If you have a twisted sense of humor, a strong stomach, and some time to waste tonight and tomorrow, you might consider wandering over to the Park Ridge Public Library and watching what’s being billed as the Park Ridge City Council’s “strategic planning session.” At the very least, you can see how $19,500 of your tax dollars are being spent.
As reported in yesterday’s Herald-Advocate (“City schedules strategic planning,” Nov. 13), the City is bringing in Robert Oberwise of Executive Partners [pdf] to “facilitate” this circus minimus, which will run from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. tonight, and resume tomorrow from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. While you will be allowed to spectate, you won’t be allowed to commentate. But it might not take long before you’ll want to expectorate.
The reason for this exercise? The official party line comes from Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark himself, whose sales pitch is: “The goal really is to get the council and staff moving in the same direction, so we’re all on the same page.”
What exactly does that mean, Mr. Mayor? Are you saying that the Council and staff have been going in different directions, or been on different pages? If so, can you give us some specific examples – or are you just blowing smoke at us again?
The first clue that this is going to be an exercise in futility comes from City Mgr. Jim Hock, who is staring down the barrel of over $3 million in cumulative budget deficits inherited from his predecessor, Tim (“Good Riddance”) Schuenke. Hock says he is looking “to hear from the mayor and aldermen what their most important concerns are” before he suggests any budget cuts.
Sorry, Mr. Hock, but you’re the professional city manager making in the vicinity of $200,000 a year to serve as the City’s CEO, so it’s time you started acting like one. You’re the guy who should be proposing those cuts that your years of municipal managerial experience tell you need to be made – and then let the mayor and the aldermen react to them. The method you are suggesting may cover your tail politically, but only because it invites politics into what should be economic decisions.
And with the whole regional business community predicting even more dire economic straits in the near future (according to Mayor “Li’l Richie” Daley), we shouldn’t have to blow almost twenty grand for strategic planning…if our city officials have even a modicum of common sense and good judgment.
First of all, they need to stop talking about building a new $20 million-plus police station that will saddle us taxpayers with 20 years or more of relatively non-productive debt and debt service. And they also need to tell those folks on the Library Board to stop wasting any more of their time and our money on silly half-baked surveys designed to gin up support for an addition to, or replacement of, that building. It’s way past time that these public officials got over their edifice complexes and started doing a better job of managing the facilities they’ve been given.
But if all Mayor Let’s Make A Deal and his Alderpuppets want is their names on a bronze plaque, we would much prefer that they abandon all these foolish building schemes and, instead, buy a plaque that reads:
“Dedicated to our fiscally-responsible public officials who, unlike the bureaucratic lemmings who populate the local governments of most other communities, had the foresight, the wisdom, the courage and the discipline to refrain from wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on grand but unnecessary structures.”
And to put our money where our mouth is, PublicWatchdog will gladly pay for that kind of a plaque.
But we’re not going to hold our breath waiting for City Hall to call us on our offer, because we realize there are more “benefits” – wink, wink – to the construction of a new cop shop or a new library than just a plaque on the wall, “benefits” that often escape the attention of the average taxpayer.
After all, Park Ridge does sit right next to Richie Daley’s Chicago, and snugly within the boundaries of Crook County.
14 comments so far
Does anybody else wonder why the cost of this event is $19,500 – a slim $500 beneath the $20,000 threshhold that requires city bureaucrats to obtain City Council pre-approval of expenses? I’m surprised they didn’t cut the deal for $19,999 just to mock the taxpayers who are footing the bill for this frolic.
The Advocate article said there was one of these in 2005. What benefit, if any, did we get out of that one?
As a private citizen I have participated in a few of these kinds of “facilitated” sessions over the last several years, including one done by the City at the Public Works Service Center a few years ago, and one done by Dist. 64 (I think). They all were clearly attempts by the governmental body to use these facilitators to steer the participants into saying and approving things that the governmental body wanted.
What a waste.
This just got me thinking.
In the last few years along with the beautification projects I’ve noiticed a couple of other things such as street lights and street signs being replaced.
Now I think most of the previous street lights were put up in the 50’s becuse in the past some of them had fixtures that common for that time so maybe they were due for replacement.
Then again I wonder if this is being done just to be modern?
As for the street signs maybe it’s better to have them in a position where everyone and see them well
Can’t make up my mind on that.
This kind of thing was done three years ago, at a lesser cost, and it was a total waste of time and produced nothing of value. But it cost less than $20,000, so I’m sure HOward and his cronies will say that you get what you pay for and this one was so much better.
Talk about smoke being blown somewhere.
I can’t believe that outside of Council, Mayor, etc. only 3 people showed last night to listen in and 1-2 are there today!! Where is everybody?? This is our City and our money that they’re talking about….doesn’t anyone care???
I think we all need to wake up and get more involved. We have a voice and if anyone has good ideas I think they are willing and open to listen.
A1:23,
Keep telling yourself that, while the fourth ward’s Idiot Allegretti talks about being more efficient by limiting public input and the length of meetings, that usually run longer when there is more public involvement. Idiot Allegretti sure doesn’t seem willing and open to listen, but maybe he wasn’t who you had in mind?
Alpha 1:51
Although I do hear your points and I agree with the idiot-ness of some…I believe that we The People should still make an effort to get more involved, pay more attention to what is or isn’t going on, and try to make a difference. Our City has a huge deficit and Council is still discussing the topics of 1)new police station, 2) new library, 3)new trucks…need I go on? Anyway, I do think that you and I are on the same page. I was just trying to shake the cage up alittle bit. Have a good day!
A2:22,
I think the best way The People can get involved is by electing a new mayor who won’t tell them it’s in their best interest for him to keep secrets from them, and won’t try to employ the traitorous city attorney and the fourth ward lap dummy to spew that b.s. for him.
If the members of the Council really believe the number one infrastructure priority for Park Ridge is a new police station, I challenge them all to put the issue to a referendum vote and make their case, in some fashion that doesn’t pin the “need” on the general “depression” among the department’s personnel. Heck, I’d be willing to fund a special police prozac fund to address that problem, instead of sinking ourselves into $30,000,000.00 of debt to address that problem; the annual cost of a prescription being about $1,600.00 per usual adult dosage.
I see and understand your effort to “shake the cage” and we are definitely on the same page in the global sense. However, I personally believe there comes a time when you write off your losses and stop beating your head against the brick walls of Allegretti, Ryan, Bach, and DiPietro. For the time being, I’m willing to cut Wsol and Carey some slack. My respect for Schmidt remains unaltered.
Alpha:
Thanks for the post. I agree about electing a different mayor but I also think the political situation in PR is a reflection of lack of public involvement.
Is it not true that the only person we know of in PR who has expressed even a possible interest in running against the current Mayor is Schmidt? Would you call his interest at this point anything more then luke warm? It does not appear to me that there is a long line of potential candidates looking to run for this $12,000 per year plum job. If Adlerman Dave decides not to run Frimark could run unopposed or against someone with zero grass roots support, organization or money.
Is it also not true that in the recent past many of the aldermanic races were uncontested? Again, people love to point the many shortcomings of the “aldermonkeys” but I do not see a long line of people who want to fill that role.
I look forward to your reply as you appear to have a strong grasp on the history of politics here in PR.
A3:34,
Tis true, Schmidt has expressed tepid interest and is probably the only really viable candidate at this time. However, there are others who have expressed an interest, privately, and I wouldn’t put it past former fifth ward alderman, Steve Huening, to take a stab at splitting the pro/anti Howard Frimark vote by offering himself up as an alternative to Frimark and another opponent, probably Schmidt. Huening’s “success” with the school referendum, accompanied by the ready-made campaign structure, contacts, and volunteer database he surely has kept files of, makes him a possibility. Speaking historically, Huening is said to have thought that he would be the next Mayor after Weitecha, until he got his tush kicked and came in dead last in a fifth ward three-way between himself, Mark Anderson (the winner) and Barry Cronin, way back when.
If Schmidt should announce that he is not running for Mayor, I will be disappointed. However, there is also a part of my soul that dwells in the darker part of my heart that would react with sentiments along the lines of poetic justice. Voters have chosen Howard Frimark over his opposition in two elections. The majority of voters are, in fact, getting exactly what they have asked for. As H.L. Mencken said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Who can argue with such wisdom?
In terms of contested races, the recent past has offered more contested aldermanic races than the more distant past, simply because more recently the Homeowner’s Party stopped having private elections in ward livingrooms.
Uncontested races are certainly a problem. However, winning a contested race doesn’t make somebody a better representative. All winning a contested race really proves is the winner is a better campaigner. “Winning” an uncontested race doesn’t make a person lousy at being a representative either, and the “winner” of an uncontested race should not be held responsible for “failing” to have opposition, as the “winners” detractors often attempt to do; [that] is one of the more ridiculously offered criticisms I’ve heard come from the Friends of Howard Frimark forces.
If I get a chance, I will try to find the records and percentages of contested races among the three public bodies serving Park Ridge. I believe Watchdog has addressed this issue in the past.
ETA: Regarding the school referendum campaign structure etc., it’s the same ready-made campaign structure that delivered the much less than venerable Alderman Ryan unto the voters in the fifth ward. Some might argue that the alternatives weren’t worthy of consideration, but I would only agree with that in relation to one of the alternatives. However, I do know there are a number of people regretting thier votes in that race.
Alpha:
Thanks for the reply. I particularly like your second paragraph. The reality is that even if I voted for a candidate who won, I cannot reasonably expect that I am going to agree with 100% of his positions or decisions – lately I seem to be lucky if I agree with half!
You referenced my Alderman earlier in your 1:51 PM post. I do not agree with much of what I have heard from him lately. Having said that, I have no intention of running against him – I am not qualified, as many of my posts would probably confirm. But this leads me to another question for you.
What are your thoughts on the compensation of the Mayor and Aldermen? In essense you have a group of people who are nothing more then community service minded volunteers making million dollar (sometimes multi-million dollar) decisions about our tax dollars. If my math is correct, the entire compensation for the Mayor and Aldermen combined is $20,400. My intent is not to offer any of them a pass. They knew the compensation going in and they should be held responsible for representing their wards and be held accountable for their decisions but I bet there are some very talented, able people in this town who look at all that is going on in their lives and say “not for $100 per month!”
A4:42,
My personal opinion of compensation for elected officials at this level of the game is that all compensation should be eliminated. The stipends received by the Mayor, Aldermen and City Clerk are purportedly to give them something to cover their expenses. I personally believe all elected officials should be required to submit monthly requests for substaniated reimbursement to cover any expenses, with a cap at $100.
What do you believe are, or should be, “qualifications” to become the Mayor, City Clerk, or an Alderman?
Reasonable minds can and often do disagree. If I could identify a majority of reasonable minds on the current City Council, that weren’t simply phoning-in their effort while mainlining the koolaid on behalf of their leader’s special interests and friends, I might be more comfortable with the concept of disagreement.
ETA, against my own better judgement: There are indeed some talented and able people in this town. A number of who have, in fact, attempted to do the job without any consideration for the compensation it offered or the personal gain others have used it for. They sought to do the job honestly and with integrity, telling the people of Park Ridge not what they wanted to hear but what was thought they needed to hear. However, it was made abundantly clear that presumed party affiliation was of paramount concern, or so they were told by Howard P. Frimark.
Maybe the reason why many didn’t attend because they knew they wouldn’t be allowed to comment on anything.
Alpha:
I think you summed up the qualifications as well as I could. “They sought to do the job honestly and with integrity, telling the people of Park Ridge not what they wanted to hear but what was thought they needed to hear”.
Having said that, I do think that there are certain professions/life experiences that might give someone a leg up. For example, someone with a law degree might have a knowledge and experience base, depending on what their practice area was, that might allow them to sift through all the crap. That does not mean that anyone would be “unqualified” and I believe having a variety of perspectives and voices is a benefit to city government.
Of equal importance to me is having the right mentality – I do not have it!! I have never served in city government but I have served on a few condo boards over the years and, quite frankly, it drove me freakin’ crazy!!! Even in a senario like that you have power plays and people building their alliances over the smallest crap – all of it getting away from any meaningful progress.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>