** -- discusses the Mayor's veto authority and reiterates the Illinois statutes.

What all of the above seems to assume is cooperation and effort on the part of the corporate authorities. Nothing in any of the codes prevents the Mayor from participating in discussion and debate. Nor is the Mayor precluded from enumerating his preference for disapproving of "any one or more sums appropriated in any ordinance."

The PRU Crew still believes Mayor Schmidtzkrieg would have served himself and the community better if he'd chosen to exercise his right to line item vetoes. The Mayor will now have to veto individual spending ordinances as they come before the Council, and those spending ordinances aren't likely to be enough to get the budget to the balanced condition the Mayor insisted he preferred. And we expect the Council will be even less inclined to cooperate with the Mayor, moooving forward.

*** now available on the City website.

A Wednesday Re-wind!

Remember this? We thought our faithful PRU readers and others may want to review -- New Meat! Posted by ParkRidgeUnderground November 19, 2008




The PRU Crew is very happy to post the following announcement!

Today I am announcing my candidacy for the office of Mayor of Park Ridge.

When I was elected First Ward Alderman less than two years ago, my only desire was to serve the residents of the First Ward to the best of my ability – in the most open, accountable, and fiscally-conservative way possible. And that is what I have tried to do for these past 18 months.

But during my time in office, it has become increasingly clear that the entire city is suffering from a lack of vision, a lack of credibility, and a lack of leadership in City Hall. Most troubling, however, is the widespread lack of confidence and trust in the person currently holding the office of mayor.

Consequently, I am running for mayor, first and foremost, to restore the public’s trust in city government and in the office of mayor.

As "The Great Communicator," President Ronald Reagan, advised: "trust, but verify." As mayor of Park Ridge I pledge that city government will earn our residents’ trust by making everything it does – EVERYTHING – completely transparent and readily "verifiable."

I will work to ensure that all important information about city government is posted on the city’s website in a timely fashion, and that it is posted in an easily accessible and understandable form. The city’s website should be the ultimate public information resource, available 24/7 and fifty-two weeks per year.

Not only do I pledge to make Park Ridge city government as transparent as possible, but I promise to end the secret, behind-the-scenes deal-making that has characterized city government under the current administration. There will be no special sweetheart deals at the taxpayers’ expense for anybody – not my friends, not my business associates, not my campaign contributors.

Not only will I disclose any personal, social or business relationship with anyone seeking anything from the city, but I will not cast a tie-breaking vote on any such matter, because the residents of Park Ridge who pay this city’s bills also keep this city’s heart; and they should never have to wonder for even an instant whose side their mayor is on.

I believe in balanced budgets and sound fiscal policy because we cannot govern ourselves and provide for the future of our community by a policy of irresponsible spending and debt. I oppose mortaging our city's and our children's future for short term benefits or mere convenience. And I support utilizing our limited resources to do what is most important to the residents: upgrade and maintain our city’s infrastructure and delivery of basic services instead of going further into debt to build a new police facility.

As a fiscal conservative and believer in the free market system, I consider myself a friend of business. The residents want and need a vibrant business community. As mayor, I will work for a city government that encourages, accommodates and facilitates the ownership and operation of local businesses, but that does not spend our hard-earned tax dollars on handouts and subsidies.

I am running for mayor because this community stands at a crossroads. It has survived and thrived as a bedroom community made up of primarily single-family residences, conveniently located to both the Loop and O'Hare Airport. But the current mayor and his allies, while claiming to love this community, at the same time have worked relentlessly to drastically and permanently change this community's appearance and fundamental character. I do not believe the residents support such a change.

In addition to its uniquely exceptional location, the quality of life here in Park Ridge is what draws people to move here and remain here. That is why I support the preservation of a diverse assortment of structures and appropriate green space, and why I believe that growth and development must be held to the highest standards of performance and compatibility with this city’s character and feel. I pledge to look carefully at every development application to ensure that it does not adversely affect the existing character and uses of the area in which the development will occur.

Finally, I have chosen to run for mayor because I have found the vast majority of the people of Park Ridge are confident, courageous, generous and persevering. Those are the people whom I would be honored and privileged to represent and serve as mayor of this city, and those are the people whose support I seek in this endeavor.

I welcome the input of the residents from whom I will draw my strength and support. Anyone wishing to contact me or learn more about me, where I stand and what my vision is for Park Ridge should visit my campaign website at electdaveschmidt.com.

Watch your back, Alderman Dave. The purveyors of the status quo -- peddlers of business as usual -- are massing to give you one hell of a fight.

City Council Meeting 5-17-2010 -- Video!

For our faithful PRU readers interested in the discussion and vote to override Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's budget veto -- the fun begins @ the 48:00 mark.

Enjoy the show!

Freshman Year Is Over!

One year ago, Mayor Dave Schmidtkrieg took the oath of office and was seated as the freshman Mayor of Park Ridge, IL. And now Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's freshman year is over -- time for final grades!

Math Skills -- C

We had hoped your final budget veto exam would have produced a better final grade. But your math is a bit fuzzy, you failed to show your work, and you failed to complete some equations. We understand why you chose to estimate next year's budget projections based upon last year's budget projections, but we feel you could have done a much better job of formulating your answers.

We also found your class participation, over the ten session budget course you signed up for, rather disappointing. We note the rules of participation for the Mayor's engagement in discussion and debate were changed during your tenure as an Alderman -- while the Council has failed to follow the rules it voted to institute, consistent practice has allowed the Mayor to engage in discussion and debate to the heart's content, and you have not taken advantage of the opportunity.

One of your best attempts at problem solving occurred when you undertook to formulate a workable solution to the water fund deficit -- however, your budget veto address seemed to call into question, if not contradict, your own calculations about the projections of the water fund balance.

Your other best attempt at problem solving was your overall, general attempt to work with positive numbers. Calling for a balanced budget -- a correction to your two previous year's work as an Alderman engaged in the manipulation of negative numbers -- was an excellent effort which has some potential to produce the only balanced city budget in the black since the Spring of 2006-2007, right before you were seated as an Alderman.

Language Arts -- D

You began the year with a strong showing -- the PRU Crew appreciated many of your well-worded press releases and emails to supporters. However, over the last half of the year, you seemed to become distracted and your dissertations on issues seemed rushed, shallow, and plaintive. You failed to properly correct misinformation in the public domain and you failed to properly elucidate the fine points of issues and your positions. Additionally, while we don't have access to your fraternity's files, we believe the work you've submitted for review is not necessarily your own.

Your lack of communication and attention to the commissions and task forces you created left a vacuum of balancing opinion and thought and now you are faced with both policy and political problems which will undermine your good government agenda and goals. The PROAC and Flood Control Task Force, both of which you created and populated with your appointees, are prime examples of bodies with which you have failed to adequately communicate through attendance and participation at their open forums.

We're not fans of social media such as Face Book, but we understand there are plenty of people who are -- and you are one of them. We understand your desire to reach out in an informal way to supporters and friends. However, if you are using your Face Book account for the creation and maintenance of personal friendships we strongly suggest you remove your personal Face Book account from your official campaign/Mayoral website. Or if you are using your Face Book account for political promotion, and we believe you are since it was originally created and placed on your electdaveschmidt.com website, then we strongly urge you not to limit access to readers. We note, as far as we know and have found through a cursory search, you are the only politician with a Face Book account who does not provide unfettered access to constituent readers.

We strongly encourage you to refrain from any and all discussion of city business on any social media account you may hold -- and when anyone, especially one of your task force appointees, on your friends list (Dick Barton? Chris Provenzano? Seriously?) attempts to open up such a discussion you immediately nip it in the bud and removing the comment would be advisable.

Science -- D

Leadership is not only an art, it's also a science. A leader must understand the way in which instruments can be used and the correct scientific method for their use. We find your employment of the instruments at your disposal, and the methods you use, to be rather lacking.

The biggest test you faced as a leader was when you tried to use the ethics ordinance instrument at your disposal. Your method of employing this instrument and the way in which you treated this instrument earned you a failing grade on one of the biggest tests any leader can face -- choosing enforcement of the law and prosecution of a wrong above any other consideration. The wasted time, energy, and resources was nothing less than gross mismanagement and manipulation of the instruments at your disposal.

What has kept you from earning a total failing grade in this subject area is the leadership effort you've made in the subject area of math -- taking responsibility to course-correct past errors in the overall, general approach you've taken on seeking a balanced budget.

Social Studies - F

Where to begin?

During your freshman year as Mayor, you demonstrated far too much fraternity and far too little egalite.

Your refusal to consider your own campaign rhetoric in the area of social needs services, your failure to demand evidence of the accusations being made about certain community groups, and your equivocating position on special event cost reviews leave us scratching our heads.

We find your lack of demand for total accountability from each of the community groups and private organizations which have come under scrutiny to be a failing of one of your most foundational campaign positions -- transparency. We're also very well aware of your failure to provide total transparency in other areas of public policy consideration, but those assignments remain incomplete, so we have not factored them into your grade.

Your seeming abandonment of your campaign rhetoric about preserving Park Ridge as a bedroom community in light of your silence on the newest liquor license is strange. We understand Mr. Ed Berry was one of your campaign contributors, and that you consider him and Mr. Declan Stapleton to be your friends, and so you disclosed the economic relationship and recused yourself from the public discussions. However, we believe you should also understand that disclosure does not require recusal from discussion. We believe you chose recusal on the subject as a way of providing yourself with political cover. We are not opposed to changes in the environment of Park Ridge, especially if a seeming majority of residents favor some changes, but we aren't willing to accept a representative's silence on any subject under the guise of ethical conduct when we strongly suspect political expediency as the motivation.

Finally, in the subject area of social studies -- lay off the goddamn beer. And for added strength of character, you may want to review a recent court settlement from Des Plaines -- and we don't mean the billboard case.

Your final average grade for your freshman year as the Mayor of Park Ridge, IL. is a D. You have not met your potential. We hope for a better showing during your sophomore year -- try not to be sophomoric about it.

2010 Budget -- Mayor's Veto Message -- and Video

2010MAYORVETOMSG

And the video of last night's meeting is done processing --

A Really Big Shoo Tonight!

It's a really big shoo set to take place at 505 Butler Place! The agenda (.pdf) for tonight's City Council meeting includes the long anticipated Budget Veto Message from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg. And as we expected, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg intends to pass the hot potato budget buck back to the City Council -- our expectations were confirmed in an email Mayor Schmidtzkrieg sent out last week.

From: "Dave Schmidt" dave@parkridgemayor.com
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com

Good evening-

Most of you know that the City Council passed a budget resolution on April 17 which I termed as "hopelessly flawed." On the surface it appears to be balanced, but I have analyzed the projected revenue figures and believe they are overstated, perhaps by as much as $1.2million, possibly even more. Meanwhile, the budget which was adopted will result in the layoffs of six police department personnel and members of the fire and public works departments. Additionally, the City's non-union staff has been cut, and those who remain will have their salaries frozen for a second year in a row.

Against that backdrop, the Council voted to spend over $350,000 on contributions to community groups and to fund the fight against O'Hare expansion. I have received many phone calls and e-mails from residents who have implored me to leave those expenditures in the budget, and even more calls and messages insisting that they be removed. I have also received much advice on whether I should veto the entire budget or simply veto those parts of the budget that I feel are unnecessary or unwise expenditures. Some believe that the latter course of action is the only way I can exhibit "leadership" on the budget issue.

I have given the matter a lot of thought and consulted with the City Attorney on the extent of my powers. I have also played out different scenarios in my mind, and I have concluded that the best course of action is to veto the entire budget and try again. I plan to explain the basis for my projected revenue concerns and the reasons for the veto in greater detail on Monday evening, but for now I can summarize my thought process as follows:

First, I cannot line item veto inflated revenue projections, only expenditures. The City Council needs to take a much harder look at those projections and adopt a far more conservative approach than it has to date. Once those revenue projections have been revised, then the Council needs to decide how to increase revenues and further cut expenditures to achieve an actual balanced budget.

I will recommend that the aldermen start with the O'Hare and community group expenditures. The aldermen should also consider additional staff reductions and/or furlough days to reduce the City's overall personnel expense, something I also cannot do by way of a line item veto. The Council also needs to look once more at the library's budget. I do believe that the library is an essential part of the fabric of our town, but not every program offered by the library is, itself, essential.

I know the aldermen do not relish more budget discussions, but we were all elected to do a job, and it is essential to the financial survival of the City that we do the job right. It is my hope that the aldermen will recognize their obligation to the citizens and sustain my veto.

We're looking forward to hearing Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's analysis of City Manager Hock's projected revenues, and we cannot wait to hear Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's recommendations for cuts to community group expenditures and additional staff reductions.

It promises to be one helluva really big shoo tonight!

Good Morning, Schmidtzkrieg!

It's a looooong one today, people -- we hope you see it through.



Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, we understand you're in a difficult spot. You inherited enough bullshit from your predecessor to last you and our grandchildren a lifetime. But pity party time is over, pal. You wanted the big chair and your hand on the gavel, and now you've got it. It's time to man up. It's time to be the fiscally responsible leader you promised the voters you would be. It's time to choose your response to this mess.

We also understand you probably aren't in want of tons of advice on the subject of the City budget either -- and we're told you're leaning toward a veto of the entire thing. We think that's a mistake and so we thought we'd add our advice to your slush pile for consideration -- our reasons and opinions follow below.

If the PRU Crew were in a position to choose how to respond to the current City of Park Ridge budget mess, we would choose to do the following --

Cutting Expenses:

We took a look at the allocations posted in the City Manager's budget document for Community & Civic Services(.pdf) on the City's website. The PRU Crew considers expenditures of these tax payer dollars to be of the most discretionary nature, and we've assumed the numbers posted on the City website are current and accurate.

We would line item veto the following items --

Fine Arts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 13,200
Civic Orchestra - - - - - - - - - - -$ 13,200
Teen Center - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 22,000
Senior Center - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 35,200
Rainbow Hospice - - - - - - - - - $ 4,400
Meals On Wheels - - - - - - - - - $ 7,040
Historical Society - - - - - - - - - $ 8,800
Cultural Arts Council - - - - - - $ 4,840
Kalo Foundation - - - - - - - - - $ 4,400
Brickton Arts Center - - - - - - -$ 11,000
O'Hare Commission - - - - - - - $165,000
Total Cuts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $289,080

No matter how we try to approach the subjects of each of the above, we are forced to conclude each and every one of them are non-essential expenditures of taxpayer dollars.

By the by, does the above total cuts number look familiar? It should. It's relatively close to the number the Park Ridge Police Dept. has been asked to cut from it's budget for the coming year -- $283,768 -- again, if the sources we've checked are reliable.

The difference leaves a very modest surplus of $5,312, which is more than enough to fund the City run Youth Commission, slated for an allocation of $4,400 in the coming fiscal year's budget. We feel the 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost has made an admirable effort in ramping up the efforts of the City run Youth Commission, and since the Commission is a City run effort, we're willing to take the surplus from cuts made to donations to private organizations and leave the Youth Commission funding in place. But we wouldn't lose any sleep over cutting the Youth Commission's funding either.

And we pause for a moment to thank the City run Health Commission for not taking an allocation in the next fiscal year, once again if the documents we've consulted are correct.

What the above mentioned cuts do not leave room for is funding the two privately run charitable efforts we previously mentioned in our post here -- the Maine Center for Mental Health and the Center of Concern. Each of those privately run organizations are slated to receive allocations of taxpayer dollars in the amounts of $6,600 and $55,000, respectively.

Here is what the PRU Crew would choose to do -- we would work with the City Manager and the union representative for the police department rank and file and insist they find some way to cut the Park Ridge Police Department budget by $61,600 to cover the funding allocated for those two charities.

Not only do we believe they could do it inside of two hours time, we also believe it's in their best interest to do so -- and not just because it could save the department from having to lay off 4 police officers in which the department AND THE CITY taxpayers have invested training time and effort, but also because the two previously mentioned charitable organizations work in concert with many of the goals and efforts of the police department. The two previously mentioned charitable organizations may well alleviate some of the burden and responsibilities which may otherwise fall to the police department.

We'll explain -- but first we will offer that we're pissed off about having to attempt this without any hard numbers --

Let's begin with the Center of Concern, which has several programs they tout as being wonderful for the Park Ridge community and beyond. Some of those programs fall under the heading of Senior Supportive Services. Two of those programs run by the Center of Concern are the "Friendly Visitors" and "Telephone Reassurance Program."
It just so happens the Park Ridge Police Department also offers "The Are You O.K.? Program" described as, "This program offers daily contact with seniors, and peace of mind for friends and family. The City of Park Ridge offers a telephone service to its senior citizens and the disabled. Each day the participant is called at a specified time to check on their well-being. If the call goes unanswered, help will be dispatched. For more information call the police department at (847) 318-5252or e-mail at info@parkridgepolice.org"

Maybe it's just us, but we would rather our police officers be out on regular patrol than have the added burden and responsibility of what is currently being handled by the Center of Concern. And again, we wish we had the goddamn f*&#ing numbers for these specific stats from the Center of Concern.

And at this point, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, we would also like to remind you of what you said about the Center of Concern in your press release on Homeless Shelters --

"I personally endorse the Center of Concern’s model of helping “cure” homelessness by helping homeless individuals secure shelter 7 nights a week in the same place, so they have some stability and a foundation upon which they can rebuild their lives."

We trust you weren't referring to the Center of Concern's model of providing assistance to those in need where only the homeless are concerned.

Another reason the PRU Crew would prefer to have police officers out on regular patrol, at the current staffing level, is because the recent reports in the local rags about gang graffiti, among other reports we've read, have not gone unnoticed by us.

We will admit, the thought crossed our minds that one of the masters of psycho-chicanery, Hoopty Lou of PRPD infamy, has been planting stories with his favorite local rag reporterette -- and if you want to put a scare into a mighty whitey suburban rightie, just holler "GANG ACTIVITY!" We guaranty, it's not visions of hip-hoppers breaking, popping, and locking that are dancing through their heads. It isn't NBA players neither.

However, enough evidence exists of a growing gang problem in the area that we believe concern is merited. We also believe that limited economic opportunities lead to all kinds of problems -- like the sale of drugs and weapons -- which brings us right back to wanting to preserve the current level of police department personnel our community currently enjoys, since we're fairly certain the North of Dempster ne're do wells, among other undesirables, didn't get the memo about not crossing the borders into Park Ridge.

It also brings us to the Maine Center for Mental Health. One of the many human needs services the Maine Center provides is in the area of addiction treatment. The PRU Crew thinks the Maine Center's website sucks as a reference for ordinary taxpayers and how they're spending our money, but at this point in time we are going to choose to believe they are doing what they say they are doing -- which means they are, in part, treating people with substance abuse issues, who may or may not also have mental health issues.

Would any of our faithful PRU readers care to guess where substance abusers often get their money? That's right -- from burgling houses and committing other thefts -- which just so happen to be the two most frequent crimes reported in Park Ridge, according to city-data.com for 2008 -- and, according to a memorandum issued by our Park Ridge Police Chiefski, "98% of the Crime Index relates to Property Crimes with theft representing the largest category, or 74% of the Crime Index."

And we find another reason we believe the Park Ridge Police Department may want to help carry the burden of funding the Maine Center for Mental Health. The fewer abusers of substances out on the streets, the less likely our police officers will have to deal with them if they're receiving treatment -- but just in case, we'd like to maintain our current staffing level of police officer personnel anyway. Thank you very much.

During these economic times, an overworked phrase these days to be sure, we sincerely believe it is in our community's best interest to continue to modestly fund true and real human needs services.

So Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, those are the cuts the PRU Crew would choose to make and those are the reasons and opinions for which we'd make them.

With respect to your claims that you believe the City Manager's revenue projections are way out of line -- the PRU Crew has gone over the revenue analysis document (.pdf) and we just cannot pinpoint where you may believe the projections are off. We concede the threats from Governor Quinn of withholding a large portion of income tax revenue from municipalities should not be taken lightly or ignored, but we do note the City Manager has offered two possible areas which could also be cut should Quinn's threats come to fruition.

Whether you choose to respond to the current budget mess with the swing of a total veto axe or the employment of a discerning red line veto pen is your choice to make.

We feel a total veto would be worthless since the Aldermorons have already proven themselves incapable and unwilling to make fiscally responsible decisions. We're left to wonder if you've got the stones to do what the Aldermorons could not or would not do, or if you'll pass the hot potato budget buck back to the the City Council.

Responsibility: the ability to choose your response. We're looking forward to yours, whatever it may be.

This Space Reserved!

Last week Mayor Schmidtzkrieg sent out the following email to his supporters list --

Subject: Meeting videos
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:33 PM
From: "Dave Schmidt" dave@parkridgemayor.com
To: supporters (at) electdaveschmidt.com

Good afternoon. I wanted to update you on the situation involving the videos of Council meetings. We were informed last week that motionbox, the company which had been hosting the videos, wanted several thousand dollars to continue doing so. Since motionbox was always meant to be a temporary vehicle for delivering the videos to the community, we immediately began looking for alternatives.

As it turns out, the City purchased a You Tube account in connection with its website upgrade project which may allow us to use the City's website as a host, something we intended to do all along once the new website was ready. The video of last night's meeting will serve as the "guinea pig". I will let you know when I hear it is available for viewing. Just as before when we first started posting the videos on parkridgemayor.com, I ask for your patience while we work out the kinks.

I will let you know as soon as I learn anything more myself. Thanks for staying involved.

So faithful PRU readers, it appears management of the city's YouTube channel may still be kinky at this time -- we had hoped the videos from last Saturday's City Council Budget Workshop would be available by today.

The PRU Crew is pleased Mayor Schmidtzkrieg was recently informed about the city's purchase of a YouTube channel last October, but we hope Mayor Schmidtzkrieg doesn't wait until next October to work out a posting schedule for city videos.

Decisions!

"Decisions" by: *laura242 at deviantart.com


Most of us are predominantly guided by either our heads or our hearts.

Achieving the right balance requires judgement, and the healthy temperance of both.

Have a good weekend.


-- Addendum -- press release

Dave Schmidt dave@parkridgemayor.com
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM
subject: State income tax receipts
11:35 AM (2 minutes ago)

Good morning. I am writing to set the record straight on my position regarding Governor Quinn's plan to slash the amount of state income tax receipts that the state sends to municipalities like ours. An article in this week's Herald-Advocate misstates my position.

Under Governor Quinn's plan, Park Ridge stands to lose approximately $930,000 which is presently included in our budgeted revenues for next year. A couple weeks ago, I was asked whether we should be factoring the proposed cut into our budget. I unwisely said that I did not believe so, because I viewed it as a political ploy on Governor Quinn's part to push through an income tax hike. However, given the horrendous state of Illinois' own budget situation, I should have taken Governor Quinn at his word.

At the budget workshop last Saturday, I asked our State Representative, Rosemary Mulligan, if she believed we could count on that money. She expressed her view that Park Ridge should plan on the reduction. I then cautioned the aldermen that they should heed Rep. Mulligan's warning. I reiterated that warning on Monday night at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting during my mayor's report. However, the Herald-Advocate article incorrectly implies that I still do not believe we need to worry about the reduction in state income tax revenue.

Unfortunately, taking the reduction into account is going to necessitate further budget cuts in addition to those already proposed by City Manager Jim Hock. This is not going to be pretty folks, but our long-term financial survival depends a great deal on what we do over the next few weeks. I encourage you all to attend the meetings and stay informed about this process. Have a great weekend.

Reminders!

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.com
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.

Not 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?

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.