Except in certain national security situations, secrecy in government usually ends badly for the average taxpaying citizens. This is especially true in the operation of our local government bodies, which rarely deal with matters where secrecy is an absolute necessity – notwithstanding how eagerly most public officials run into closed session to escape public scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the longer things remain secret, the easier it is for any adverse effects to become irreversible. And the easier it is for the public officials responsible for them to avoid accountability – whether because facts are lost over time, or because officials leave office and find it easy to pass the buck to their successors.

Secrecy can take many forms: non-disclosure, incomplete disclosure, and outright misinformation are three examples. The first two were on display in three articles from last week’s Herald-Advocate: “Uptown TIF revenues top predictions,” “‘Typo’ or zoning loophole?” and “New site for police station is under consideration” (December 13, 2007).

• “Uptown TIF…” displays the typical governmental practice of using the press to disseminate only good news, however incomplete it might be. In this case, City Mgr. Tim Schuenke trotted out “new calculations and predictions” that he claims show how the Uptown Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) District will generate higher revenues – starting next year and continuing until the TIF is due to expire in the year 2027 – than were projected just two years ago.

We love good news as much as the next watchdog, but why are only “revenue” figures included in that article? Why no mention anywhere of the expenses and the debt the City has incurred or expects to incur to generate those revenues? And, more importantly, why doesn’t that article or the actual Schuenke report [pdf] disclose who prepared those projections, and what data and assumptions underlie them? Is the big difference between the 2005 projections and these latest ones primarily the result of the most recent reassessment of property values?

Of course, by the time we find out whether the TIF revenues really will exceed expenses by 2010 instead of 2019 (as projected in 2005), Schuenke – who has already announced his retirement and is expected to leave Park Ridge for Wisconsin – will be long gone. So much for his accountability.

• “Typo…” discusses a potential change in the language of the new zoning ordinance that would tie R-5 multi-family residential zoning district to the boundaries of the “Central Business District” rather than to the “B-4 Uptown Business District” as the ordinance currently provides. As reported, this change would increase the amount of land that could become the subject of more R-5 developments beyond the area that is generally considered as “Uptown.”

Director of Community Development Randy Derifield claims that this change is needed because it’s inappropriate to use one zoning designation (i.e., “B-4”) in describing the boundaries of another (i.e., “R-5”). He doesn’t say that it’s illegal, however, nor does he explain what adverse affects the City could suffer if the current “B-4” language were retained.

He also doesn’t explain how this “inappropriate” zoning term got past the Ad Hoc Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee’s “Principal Consultant,” Jacques Gourguenchon, and Associate Arista Strungys – as well as committee chair Ald. (former) Kirke Machon and committee members Ald. Rich DiPietro; Ann Tennes; attorney Gary Zimmerman; Atul Karkhanis; attorney Ellen Upton; Brian Kidd; Philip Mitchell; attorney Cynthia Funkhouser; Timothy Metropolus; Rob Lohens; Judy Barclay; attorney Joseph Cwik; attorney Terry McConville; Tom Provencher; Anita Rifkind and attorney Aurora Abella-Austriaco.

And by the way – Derifield is also retiring from his City employment, so his accountability for this change (if it occurs) will be zero.

• “New site…” reports on the pursuit of a site for the new police station – a site so secret “[neither] Schuenke nor Police Chief Jeff Caudill would reveal the location.” But why aren’t they talking? Why isn’t the proposed location of the new cop shop a matter of public record?

It can’t be because they’re afraid to lose the deal or get gouged on the price, as the City has condemnation powers that can force the owner(s) to sell the City the property at its fair market value – and coming up with that value presumably is the reason why the City got its appraisal earlier this year and the secret property owner is having its own appraisal done now.

So we ask again: What’s the reason for all the secrecy? Could it be that the City is trying to put together a sweetheart deal with a favored “insider” before the public finds out about it and raises objections to taking yet another piece of private property off the tax rolls – especially when it purchased property on Courtland adjacent to the current City Hall parking lot just a couple of years ago for the express purpose of constructing a new police station there?

And remember the last time the City acted secretly to buy property for a new cop shop: It almost gave “insider” Owen Hayes II a quick $200,000 “flipping” profit. “515 Busse Highway – The Park Ridge Police Station That Almost Was” (Watchdog 11-15-07)

Isn’t it time we ended Park Ridge’s “Culture of Secrecy”?