A few random rim-shots and quick-hits for your mid-week edification, in no particular order of importance:
Unaccountable ComEd. At Monday night’s City Council COW meeting, two ComEd reps showed up with a variety of non-explanations of recent power outages throughout the City. Alibis ranged from a “big tree falling in the Forest Preserve” to smaller trees and/or limbs causing local “pocket reliability issues” within and without ComEd’s “tree zone.” They also described one of ComEd’s key diagnostic techniques as “walking the line”; i.e., walking along the ground looking up at the power line for problems. How 21st Century!
A more detailed “report” from ComEd can be found here, and ComEd’s reps are scheduled to be back before the Council on September 17 at 7:00 p.m.
What we’ve concluded – although we hope we’re wrong – is that ComEd’s got so much juice (pun intended) in Springfield that they basically can do whatever they want. So while the City should continue to be as squeaky a wheel as possible re these outages, about all it can do from a practical standpoint is: (a) try to keep our trees trimmed away from power lines; and (b) keep giving an earful to our state legislators (Sen. Dan Kotowski, Rep. Rosemary Mulligan) for letting ComEd continue to get away with being too big to give a rat’s derriere about dependable power for Park Ridge.
City Council Policy No. 6 On Way Out? Council Policy No. 6 is the one that deals with “regulating the use of City funds for the support of private non-governmental organizations. It is the basis for years of arbitrary, unaccountable donations to private community groups – something we’ve been critical of for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it appears to violate Article VIII, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution: “Public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes.”
From what was said at Monday night’s COW meeting, it looks like Policy No. 6 will either be modified or perhaps eliminated. As Ald. Marty Maloney (7th) correctly noted, for years the City has been “writing blank checks” to community groups without a strong sense of what the City is getting for its money. Ald. Joe Sweeney suggested an advisory referendum on whether the taxpayers want to see $250,000 a year budgeted for handouts to these community groups.
As we’ve said before, if these private community groups want public funding of the services they provide, such funding should be under a contract with the City like every other vendor – with fixed prices for the various identifiable units of services and documentary proof that those services are going to Park Ridge residents. Maybe, just maybe, our City officials finally are getting the message.
New D-64 “Changes” Frivolous? An article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“District 64 welcomes new year with changes,” 08.23.12) announces three changes for the new D-64 school year, two of which are more students riding buses, and more students eating lunch at school. Big whoop.
According to the H-A article, the bus-riding results from the borderline bankrupt State of Illinois deciding that D-64 deserves state funding so that Lincoln and Emerson 7th and 8th graders can get free busing through “so-called hazardous crossings that students encounter two [sic] and from school.” No mention in the article of what those “hazardous crossings” are so that the rest of us can be extra careful when we cross there. Also no mention of whether the free busing will be based on economic need, so we’ll assume need is not a criterion unless and until we hear otherwise.
And elementary students will be required to stay at school for lunch, with the elimination of the lunch supervision fee. That begs the question of who pays for the lunch supervision that used to come out of the pockets of the parents whose kids lunched at school rather than went home to eat.
“Free” bus service should require a showing of need – otherwise it just shifts the costs (and the inconvenience) of getting one’s kid to school from the parent to the taxpayers. The same goes for lunch supervision: making stay-at-school lunching mandatory doesn’t magically make the supervision costs disappear, does it?
A Sign. Our post of 08.03.12, “’Management By Walking Around’ Should Start With Stroll Along Summit,” complained about how City government seems to have a hard time making sure that even the little things – like posting a sign on the paybox for Summit parking that actually tells parkers what the daily fee is – are getting done right. Well, somebody finally got around to that: and a new sign is up announcing the $1.50 per diem.
In Neil Armstrong’s honor, we’ll call that “one small step for some bureaucrat, one small leap for City government.”
To read or post comments, click on title.
9 comments so far
https://publicwatchdog.org/archives/2008/06/30/a-powerless-mayor/
What has changed?? Your comments about Frimark and government on this issue were 100% correct!!! Here we 4 years later we get another “dog and pony show” but this Mayor gets a pass.
This issue was somehow a very solvable problem and a Frimark screw up and now it is not solvable at a local level and Springfields fault……and yet not a single thing has changed??!??!!??
EDITOR’S NOTE: We never said this was a “very solvable problem” – but we did suggest that then-mayor Frimark consider a lawsuit against ComEd. What’s changed since then? Court decisions that basically nuked the Village of Deerfield’s suit and, with it, any real chance of relief other than what can be had from the Illinois Commerce Commission, a notoriously political body that rarely does more than say “yes” to the utilities it regulates.
Can Schmidt do more? Show up on September 17 and see for yourself.
New D-64 “Changes” Frivolous! Not at all! The dropping of the lunch supervision fee will cost the taxpayers $346,660.00. This is stated on page 10 of the 2012-13 Tentative Budget Draft #4 from the 8/6/2012 Reports, Committee of the Whole Finance meeting.
http://www.d64.org/subsite/dist/page/board-education-meetings-984
“The decrease in other local income is caused by a reduction paid by other local districts. In addition, the loss of revenue ($346,660) for the elementary lunch supervision fee is recorded in this area”
EDITOR’S NOTE: When we called them “frivolous,” we meant their educational value. To the extent they increase the taxpayers’ expense, they are costly frivolities.
On the D64 lunch supervision question, I have no “dog in this hunt,” as the saying goes, because I have no kids (although I am a taxpayer) but I did happen to inquire about it not that long ago as part of a larger question about user fees in general.
With the closing of the schools during lunch, I was told the District has decided to add the extra supervision cost to its current budget. I do not remember the extra dollar amount involved.
You lose people when you imply that kids are like fur coats; personal property of individuals. Their survival vs. the heedless self-interest of drivers is a matter of public safety, under the supposition that the next generation of citizens has some ipso facto value to the community at large, not just to mom and dad. And as for needs-based bussing, doesn’t that make you a Kommonist? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If 7th and 8th graders can’t safely cross Park Ridge streets, then they probably don’t have the common sense or keen judgment of a fur coat – and that’s their parents’ fault/problem, not society’s. But if that’s the case, then they shouldn’t be allowed out of their houses or yards at any time without being accompanied by a parent or guardian.
When we talk about “needs-based” anything, including busing (“bussing” is a synonym for kissing), we’re talking about truly “needy” and not merely greedy. That means parent(s) wanting taxpayer subsidies for busing for their kids would need to provide sworn financials demonstrating their poverty – that they can’t reasonably afford to pay the fare for their kid(s) to ride the bus.
No, 7th and 8th graders-or for that matter anyone of any age-cannot be assured of safety walking around Park Ridge. When drivers consider stop signs optional and far too many people distracted driving with cell phones and texting and all sorts of other activities instead of focusing on driving, persons on foot or on a bike are at risk of being hit by a car at nearly every intersection in town. For many drivers, pedestrians do not have the right of way even in the cross walk.
Take some time to go for a walk in Park Ridge in the morning when school starts or the afternoon when school gets out and maybe you will take back your smart ass comment about 7th and 8th graders who cannot walk to school safely should not be let out of the house. About 5 years back a student at Lincoln Middle School was stuck and killed while riding his bike down the sidewalk to school by a construction truck coming off a side street onto Touhy. This is a real issue and should not be treated so dismissively.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t tell whether you are being disingenuous or just plain stupid, but if this is such a concern to you try swaddling your kids in bubble wrap and driving them to school yourself. But make sure you drive them everywhere else, too, now that you’ve made it clear that you think Park Ridge is unsafe to all pedestrians (and to bicyclists, too).
Fifteen years ago lighting killed a teenage soccer referee. That’s a real issue, too, but we don’t equip every soccer player and referee with a lightning rod and grounding wire.
Let me give you the real scoop on the school lunch program…I have multiple kids currently at Washington. In addition to the plethora of fees we get dinged for each year by the school district, we were given an option regarding lunch for our kids, either 1) take them home/off campus each day, or 2) pay a fee to the district to allow them to eat in the lunchroom (i.e. gym). The reason for the fee is that the district has to hire outside supervisors to watch the kids during lunch because the teachers are not required to supervise the lunchroom (pursuant to their union contract). Thus, I got to pay well over $150 annually for the luxury of allowing each of my kids to eat their lunch, prepared by us in our home, at a table in the gym each day. Shouldn’t this responsibility be part what a teacher and/or staff member is expected to do for its high five/low six figure salary, virtually free healthcare insurance and taxpayer funded pension program? I’m just sayin…
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, those teachers are under tremendous stress from working an 8-month year with virtually no measurable performance standards, automatic pay increases, virtunally no chance of being fired and zero chance of their employer closing down and moving their place of business to another state or country. And you want to heap lunch supervision duties on them?
Unrelated to the post, anyone know why the City is looking for a finance director?
http://www.parkridge.us/government/employment.aspx
EDITOR’S NOTE: As reported in the August 10, 2012 edition of the Park Ridge Journal, the current finance director, Allison Stutts, recently passed the test for her Certified Financial Planner certificate and will be leaving at year end to open her own financial planning business.
That’s good for her and we wish her well, but it will be bad for Park Ridge because she was the best finance director – by far – and one of the most competent City employees we’ve observed over the last 20+ years. Hopefully the City can find a competent replacement.
So a soccer referee getting struck and killed by lighting is more of an issue to you than a student being hit and killed by a truck while riding his bike to school? And just how would you explain that to the dead student’s parents?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Is the soccer referee any less dead than the kid riding his bike? Did his parents expect his death any more than the parents of the bike rider expect his?
Our point is that living in this world cannot be perfectly safe. We’re betting more kids in Park Ridge die, on average, from illness and medical conditions than from being struck by vehicles while walking to school. But if you want your kid to get a ride to school, drive him/her yourself – don’t expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
Your attitude that pedestrian safety is a luxury is beyond goofy. Parents DO drive their kids everywhere because they know the neighbors can’t be trusted not to run them down. Which leads to childhood obesity, wasted gas and money, increased pollution and a bunch of other stuff you probably don’t see as a problem, either.
What you really don’t get is that “quality of life” — of which safety is Maslow’s #1 in the heirarchy — does matter — if not to humans, then at least to the value of their real estate.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What’s goofy is parents driving their kids everywhere because they claim to be terrified of something – a child being run down by a motorist while going to or from school – which is, in point of fact, an extreme rarity in Park Ridge. That’s a good thing.
But why is it that all you “quality of life” types seem to want everyone else to pay for yours? If you want your kid to get bused to school, just pay the fare and you’ll get no beef from us.
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>