A front-page article in last week’s Park Ridge Journal reported Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Director Ray Ochromowicz’s dismay with “misinformers” – Senior Center members who were (according to Director O) disseminating inaccurate information about the Park District’s plans for the Senior Center (“Misinformers Try Park Director’s Patience,” Nov. 24).
Apparently some members of that semi-private club are unhappy about the Park District’s exploration of ways to operate their clubhouse more cost-effectively, such as by running non-senior programs at that facility in order to reduce its $190,000 operating deficit that the taxpayers have been covering each year. That such a deficit is being rung up for an operation with a little over 1,000 members – a good number of whom aren’t even Park District residents – suggests the need for some new management ideas.
Running more programs out of there is one way. We understand that the Park District has been running a summer KinderCamp out of the Senior Center, although we also understand that the Park District inexplicably has not included those revenues and expenses in the Senior Center’s accounting. Why not?
But if the seniors really want to preserve their age-based (55 and over) exclusivity, we again suggest charging Senior Center members more realistic membership “dues” than the measly $35/year currently on the books. Dues of $225/year (the current $35 plus $190 more) would make the deficit vanish, and the seniors could keep their exclusive clubhouse for what amounts to about 60 cents a day per member.
At this point, however, that doesn’t appear to be on the Park District’s radar.
Instead, Director O and his staff remain engaged in “negotiations” with what we understand to be representatives of Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.”), another one of those private 501(c)(3) corporations that seem to like to call themselves “community groups” because it sounds so much nicer than “corporation” when they show up asking for their annual handouts of public funds. Up until this current fiscal year, Seniors Inc. was getting thousands of dollars from the City of Park Ridge despite sitting on a tidy bankroll – $114,000 at year-end 2008, the last time Seniors Inc. filed an IRS Form 990.
So why negotiate with a special interest that, in theory, should be totally under the control of the Park District? Why hasn’t Staff and the Park Board, representing all the District’s residents and taxpayers, simply come up with a better plan and implemented it?
Could it be because politicians (and the public officials who answer to them) tend to bend over backwards for seniors who vote in far greater percentages than other groups? That might explain, at least in part, why Park District Commissioner Stephen Vile – who we understand to be a Senior Center member himself – recently argued for the Park District’s increasing its Senior Center subsidy to make up for Seniors Inc.’s loss of City funding.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, Commissioner Vile?
Or just trying to placate those misinformers?
To read or post comments, click on title.
7 comments so far
Whatever happened to “The Greatest Generation”? These seniors sure aren’t part of it.
If I ever get to the age where I start demanding free or discount stuff from the taxpayers just because “I’ve been paying taxes for 50 years,” I hope somebody shoots me. Sure thay paid taxes for all those years, and they got public services, educations for their kids and grandkids, etc.
The agreement has been re-approved every 3 years at least since 1987. Why didn’t you fix it or at least object to the problematic conditions of the agreement when you were Park Board president for 8 years?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you are referring to the editor of this blog, he was the president of the Park Board for only 1 year – from May 2004 through April 2005. His recollection, however, is that the Senior Center deficits back then were substantially less than they are today. Nevertheless, to the extent there were any Senior Center deficits that had to be made up by the taxpayers back then, he should have objected to them; and he (along with his fellow Park Board members) deserves to be held accountable for not doing so.
Do as I say…Not as I do!!!!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly, so long as you admit and accept accountability for mistakes made.
Thank you, dear Editor.
It’s the fear of the taunt, “do as I say, not as I do” that makes elected officials afraid to own up to mistakes. I applaud and honor you for your courage and candor.
However, in defense of you and other elected officials, it’s reasonable to expect that managers being paid six figures for life would not put forth agreements that don’t serve the public. In an ideal world, every elected official (most working without compensation after a long day at their “real” jobs)would pore over every detail of every contract, but if they really need to do so to keep from getting taken advantage of by private-sector clubs, contractors, companies, etc., they need to hold the paid guys a bit more accountable. We may disagree about how much of a subsidy any program for any population should get, depending on what population we define as vulnerable. But we can agree that each decision to subsidize a program should be given the full grant-seeking assessment each time, not just automatically rolled over and increased. Not all values/benefits can be quantified, but a reasonable effort has to be made in that direction.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome, but “courage and candor” from our public officials – especially the elected ones – should be expected and demanded.
Having “been there, done that,” we are unwilling to cut elected officials much slack just because they have “real” jobs and generally aren’t financially compensated for their public service. Nobody forced them to seek public office, and they knew the compensation when they signed on. If the privilege and honor of representing one’s constituents on a governing body isn’t “compensation” enough, then public service isn’t for them.
On the other hand, we agree that the “paid guys” (and gals) need to be held to much stricter performance standards than has been the practice. And the reason why we favor some form of zero-based budgeting is to ensure regular re-assessment of what’s being done, and why.
Did you attempt to implement or even discuss zero based budgeting while involved with the PD board??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not in a systemic way, but only occasionally in connection with certain individual funds, projects and/or activities.
Now, if you would like to address the issues of this post, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, head back over to PRU.
I want to go back to the comment of 12.02.10 12:44 pm.
I am old enough (61) to join the Senior Center but have no interest in doing so. None of my “senior” friends belong to it. My parents, both of whom passed away in the last 10 years, never had any desire to join. Nor do I think any of their friends ever belonged to it.
Which causes me to wonder exactly what kind of people need the Senior Center? And if they don’t need the Senior Center, why does it continue to exist and receive public funds?
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Senior Center has been in operation for almost 30 years, which appears to fairly closely jibe with the incorporation of Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.”) on 12/19/80. We suspect that whether the Senior Center is a “need” or merely a “want” depends on whom you talk to.
11:05:
Well if you have no interest in joining, that is darn well good enough for me!! Let’s get rid of the entire program!! Where do I sign??
May I ask do you have any sense of guilt?? I mean here this program has been in existence for 30 freakin’ years!! My god these selfish retired people have been bleeding PR dry for 30 years and NOOOOOWW you decide to mention it?!?!
I hope your happy!!!!