Mr. Trizna:

I have been watching this debate closely (as I do most PR topics). You are absolutely correct in that those who do not want to reaise fees are focusing their argument on only one side. Alas, you are doing the same thing only on the other side. You have brought up fee increases (again with the freeloaders) for years on this blog. You did so well before you were named to the board by the Mayor, but I have failed to see you mention the cuts they mention in their press release. So what we have here is two opposite sides, neither of whom tell the complete story.

I have to say that I do find it amazing that I can find no reference from you on these fee issues (6K and 31K) anywhere except on your blog. I have read more that one article where you were quoted directly on this issue and yet without any stated opinion of these potential fee increases.

http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/librarycuts-PRA-12262013:article

Are you saying the local press did not accurately state what you said to them?

EDITOR’S NOTE: I don’t need to mention the cuts because the Library Board and Staff do nothing but mention them – on the Library’s website and in the press – while ignoring the revenue generating ideas that could reduce the cuts and keep the Library open summer Sundays.

If you read the minutes of the monthly board meetings, you will see that I regularly and consistently have raised these revenue sources.

The “local press” has never once contacted me to ask my views on these matters, so there has been no opportunity for the local press to “accurately state what [I] said to them.

Just to be clear, you seem to be accusing the board of only discussing a part of the story (I agree by the way) yet when you have had opportunities to voice your case for instituting charges it does not appear you did so.

You could have gone off on a rant for Jennifer Johnson about what you wrote above and I am sure they would have been happy to print it. You could have written a letter to the editor and they would have printed that as well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have consistently raised these revenue issues at virtually every board meeting for the past several months, including arguing at length about why those revenue figures should be publicized along with the cuts. The Board majority and Staff have refused to include that revenue information, and Ms. Johnson has never contacted me for comment – even though she has been at meetings when I have made these points.

“The customary five hours (from noon until 5:00 p.m.) you Sunday Library users have enjoyed for more than a decade have become acceptable collateral damage to Library Director Janet Van De Carr and her Staff, and to Library Board members John Benka, Audra Ebling, Margaret Harrison, Dorothy Hynous, John Schmidt and Jerry White. And you Sunday users have become cannon fodder in their political battle with City Hall, viewed by them the way King Edward Longshanks viewed the Irish in “Braveheart”: expendable.”

Wow! I’m getting from the spin on that paragraph alone. It’s so funny too cause I don’t think anyone in the library is happy about it (well perhaps aside from you who can now try to use in your efforts to portray that library as some evil cabal trying to squeeze the taxpayers dry). I know the staff isn’t. Especially those staff members for whom Sundays are part of their weekly schedules and they’ll now have to lose more money from their paychecks. In fact, most of the staff, board, and the director are pretty upset that because of the mayor and council’s refusal to pass the levy (and their successful efforts to defund the library for years now) the library has little choice but to do whatever it can to save money to put toward operating costs. Sunday is a huge day (I’m glad you finally accept that) and it will hurt not only the patrons but also local businesses who may see their business go down with fewer people around who might be in Uptown attending library functions.

But as long as the mayor and his pals in the council can look good in the eyes of the taxpayers (many of whom report that curiously their taxes continue to raise despite these valliant efforts by the champions of the taxpayers), that’s all that matters.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I’m the ONLY member of the Board or Staff who has pointed out that Sunday IS the busiest or second busiest day, in attendance per hour – which is why I have opposed closing Sundays. And I am one of only three members of the Board who want to combat cuts by raising revenues, or by going to referendum. The rest of the Board and the Staff are happy to screw Sunday users and reject a referendum, so that they can continue to whine about how the mayor and Council are managing the City’s finances.

“But what is most frustrating, dishonest and just plain wrong with the way the Library Board and Staff has gone about stiffing you Sunday users is the misinformation/disinformation campaign that is being employed to actually mislead the taxpayers on what the Library is doing, and why.

For example, The Board and Staff issued a January 23, 2014 Press Release about the Library’s finances and operations that is most notable for the information it omits.

Let’s start with the fact that it makes no mention whatsoever of the cost of keeping the Library open those 14 summer Sundays, which is believed to be only about $20,000. Nor does it mention that roughly that same $20,000 will, instead, be spent on raises for Library employees. This Board and Staff don’t want the Sunday users or the taxpayers to think that the Library will be closed 14 Sundays this summer just so Library employees can get raises.”

Talk about a misinformation campaign. Fascinating. I’d love to see the plans for library staff to get these raises. I’ve heard nothing about this. I do know that library staff, no matter how much they might have merited it, have gone for years without raises. But I’ve heard nothing about $20K to saved by Sunday closes to be forked over to the greedy lil’ library staff salivating for their hunk of taxpayer flesh. I do know that the library has so far lost two long time staff members (one of whom is a taxpayer…I guess that doesn’t matter when you’re a public worker). I’ve heard one more is destined to go too. And as stated, I know that there are library staff who will be losing a great deal of money all those weeks that the libray is closed during summer and I assure you any two percent raise will hardly make up for what they lose financially.

But in an effort to create more bogeymen in this issue (cause presenting the library director and the majority of the board as the bad guys isn’t enough) now it’s time for you, a board member yourself of all things, to try to get the community angry at the workers who have been forced to do more with less for years. That is particularly pathetic. But it’s a common tactic used lately.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have never said that the Library employees are greedy.

Unlike you, I truly am concerned about the “library staff who will be losing a great deal of money all those weeks that the libray is closed during summer,” which is why I want to raise revenues through user fees so we can “keep the Library open and pay for those employee raises.” But I can see how you might have missed that part of the post.

But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that the $20,000 that is going to Library raises COULD be used to keep the Library open summer Sundays – most of which, as you point out, would go to the employees in wages.

As for “creat[ing] more bogeymen in this issue,” the Board and Staff have already done that by demonizing the Mayor and City Council for not handing over whatever money the Board and Staff want.

“The Board and Staff also don’t want you Sunday users or the taxpayers generally to know that, if the Library charged users of the Library’s computers a nominal $1 fee per log-in, the Library’s own computer usage figures through February 2014 suggest that such a charge could generate over $63,000 of new revenue on an annual basis.

That’s right, folks: over $63,000. Three times the cost of keeping the Library open those 14 Sundays this summer. Enough to keep the Library open and pay for those employee raises.

But as infomercial king Ron Popeil would say: “Wait, there’s more!”

The Library regularly shows movies and runs a variety of programs for which it charges nothing. Yet based on the Library’s program attendance figures, just a nominal $1 admission fee for those movies and programs could generate another $31,000.”

The library has already started charging nonresidents $3 per hour of usage. How’s that been working out?

But let me get this straight, you’re suggesting that residents should be charged $1 per computer hour? As well as $1 for movies and programs? I suppose that sounds fair enough until you stop to think that the residents already pay for these movies and programs in the taxes that go to the library. You suggestion is that they should pay for something they’re already paying for? So get the money from the taxpayers, just get it in a different form. I guess that’s one way of doing it. It does tarnish the “champion of the taxpayers” halo a bit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “The library has already started charging nonresidents $3 per hour of usage. How’s that been working out?”

I have no idea, because charging non-residents was such a stupid idea from our Staff that the Library’s Director herself admitted (as recited at page 7 of the February 18, 2014 meeting minutes) that, under questioning by me, that she “actually believes the cost in staff time will be more than the revenue received.” Seriously.

If you think that charging residents user fees for computers and programs is making residents “pay for something they’re already paying for,” are you also ticked off about having to pay for photocopying at the Library. Or for water, sewer and metered parking. Or for membership at the Community Center, a bucket of balls at the driving range, or admission to the pools and the skating rink – because the taxpayers already pay for all those systems and facilities?

Just curious: what exactly would you cut from the budget to make up the deficit? You seem to know what should be done and I’d love to hear your ideas.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Re-read the post. Move your lips if you have to. And when you come to the word “revenue” and word “referendum,” say them out loud.

Talk about misleading…According to you, this appears to be the ONLY thing the library is cutting to save money. Per the PR Herald Advocate, in addition to the Summer Sundays, the board also “Slashed $433,000 from the $4 million 2014-15 budget this month, (a budget that was dictated, excuse me, given to them by the City Council) postponing $100,000 in window replacements, cutting $80,000 in personnel costs (through attrition or layoffs), reducing the library resources budget by $58,600, reducing the amount of raises for employees, eliminating new flooring for the lobby and stairs, and not replacing a full-time children’s department librarian who recently retired, among other reductions.” Not to mention that the library’s portion of the levy has been consistently reduced over the last five years to the point where it is now receiving over $500,000. less than it was five years ago, and that the library only receives 3.5 cents per dollar paid on property taxes. The paper also reported that the library has started charging non-residents for computer use and programs. Let’s not forget that this is a non-profit organization. By definition, a library has fundamental characteristics. They are supported by taxes ; they are governed by a board ; they are open to all and every community member can access the collection; they are entirely voluntary in that no one is ever forced to use the services provided; and public libraries provide services without charge. Without charge. Hmmm, it seems that charging patrons for programs, items to checkout, and anything else you can think of, is not the practice of any public library, when patrons have already paid their taxes for it. In addition, according to Movie Licensing USA, a company that issues Public Performance Licenses to libraries, there are limitations. The Public Performance Site License does not permit the movies to be used where admission is charged, other than to cover the cost of your Annual Public Performance Site License, and any monies collected may not exceed the cost of the license. By the way, I looked it up… for a community the size of Park Ridge, (the population, not cardholders) the license costs approximately $180 per year. Hardly propaganda…
As for encouraging patrons to ballot stuff the survey. Really? Do you have actual proof of this? Or how about this? Should the library staff take the name, address, phone number, and blood type of each and every person that takes the survey to be absolutely positive that they haven’t already filled one out? Gee, I can’t imagine why the the Board and staff of the library would have a problem with going to referendum. Let’s have someone twist the realities, not to mention the wording of it, just so the City Council can turn around and say see?, no one want to pay for any extra funding. Why not try this? Actually tell taxpayers what it would cost each household per year via their property taxes (i.e., an extra $20, $50, whatever the dollar amount is) instead of some obscure percentage. I for one, would gladly pay a bit extra per year to help fund the library, and ONLY the library. Not to help pay for a bonus for some city official that is already making well over six figures per year. Oh, and by the way? I do not believe for one second that anyone from the library thinks that closing on Sundays this summer is “acceptable collateral damage”. And I’m sure pitting the public against the library by exploiting only one point and by not showing the whole picture is one way to get a rise out of people, huh? It seems to me, that the library is doing everything possible to salvage what is left of a fine community library.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, but there are so many errors in your comment that it doesn’t deserve the effort it would take to list them all and refute, correct or clarify them – except for pointing out that the Library is NOT a “non-profit organization”: it’s a governmental unit.

PD:

I wrote the first two posts and I guess am just having a hard time buying your responses. I am sure you don’t care but here goes.

You come on your blog and bitch about the board essentially engaging in a PR campaign and crafting and releasing incomplete information. I point out you do the same thing and you essentially say “I do not have to talk about it because they do”. Sorry but that sounds like an 8 year old. You do not have to be an honest broker on an issue because the other side isn’t?? Please.

But here is what really has me in a quandary. You are a man so incensed about the spending and our tax dollars you write several blog posts a week about it. You applaud Mayor Dave for being a contrarian and being know as Mayor Veto and for speech making and writing about these issues (by the way, Love the latest Mayor message in the Spokesman….nothing like political speech in a document paid for by the taxpayer).

You are a library board member. The same board you claim is involved in a cover up. Yet your answer is “read the board minutes”??? Come on!!! You know that a very small amount of PR residents read library board minutes. Your answer is “well, she never asked” What?!?! You write a pieces like you did above and yet you never call her or write a letter to the editor??

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you had taken the time to look at the embeds in the post (“January 23, 2014 Press Release” and “survey”), you would have seen that I did include the Library’s propaganda.

Yes, my answer most definitely is “read the board minutes”…and the City Council minutes, and the minutes of the Park Board and School Board meetings, too – unless you enjoy remaining ignorant, which is what you will remain if you rely solely on what you read in the local newspapers written by overworked and probably underpaid reporters who may not have the time or the inclination to do the research necessary for top-shelf reporting.

Ya know who should weigh in on this??….Mel Thillens. After all, he is running on spending and taxes. What do ya say Mel….how do we fix this one. That $70 per person would sure come in handy now, huh??

Here is a guy who essentially spear headed a tax increase to buy additional park land (to use your words PD, a luxury), along with crafting a pool project just under the referendum limit, when the city side of the house has been slashing everything. The money all comes from the same pocket people….OURS!!!!

I guess the good news is all those Sunday library users can now go hang out in Mel’s park.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thillens’ support of the Youth Campus Park referendum is far less objectionable than his support of the Centennial water park because the voters got a say in the former but were deprived of a similar say – by Thillens and his fellow Commissioners, in a pathetic display of arrogance and cowardice – on the latter.

But it’s not up to Thillens and his fellow Park Commmissioners to worry about the City’s business, just like it’s not up to Schmidt and the City Council to worry about the Park District’s business. Their duties are solely to their own individual governmental bodies, and that’s where they belong.

first of all, allow me to interject the following “library – board member”. And I quote from a reliable source “There are a lot of for-profit libraries. Most for-profit libraries are corporate libraries, while non-profit libraries tend to be public libraries” I believe that is the position that the other individual was taking. So I am slightly concerned that you are classified as “library board member” and can not appreciate this simple distinction that the individual used. Also, as for the individuals “errors” I believe that I have reviewed the Harold Advocate in the past and seem to remember the same writings. SO THAT MAY MEAN THAT THE PERSON DESERVES A RESPONSE – INSTEAD OF BEING “BLOWN OFF” BY A LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER SINCE THAT IS THE TOPIC OF CONCERN… YOUR RESPONSE CONCERNS ME, SINCE I HAVE MANAGED PEOPLE AND HAVE BEEN IN A BOARD ROOM AS WELL (SO NOW THERE ARE TWO OF US – WITH SAME CREDENTIALS) – IF IT WAS ME, I WOULD NOT HIDE BEHIND THE RESPONSE YOU GAVE (EASY WAY OUT) … ANSWER THE PERSON OR YOU HAVE NO CREDABILITY, IN ANY MANNER SHAPE OR FORM ! YOUR ACTING ONE WAY, BUT YOUR RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH…

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, Slick, but you ARE the commentator on 04.04.14 @ 10:53 pm. How long have you had this multiple personality disorder?

For the record, I am not “classified” as a Library Board member: I am a Library Board member. I have a City Council appointment to prove it, and took an oath of office to enforce it.

How can an unidentified source be “reliable”?

Finally, as for your assertion that my “RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH,” they’ve been called worse by better, so I won’t hold that against you…whoever you are.

Mr. Trizna, it looks like you whacked the hornets’ nest with this post. I wonder how many of your anonymous critics are your fellow library board members or library staffers?

As a taxpayer who rarely uses the library, I have no problem paying for the facility itself and the people who work there. But I strongly agree with you on Food for Fines and on charging a nominal fee for amenities such as computer usage and programs, especially when the library is crying poormouth and blaming the people (mayor and alderman) whom I voted for precisely because they do such a better job of running the city than their profligate predecessors.

I remember you from your park board days and I was grateful for your service there. I am grateful for yours service on the library board, and I am happy to see that you have not lost your principles or your desire to stand up for the taxpayers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you, but I’m the one who is grateful for the opportunity to be able to serve this community, first as an elected Park Board Commissioner for 8 years, now as an appointed Library Board member for the past 3 years. And I don’t expect to change my principles or my desires anytime soon.

“That’s because, despite their insistence that the Library is so beloved and treasured that the taxpayers want nothing less than for the Council to give the Library whatever additional funding it asks for, none of those Board or Staff members want to give those taxpayers an actual vote on that funding via a referendum question – especially on the November general election ballot when turnout is expected to be much heavier than for our local elections in April 2015.”

Bob, Since I’m one of the names you named, I’d like to point out that, as you very well know, no board member has said they are opposed a referendum, at least at any of the meetings I have attended.

While a referendum apparently is the only acceptable course of action for you, most other board members have simply said they’d like more information about the pros and cons of what this move would entail before making any decisions. It’s easy for the City Council to suggest and endorse this option since there’s no downside for them.

And on the topic of raises for Staff, I’d like to clarify that the money currently allocated is half of what was originally budgeted. On a related note, I recently read in the H-A that the Mayor just OK’d $17k or so in staff raises at city hall as well.

Your contempt for the library is clear. And your repeated assertions that any board member who disagrees with your positions is either dishonest or waging a political battle is really getting tiresome. There’s no graft or corruption or dishonesty here. The library is just looking for ways to make do with less and less and to continue to uphold the its level of exceptional service in the most reasonable ways possible.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Audra:

I can understand how you would find my comments “tiresome,” seeing as you: (a) support closing the Library summer Sundays; (b) support spending $20,000 on employee raises rather than keeping the Library open summer Sundays; (c) support giving away an estimated $4-6,000 on the Food for Fines program which could keep the Library open 3-4 of those summer Sundays; (d) oppose charging for all computer usage and program attendance when that revenue could keep the Library open summer Sundays AND pay for the employee raises; and (e) argued against including information about those raises and about the potential additional revenue sources in the press release and the survey re program fees.

So maybe I should be the one asking: Why do you have such “contempt” for the Sunday users of the Library? Or for the employees who will lose hours and income because of those closures? Or for the taxpayers whom you want to foot the bill without giving them a vote in the process?

You say “there’s no downside” to a referendum for the City Council, but what “downside” to a referendum is there for the Library Board – especially if the taxpayers are as much in love with the Library as you, the rest of the Board majority, and Staff insist they are? Why aren’t you actively seeking a referendum rather than delaying the process with your too-cute-by-half claims that you need “more information about the pros and cons” of a referendum that would simply ask the voters for exactly the same thing you want from the City Council: a higher tax levy for the Library.

I’ve never suggested that there is any “graft or corruption” at the Library. But I have no problem saying that there’s every bit as much dishonesty at the Library today as there was 12 years ago, when its Board and Staff wanted a new $18 million building without giving the taxpayers a vote on the issue; and then, when a group of citizens (of which I was a part) collected enough signatures to put that new building on the November 2002 ballot, that same Board and Staff tried to control and manipulate information in order to influence the outcome of that election.

Finally, the only “contempt” I have for the Library is for the disrespect certain Library people have demonstrated for the Sunday users, the taxpayers and their duly-elected City officials; and for their dishonesty in dealing with those users, taxpayers and officials.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Re-read the post. Move your lips if you have to. And when you come to the word “revenue” and word “referendum,” say them out loud.” I read and understood your post but I’m trying to have a civil conversation with you, so I’ll refrain from responding in kind to your insults. You’ve expressed that you believe the library can and should be run differently than it is. Aside from generating revenue from user fees, an idea I’m not entirely opposed to, I’d like to hear your other ideas.

Let me put it more plainly: If the referendum fails, if the revenue generating steps put in place don’t cover the existing loss of funds, what services and programs would you cut?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Very sporting of you. I take back what I implied about your ignorance of what “revenue” and “referendum” mean.

Now let me put it more plainly: I will not even consider any further cuts unless and until there is a referendum to gauge the will of the taxpayers, and the Library implements real revenue-generating methods so that more cuts might not be necessary.

But failing that, I would leave the initial recommendations for the next wave of cuts to the Library’s executive staff, our well-paid experts in Library management and administration.

Why Sundays? Why not Wednesday mornings, or any other weekday morning? Just a thought.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the Library’s favored constituents tend to use the Library on weekday mornings.

I’m a regular Sunday user of the Library and I cannot understand why anybody would close the Library for a full day instead of cutting an hour off five other days when the Library is open 12 hours. I am a Park Ridge taxpayer and I use the Library computers from time to time. I see nothing wrong with charging for that use, and I do not see how I am paying twice for that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Join the club.

In Response to your positing

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, Slick, but you ARE the commentator on 04.04.14 @ 10:53 pm. How long have you had this multiple personality disorder?

For the record, I am not “classified” as a Library Board member: I am a Library Board member. I have a City Council appointment to prove it, and took an oath of office to enforce it.

How can an unidentified source be “reliable”?

Finally, as for your assertion that my “RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH,” they’ve been called worse by better, so I won’t hold that against you…whoever you are.

YOUR ACTING ONE WAY, BUT YOUR RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH…

I find your response somewhat confusing, nice try slick ? I am sorry to inform you that I am not the individual who made the earlier post… I am a person, who noted that you did not respond properly/adequately to that individual (literally – disregarding their position) For being a Library Board Member (appointed or elected) this was unprofessional and childish. Please respond to the person properly. As for myself, noticing a standard norm – my Reliable Source: Dictionary . com As for myself I used my initials MAP so i was not anonymous. I am a Park Ridge Resident who pays 10,000+ in taxes annually and a proponent of what a public library truly stands for… SIMPLY ANSWER THE PERSON…..SLICK (SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT TO THAT LEVEL – With a childish response to them ! simply answer the person !

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nope, it’s you. Or your evil twin. Or some other personality of your disorder.

“MAP” may be your initials, but we have no reason to believe that any more than that you’re a “Park Ridge Resident who pays 10,000+ in taxes annually,” etc. That’s the price you pay for being anonymous.

In Response to your positing

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, Slick, but you ARE the commentator on 04.04.14 @ 10:53 pm. How long have you had this multiple personality disorder?

For the record, I am not “classified” as a Library Board member: I am a Library Board member. I have a City Council appointment to prove it, and took an oath of office to enforce it.

How can an unidentified source be “reliable”?

Finally, as for your assertion that my “RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH,” they’ve been called worse by better, so I won’t hold that against you…whoever you are.

YOUR ACTING ONE WAY, BUT YOUR RESPONSES ARE SOMEWHAT CHILDISH…

I find your response somewhat confusing, nice try slick ? I am sorry to inform you that I am not the individual who made the earlier post… I am a person, who noted that you did not respond properly/adequately to that individual (literally – disregarding their position) For being a Library Board Member (appointed or elected) this was unprofessional and childish. Please respond to the person properly. As for myself, noticing a standard norm – my Reliable Source: Dictionary . com As for myself I used my initials MAP so i was not anonymous. I am a Park Ridge Resident who pays 10,000+ in taxes annually and a proponent of what a public library truly stands for… SIMPLY ANSWER THE PERSON…..SLICK (SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT TO THAT LEVEL – With a childish response to them ! simply answer the person !

Also if you’re checking IP addresses on your website. (Assuming you are computer literate) multiple people can share the same IP address.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You too.

1:37 here –

I agree with 1:47, open an hour later Monday thru Friday. If the “favored constituents” have to wait an hour to read the Trib and the WSJ, so be it if it allows the ‘brary to be open on Sundays.

Misusing city assets is exactly what this Mayor, Council and Library Board are doing. It is a “public” library, so gutting it of enough money to run, under the while playing finger pointing politics is disingenuous and gross.

Fund the fricken library. We don’t live in Gary, Indiana. Unfortunately, the people who now run this city have no solutions.
* No solutions for TIF
* No solutions for letting our own library services remain as is.
* No solutions for flooding
On and on…

It is OUR assets, so this is squarely on the Mayor and HIS appointed board.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh, there are plenty of solutions: $20-27 million to cover the TIF debt, approx. $500K/year for the Library, $100 million for flooding.

Show up at City Hall this Monday night and tell them to raise taxes to cover all that…on and on.

4:37, those are stupid comments for the reasons the editor points out. Previous mayors and councils hung the TIF albatross on us and neglected the sewer system so that now these chickens are coming home to roost. Anybody can make anonymous complaints but are you willing to pay the extra thousands of dollars of taxes it will take to make all this stuff right? If you are, then take the editor’s advice and ask the city council to tax us up the wazzoo so that all the residents can thank you for that great idea.

It seems to me the board did exactly what you and the Mayor and the Aldermen wanted. They executed a plan to live within the financial means they had been given. They made cuts and, while some are not happy about it, they are doing it. That is what you wanted….right??

So now you bitch about the way that they did it. Please!!!! I have to believe even your most ardent supporters know that you could give a fig about the “Sunday Users”.

This reminds me of when Sequestration cuts went into effect and those that wanted the cuts bitched about parks being closed.

As an aside, of course you and I would not be bothered by a fee for computers at the library. We NEVER use them!!! We use our own desk tops or lap tops or IPads or all if the above on our own networks at home or at Starbucks. Some days I see you typing away as I am doing the same.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, actually I’m one of only three people on the Library Board who do care about Sunday closings, and are looking for ways to prevent it that don’t require a handout from the City. And even though I use my own computer every time I go to the Library, I would have no objection to paying $1 for the privilege of logging onto the Library’s Internet connection. But that’s a concept I doubt you would understand.

“Just to be clear, you seem to be accusing the board of only discussing a part of the story (I agree by the way) yet when you have had opportunities to voice your case for instituting charges it does not appear you did so.

You could have gone off on a rant for Jennifer Johnson about what you wrote above and I am sure they would have been happy to print it. You could have written a letter to the editor and they would have printed that as well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have consistently raised these revenue issues at virtually every board meeting for the past several months, including arguing at length about why those revenue figures should be publicized along with the cuts. The Board majority and Staff have refused to include that revenue information, and Ms. Johnson has never contacted me for comment – even though she has been at meetings when I have made these points.”

Mr. Trizna: And you haven’t written a letter to the editor…why? Why should Ms. Johnson contact you? She reports what goes on at the meetings. Is it her responsibility to contact everyone who has some point to make about every issue? If she feels something bears more investigations she does it. Otherwise, if you feel something should be covered further, well you know how to contact Pioneer Press.

Ah…but then you couldn’t accuse the press of printing only one side of the story as easily. I get it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m willing to attribute Ms. Johnson’s shortcomings to her being overworked and underpaid. And I’ve never expected her to contact me – I simply pointed out that she has never chosen to contact me about my views on these matters in response to a comment that some of my views and data weren’t represented in her articles about the Library.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I’m the ONLY member of the Board or Staff who has pointed out that Sunday IS the busiest or second busiest day, in attendance per hour – which is why I have opposed closing Sundays. And I am one of only three members of the Board who want to combat cuts by raising revenues, or by going to referendum. The rest of the Board and the Staff are happy to screw Sunday users and reject a referendum, so that they can continue to whine about how the mayor and Council are managing the City’s finances.”

First of all I find it hard to believe that you are the ONLY member of the board who has pointed out how busy the library is on Sundays. Consulting minutes can answer that claim. Be that as it may, you are completely wrong when you claim that the rest of the board and the staff are only too happy to screw Sunday users to close on Sundays. The fact that there was such a back and forth on it indicates that the board wasn’t jumping at the chance. And as a staffmember, I’ll be losing $600 this summer due to the Sunday closing. How happy do you think that makes me, Mr. T? And this supposed raise that you indicate is the reason for the closing (you know, so that you can paint the staff as so wild and greedy thus demonizing the public employees in the eyes of the taxpayers) if it goes through (and after several years of no raises I have no reason to suspect that it would), it’ll make up about $40 of that $600. How happy do you think that makes me or any of the other staff members who will be financially affected by this? Do you think this is a joke to me? Do you think this is something I or any of my fellow staffmembers take lightly? But you see, if you paint me and my fellow staff member as the bad guys here, the guys willing to close Sundays at the expense of the patrons, then you can prop yourself up as the champion of the common person. Oh…there’s misinformation being put out there, only you are at the helm of it.

Taking the money I’ll be losing out of the equation, as a resident of this community (and a library user from the time I moved here in 1999), I’m disgusted that it has come to this. I’m disgusted that you and your pals have tried to denigrate the library as you have. But then m parents, neither of whom finished high school, taught me the value of a library to a community. My dad was on the board of the Eisenhower Library and my mom made sure we went all the time. There are communities in this nation that truly can’t afford a library and would love to have one. Here, in a community that can, we have people like you who would love to take us backward. I’m glad actually that you’re finally admitting that this library is so busy. Could it be that…it is a value to the taxpayers after all? And I’m not deaf to the worries of taxpayers, I’m struggling myself. But as long as I’m getting value for my money, that’s all I ask. Any parent who take their child to that library and checks out 20 books a week (and many do) gets their taxes paid back to them in full. Any person who uses the library for research purposes (and there are many–I wrote two books with the help of that library) gets their taxes paid back to them with change. Anyone who just goes every week to get hold of a couple of copies of the latest Grisham novel gets back the portion of their taxes that go to the library, even with a tax levy increase, in full. And the community has a draw to Uptown that brings not only residents but also people from other towns who prefer this library to their own libraries (and there are many) who then go and spend money at restaurants and local shops. What’s in store for the taxpayer if the revenue from businesses goes down? The library should not have to beg for money (especially when it’s been hit for years now), nor should the taxpayer have to pay for what he or she is already paying for (as your revenue building suggestions of charging for programs and computer usage would do).

I think what’s vital that people realize, and something you’re trying hard to conceal, is that those staffmembers you speak so disrespectfully of are members of this community, whether simply through the job or through the home. That’s right. Many on staff are also taxpayers in this community. Those evil members of staff take great pride in this library and the community. That’s why so often those greedy staffmembers are willing to go above and beyond (without compensation) to help make the taxpayer experience at the library so pleasant. They baked cookies, without compensation, for the Holiday Open Houses. They help patrons who are having a hard time physically out to their cars. They know their patrons likes and dislikes and often plan accordingly for them. The library has a fantastic Homebound program. Hell, the staff in Children’s alone should get a medal for the work they do to help the taxpayers. And they’ve done so without proper raises for years (how many taxpayers would be happy about that at their jobs?) They’ve done so as library funding as been cut and they’ve been asked to do more with less. And they’ve done so with certain board members trying their best to portray them in the worst possible light.

The library has lost a number of good staff people within the past few months. Some because they just couldn’t afford to work there with the hours being cut. And recently, two were laid off (I hope the mayor remembers that when he pats himself on the back about there being no city layoffs) due to the budget cuts. Two who had worked there for decades.

So please, don’t give me this nonsensical spin you’re trying for to make the staff appear as heartless, manipulative or greedy. Considering how it seems the only time you’re in the library is for board meetings, you have no right to make any comments on the staff. At least the other board members make an appearance outside the board meetings, every so often. The taxpayers can have whatever opinions (right or wrong) regarding the funding of the library, but hitting at the staff is kind of pathetic.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, another anonymous “staffmember” whose identity and credibility is hidden in anonymity.

As I pointed to one of your fellow fictitious Library employees (or was that you?), it is the Library senior Staff and the Board majority who are so boneheaded and politically motivated that they prefer to give employees a $40 raise in return for taking away $600 by closing on summer Sundays. If you really were somebody losing a net $560, I’d feel sorry for your stupidity in defending that boneheadedness.

And I’m in the Library 2-3 times a week, which is probably more than many of my fellow Board members, thank you very little.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: I have never said that the Library employees are greedy.

Unlike you, I truly am concerned about the “library staff who will be losing a great deal of money all those weeks that the libray is closed during summer,” ”

Mr. T., I am one of the library staff who will be affected severely affected by the summer closings. So…do you still want to go with the statement, “Unlike you…”? I mean, I know it’s perfect schoolyard bully tactic to try to turn me into the bad guy for questioning you, but really? I’m going to lost $600 dollars and I’m NOT concerned? Really?

And you know what, even though I’ll be losing a heck of a lot of money (and will actually have to figure out how I’m going to make my rent through the summer) I still don’t like your philosophy. You want the library to be a revenue generator, well hell, let’s turn all of Park Ridge into a revenue generator. How about $1 to get into City Hall. What have they done for us lately. I mean yeah, they take the bill payments, but what are they doing to bring money in. Bake sales, maybe? How about the police and fire department. Personally I feel that the officers and firefighters being willing to put their live son the line for us, even if that never occurs should be payment enough. But how much revenue has the fire department generated? And can’t they do better, really? What about public works? Unlike public works, people visit the library every day, seven days a week. Taxpayers actually physically use the thing they’re paying for. No one is happier than I am when public works plows the snow, but I don’t think there are a lot of people going to the building and hanging for hours at a time. And let’s be honest, most people are hoping they never have to hang at the police station cause that usually means a bad thing.

And since there aren’t a lot of people hanging out at public works for hours at a time, there aren’t a lot of people going to visit the various stores around public works, the way those who go to the library do with the establishments in Uptown.

So this “taxpayer funded” issue is a little more complicated then you would have it. As I keep stating, the taxpayers get value for what they pay and the establishments surrounding the library get a benefit as well. A benefit that is seen in revenue from the taxes paid by local businesses. Revenue that helps keep the taxes householders pay low.

But I guess its easier for your purposes to just make it all about the library not paying their way (even though they are).

Oh, and while you may not have said that the library staff are “greedy”, you and I know full well how easy it is to imply such a thing by stating that “First and foremost, because the Library Board and Staff want to cause pain to the group of Library users they consider least valuable and least dependent on the programs and services” Those are your words Mr. Trizna and you chose them quite carefully. So while you may not have stated that the library staff is “greedy” you might as well have for the other rude implications you made.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you truly were “one of the library staff who will be affected severely affected by the summer closings” rather than some anonymous poseur, I actually might feel sorry for your inability to figure out who’s on your side and who, instead, wants to screw you out of $600 so that they can blame the mayor and City Council for not subsidizing their mismanagement of the Library.

Had I had my way, the Library would be charging a nominal $1 for computer users and program users to keep the Library open on Sundays and pay for your raises. But the Board majority and the senior Library Staff doesn’t care about either the Sunday Library users or those Library employees who are losing pay because of the Sunday closings.

“I’m a regular Sunday user of the Library and I cannot understand why anybody would close the Library for a full day instead of cutting an hour off five other days when the Library is open 12 hours. I am a Park Ridge taxpayer and I use the Library computers from time to time. I see nothing wrong with charging for that use, and I do not see how I am paying twice for that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Join the club”

You’re paying twice for that because taxes you pay already fund the computer usage. It’s part of the deal you get with the library. Asking you to pay a dollar more, while sure to some it’s a small amount, is none the less asking you to pay for something your taxes have already covered.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then, as we’ve previously pointed out, you should show up at Monday’s Council meeting and beef about how you are “pay[ing] for something your taxes have already covered” when you pay for sewer service and ambulance service. Or show up at the next Park Board meeting and beef about paying for Community Center usage, driving range usage, ice skating, etc.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Audra:

I can understand how you would find my comments “tiresome,” seeing as you: (a) support closing the Library summer Sundays; (b) support spending $20,000 on employee raises rather than keeping the Library open summer Sundays; (c) support giving away an estimated $4-6,000 on the Food for Fines program which could keep the Library open 3-4 of those summer Sundays; (d) oppose charging for all computer usage and program attendance when that revenue could keep the Library open summer Sundays AND pay for the employee raises; and (e) argued against including information about those raises and about the potential additional revenue sources in the press release and the survey re program fees.

So maybe I should be the one asking: Why do you have such “contempt” for the Sunday users of the Library? Or for the employees who will lose hours and income because of those closures? Or for the taxpayers whom you want to foot the bill without giving them a vote in the process?”

Well this is fascinating. Just because this board member may have voted for the Sunday closings doesn’t mean she did so because she was for it. It might have been the only option as the levy was dismissed.

And you ask her why does she have such contempt for the Sunday users. Is that like you accusing me of not caring about those staff members who will affected by the Sunday when I am one of those staff members? I mean, of course you may not have realized that when you laid the accusation on me, but then maybe you shouldn’t have laid the accusation on me.

But then that’s your MO isn’t it. Shoot the hyperbole out there and hope that it sticks. Believe me, Mr. Trizna, based on your past performance, among all the board members I’m going to believe that you are the one with the least concern for Sunday users or the staff (and I base this on how disrespectfully you’ve spoken about the staff in this very post).

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, she voted for it because she wanted to play political games –the options were: (a) charge for computer use; (b) charge for programs; (c) cut the employee raises; (d) cut one hour from each of the five weekday mornings; or (e) support a referendum to raise the Library ‘s tax levy. But Ms. Ebling would rather say “no” to all those and beef about the mayor and the City Council.

Once again, I want to keep the Library open on Sundays and give the employee raises with the surplus that could be generated from user fees. Too bad you (assuming you really are a Library employee and not an anonymous fraud) can’t figure that out.

“Why Sundays? Why not Wednesday mornings, or any other weekday morning? Just a thought.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the Library’s favored constituents tend to use the Library on weekday mornings.”

Not quite, but it bolsters the assertion being made here if the library has favored constituents.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Of course the Library has favored constituents, starting with the parents of young children who can be entertained for free by the Library staff through it’s children’s programs; and those business people who use the Library as their offices because they can get free WI-FI Internet and computer usage.

How dare you put the staff in any of this? It is the board and the board only that decided to close on Sundays. And the library WAS closed on Sundays over the summer in the past, so why is it a big deal to you know. Of all the people who should not be talking about anything being played as political, you are BFF’s with the Mayor and your decisions and postings prove that to a questionable degree. You are on the board because HE, another fellow library hater, chose you. How dare your be on this board and rip apart everything about it and its staff! Shame one you! And to you and anyone else who feels Food for Fines is not appropriate, there is SO little lost in funds during that month, but so much gained it the large quantities it brings to the food pantry and those in need…but I’m sure you are one of those people who don’t give a rats butt to those in need, as you sure have shown. And the BOARD chose the 3.00 non resident fee, you are one of them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, it’s the Library Board majority and the Library’s executive Staff who decided to close on Sundays. I’ve voted against it on every occasion.

The money lost from Food for Fines would keep the Library open for 3-4 Sundays this summer, but apparently that doesn’t matter to you. No surprise there. You’re probably one of those people whose opinion of Park Ridge citizens is so low that you actually believe they have to be bribed with Food for Fines in order to do an act of charity. Sad, but no surprise there, either.

I AM one of the staff and I speak for all of us when I say YOU board members made the decision to close on Sundays. I hate the idea of us being closed on Sundays since we are busy, as we are EVERY SINGLE DAY. I could care less about the 1 percent raise you claim is why WE decided to close on Sundays. It’s crazy that the library as busy as it is and as important as it is to the majority of the people of this town does not get the funding it deserves. I, unlike the Mayor and the few who could care less about our library, have lived in this town all my life. I spent so much of my life visiting my library and now I work here. I am so proud of the importance of my library as a HUGE part of this community and even more proud to be a part of an absolutely wonderful staff. I see the lines of people checking out EVERY SINGLE DAY and beam with pride at what my library has to offer this community and hear the joy people express at coming to our library, whether it be all the smiling children going to story time and then checking out books, to a woman who told me, not long after your good friend the Mayor made his comments about how ridiculous it was for us to have free movies to check out, how much we were a godsend since her husband, like my father with Alzheimer’s, was no longer able to go to the movies outside of the house. It’s also very sad that we have someone on the board who SHOULD represent the library and its people just rip them apart in your post. But because of your affiliation with the Mayor, i really expect nothing less.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you want the Library to receive “the funding it deserves,” then you should support a November referendum to let the taxpayers say that THEY want the Library to get that funding.

And in case you and others still haven’t figured this out yet, my duty as a Library Board member is to the taxpayers, NOT to “the library and its people” – who already have more than enough advocates in the Library director, senior Staff, and the Library Board majority.

By the way, how about being consistent with your complaints about anonymous complaints:

“I’m a regular Sunday user of the Library and I cannot understand why anybody would close the Library for a full day instead of cutting an hour off five other days when the Library is open 12 hours. I am a Park Ridge taxpayer and I use the Library computers from time to time. I see nothing wrong with charging for that use, and I do not see how I am paying twice for that.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Join the club.

So since you said “join the club” on this “positive” anonymous comment, I guess it’s safe to assume it’s either you or one of your associates who wrote it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You can assume whatever you want, however safe or reckless it might be.

http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/government/raises-PRA-04102014:article

“EDITOR’S NOTE: I have never said that the Library employees are greedy.

Unlike you, I truly am concerned about the “library staff who will be losing a great deal of money all those weeks that the libray is closed during summer,”

I actually wrote a comment earlier but I don’t see it on this thread so I’ll try again since I feel it’s important to point out the “Unlike you, I truly am concerned about the library staff” part of your response.

Mr. Trizna, I AM a member of the library staff who will be losing a great deal of money during the summer the library is closed. Five hours are being taken from my weekly schedule. How happy do you think that makes me?

“But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that the $20,000 that is going to Library raises COULD be used to keep the Library open summer Sundays – most of which, as you point out, would go to the employees in wages.”

I never claimed that. That’s a claim you’re making. That the $20K is going to staff raises (which I don’t believe for a minute will occur).

And no, perhaps you haven’t used the term “greedy” when referring to library staff. But as you and I know, words can be very powerful. I’m guessing that’s why you instead on this very blog stated:

“The customary five hours (from noon until 5:00 p.m.) you Sunday Library users have enjoyed for more than a decade have become acceptable collateral damage to Library Director Janet Van De Carr and her Staff, and to Library Board members John Benka, Audra Ebling, Margaret Harrison, Dorothy Hynous, John Schmidt and Jerry White. And you Sunday users have become cannon fodder in their political battle with City Hall,”

And:

“First and foremost, because the Library Board and Staff want to cause pain to the group of Library users they consider least valuable and least dependent on the programs and services Staff is most concerned about preserving and expanding”

And:

“But what is most frustrating, dishonest and just plain wrong with the way the Library Board and Staff has gone about stiffing you Sunday users is the misinformation/disinformation campaign that is being employed to actually mislead the taxpayers on what the Library is doing, and why.”

And:

“This Board and Staff don’t want the Sunday users or the taxpayers to think that the Library will be closed 14 Sundays this summer just so Library employees can get raises.”

And…well I could go on, but people can read the love you have for the staff in the blog post. You use the term staff liberally and it’s not in a positive, “ooh I really care about you guys” kind of way. You’re painting a picture with hyperbole, Mr. Trizna, and it’s not a flattering one.

So forgive me if I’m not feeling the love or picking up on your “true concern” for the staff you’ve been vilifying (as if the staff have any say on where that money is going to be used). All I see is a man who is trying very hard to demonize the people…well the people he barely sees unless he inclines his head toward the circ desk on his way to the board meeting.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Losing five hours a week must positively delight you, because you are defending the people who have taken those hours from you and attacking the person on the Board who has most aggressively opposed closing summer Sundays.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your victimization.

Well, it looks like your Mayor has no problem giving some of the highest paid city employees a raise according to the most recent Advocate article

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s his problem, not mine.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Losing five hours a week must positively delight you, because you are defending the people who have taken those hours from you and attacking the person on the Board who has most aggressively opposed closing summer Sundays.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your victimization.”

Really? You accuse me of not caring about the staff being affected about this and when I tell you that I am one of the staffmembers affected by the Sunday closing, this is the best response you have for me. Not even an apology for assuming that I don’t care about the staff being affected this. Oh wait, I forgot, it’s better for you if you continue to paint me as someone who doesn’t care. Let me ask you, why would losing five hours a week when I’m on the knife edge financially “delight” me? Answer that if you can I’d be fascinated by your response. Your flippancy is disgusting. A staffmember told you that she’s going to be hurting cause of the situation and this is what you offer her. Well of course, to be fair this staffmember called you on your claim that you are concerned about the staff by showing you your own words in which you indicate you are anything but concerned about how you portray the staff. So I guess I can see why you would use this tactic now.

But by all means don’t let the facts (or the statements in digital black and white) get in the way.

Thanks for the concern pal.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Any Library employee who will be “hurting” because of summer Sunday closures has only the Library Board majority and the senior Staff to blame – because it’s their mismanagement and political gamesmanship that is responsible for your reduced hours.

But keep drinking their Kool-Aid – it’s only $600 per gulp.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Join the club.

So since you said ‘join the club’ on this ‘positive’ anonymous comment, I guess it’s safe to assume it’s either you or one of your associates who wrote it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You can assume whatever you want, however safe or reckless it might be.”

Ooh, is that a threat, Mr. T? Lisa has identified herself as a staffmember. Are you threatening one of those staffmembers that you care so very much about?

EDITOR’S NOTE: “A threat”? Seriously? Sounds like you’ve been watching too much third-rate television, LLE.

“Well, it looks like your Mayor has no problem giving some of the highest paid city employees a raise according to the most recent Advocate article

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s his problem, not mine.”

I guess I’m confused because if his decision costs the taxpayers money, as Champion of the Taxpayers, doesn’t that make it your problem? Don’t you have any ideas for City Hall to bring in some revenue to pay for those raises? Maybe they could hold bake sales.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This may be a tough concept for you to grasp, LLE, but EVERYTHING government does “costs the taxpayers money.” The only questions are: (a) do the taxpayers, as a whole, get full value for that money; and (b) irrespective of value, is the expenditure affordable? Because no matter how valuable something is, if you can’t afford it you shouldn’t be buying it.

“This Board and Staff don’t want the Sunday users or the taxpayers to think that the Library will be closed 14 Sundays this summer just so Library employees can get raises.”

Of course we don’t want people to think that cause it isn’t true. And no amount of stating it will make it true.

Bottom line, sir, is that you’ve been bashing library staff with this entire post when you, as a board member, know perfectly well that staff has little to say in what policies the library takes up, what hours it keeps, what programs being offered it keeps, or how the funding is used. So stop this nonsense of linking staff to a decision that they had no say in and perhaps then we can believe the BS you spout about being so concerned about the staff.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Time to put up or shut up, LLE: What language in the post or in my notes to any of these comments is “bashing library staff”?

As for the truth of my statement about the raises, it’s just math – and simple math at that. With $20K to spend either on raises or on summer Sundays, the Board majority and senior Staff chose to spend it on raises.

But let me make it easier for you by putting it in the form of a first grade word problem: “Janet has $20,000 to spend on either summer Sundays or on raises for her friends. Janet spends $20,000 on raises for her friends. How many dollars does Janet have left to spend on summer Sundays?”

Heck, I’ll even help you a bit with the correct answer by telling you it is NOT: “None, but that’s the City Council’s fault.”

I look forward to your answer. And as with any first grade math problem, you must show your work.

“No, she voted for it because she wanted to play political games –the options were: (a) charge for computer use; (b) charge for programs; (c) cut the employee raises; (d) cut one hour from each of the five weekday mornings; or (e) support a referendum to raise the Library ‘s tax levy. But Ms. Ebling would rather say “no” to all those and beef about the mayor and the City Council.

Once again, I want to keep the Library open on Sundays and give the employee raises with the surplus that could be generated from user fees. Too bad you (assuming you really are a Library employee and not an anonymous fraud) can’t figure that out.”

I’m going to chime in one more time because once again you are claiming to know my thoughts and motivations. I am not playing political games…but you’re doing that very nicely with your faux concern about “Sunday users.”

You have made it clear numerous times in board meetings that you’re skeptical that the library is valuable or useful to the community and that anyone who dares set foot in the building to take advantage of the services, programs and resources available is a freeloader. It’s impossible to reason with a mindset like that.

You can belittle and berate me all you’d like — and disrespect and demean the staff, other board members and library users — but I will continue to do my best to help ensure the viability and longevity of the library (and yes that includes looking out for the taxpayers who support it) despite your efforts to undermine it.

And before you shred me for using the word “undermine,” I’d like to point out that your repeated claims that users fees are the solution do not make it so and your calculation of $63,000 in potential revenue, for example, is purely speculative. We have discussed this topic time and time again, gone over the pros and cons, considered what the rest of the world is doing. No one is taking your assertions or making these decisions lightly.

I’ll also reiterate also that I am not opposed to a referendum. In fact, I’m fairly optimistic that the voters would support it. I just think it’s sad that it has to come to this point — talk about political games — where the City Council has made it clear that the library is not nor will be a priority for them and that they’d prefer that the Library essentially beg the residents directly for funding.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I welcome your chiming in, Audra, as it provides more opportunity for readers to understand the significant differences in our views on Library policy, operations and finances.

Apparently my comments about Library usage were lost on you, so I will restate them once again. I encourage Library usage, both by personal visits and remote access. What I have criticized repeatedly is the massaged, contrived and virtually meaningless “data” presented by Staff in its never-ending quest to fabricate an inflated user base for political/funding purposes; e.g., the 34,000 “visitors” reported for February, even though that number is virtually meaningless because it consists of the number of ins-and-outs at the front door – which could be 17,000 individuals going in-and-out 2 times/month, 5,000 individuals with a shade less than 7 ins-and-outs/month, or just 2,000 individuals at 17 ins-and-outs/month. That’s dishonest, although you enthusiastically endorse it.

I readily admit that my calculations of $63,000 of potential computer usage revenue and $31,000 of potential program revenue are “speculative” – but it remains so only because you, the rest of the Board majority, and Library Staff refuse to let it become a reality by charging such fees. That’s as intellectually dishonest as a coach forbidding a basketball player from shooting and then complaining that he never scores.

You’re also being intellectually dishonest and purely political by complaining about “the Library essentially beg[ing] the residents directly for funding” when you, instead, endorse the Library’s begging the City Council for that same funding that will come from those same residents – and then barbecuing the Council for not handing it out. But if you really are “not opposed to a referendum,” then stop playing games and actually support it – and support it for this November’s ballot, when the voter turnout is certain to be substantially higher than for April elections, meaning we will get a better representation of what the community thinks about such funding.

Finally, to paraphrase Harry S Truman: I don’t belittle and berate, I just tell the truth about what you say and do, and you think it’s belittling and berating.

I must defend the City government on this issue. We have been accused over and over again of singling out the Library. That is just plain wrong. The City Council has asked every City department to tighten its belts.

For instance, I hear complaints about the carpeting and lighting in the Library. I do not belittle the desire to remedy those issues. But the police officers were on the verge of having their facility renovated. However, the City Council voted to postpone that work to lower the property tax levy. We heard no complaints from the police officers that we were singling them out, even though their working conditions are most certainly worse than anything the Library may be experiencing. Work on the fire stations has been deferred for the same reason. We have not heard them complain about being singled out.

The fact is that times are still tough for us financially, and with the ballooning Uptown TIF deficit, they are going to get much tougher. All City departments are going to have to continue sharing in the sacrifice to do what we can to ease the burden on the property taxpayers.

What should our priorities be? In my mind, providing police and fire protection, fixing potholes and resurfacing streets, saving our urban forest and a multitude of other services do not rank below free movies, video games and computer services.

This is sure to anger some. But the solution is really simple. Let the voters decide. The referendum needs to go on the November ballot, because the Council votes on the tax levy in December.

Mayor Dave:

Just to clarify, I guess this means that you agree with the editor of this blog (who you appointed to the board) that people who use these services and programs provided by the library with no specific fee (only what they paid in taxes) are “freeloaders”, correct???

Here is a direct quote from your appointee….”Of course, we expect this suggestion to create howls of outrage from the freeloaders who flock to such programs so long as somebody else (a/k/a, the non-user taxpayers) is paying the lion’s share of the costs. That usually includes parents of young children for whom these programs – along with many of the programs offered by the Park Ridge Park District – effectively serve as no-cost/low-cost babysitting”…….do you agree???

Is that really what you think of parents of young children who bring their kids to the library. Do you think they come there ONLY because it is free. Don’t you think they would still come even if a reasonable fee was charged. What about kids that come to the library for study groups and sign on to a computer for information??

I have no problem with a fee for these things but that is easy for me as I never use them. SO charge a fee if you want but Freeloaders?!?! Give me a break!!

SO Mr. Mayor, nice of you to chime but what about all those constituents he refered to as freeloaders?? Is he right??

Nice how you pointed out the police department not complaining. I suggest you do a bit of surfin’ on this blog and see what your appointee has said about the chief and the task force.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, we can play that game, too.

“Don’t you think they would still come even if a reasonable fee was charged”? Well, the Library Staff and the Board majority sure don’t, even at $1 per program or $1 per computer usage – but what do YOU think?

“I have no problem with a fee for these things but that is easy for me as I never use them.” That’s just fine, but do you support charging them?

See how much fun this is?

I will respond to 251. First, I believe I appointed or re-appointed every single Library Board member. They are all free to vote their conscience and speak their mind.

Second, I would not use the term “freeloader” for a user of Library services any more than I would for someone who had the trees in front of their house trimmed by the City. I return to my previous point that all City departments must prioritize in the face of spending constraints. The Library Board is in full control how they set their priorities and deal with those constraints. In this case, they have decided it is a priority to continue providing certain services for free instead of levying a nominal charge and keeping the Library open on Sundays this summer. That is their decision. But to blame that decision on the Council or me is misguided.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Any person with mere elementary school reading and comprehension skills would know from reading this post, previous posts, and the respective “Editor’s Notes” that this editor has not referred to all users of Library services as “freeloaders.” But the true freeloaders need to try to share that status as much as possible so as to diffuse it to the point where they can justify it as being a majority attitude, which the evidence suggests it is not.

The referendum should read:

Should tax dollars fund a public library in Park Ridge.

That’s it. It’s an asset and “jewel” of the city, do your jobs and keep it open for us to use. Or sell it and make it a Target. Improve property value in TIF and end freeloading.

I can’t believe this is the state of the city we are in.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Congratulations! This may be the single stupidest comment in the history of this blog, most certainly on a per-word basis, because: (a) it’s already the law and the fact that tax dollars DO fund the Library; and (b) selling the Library and making it a Target is ridiculous for too many reasons to state, not the least of which it assumes Target would actually consider putting a store on the Library block, even if the propety were given to them.

To that end, we can’t believe your comment represents the state of public intellectualism in this city…but we are learning.

It sounds to me like Ms. Ebling, LLE and the other supporters of the status quo don’t want to charge fees, don’t want a referendum, want employee raises, and want the Council to pick the taxpayers’ pockets so that the Library can have it all. That’s the kind of thinking that has ruined this state and helped put Park Ridge behind the financial eight-ball with the TIF and the people who want tens of millions of dollars in free flood control. Wake up, people, the freeloaders are winning.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There have always been people who want whatever they can make somebody else pay for. Unfortunately for the majority of taxpayers, too many of those people are public officials.

Quite the spirited discussion, although I see that “LLE” contributed 12 comments of the 43 posted as now. I wonder whether “LLE” is Laura L. Enright, who identifies herself as a Park Ridge Library Circulation Assistant and whose letter critical of this blog’s editor was published in the Herald-Advocate on March 18?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Could be. It sure sounds like her. But unless and until she claims the “LLE” commments, we will draw no official conclusions.

The “referendum” idea on this is ridiculous. It’s clearly for political points to excuse budget cuts.

Otherwise, you could put everything to referendum that’s on the budget:
* Should we have 5 or 6 police officers on a shift?
* Should we end street cleaning?
* Should we hire a new CM?
* Should we allow zoning changes on a particular parcel?
* Should we buy extra salt next year.
* Should we buy $4k plaques because cronies would like them?
Obviously, I could keep going.

Let’s not replace government with impotence.

How long do you want the ballot to be? This is a CLEAR reduction in city services from our tax dollars, not an expenditure like Youth Campus or even Centennial Pool.

I’d be careful what you wish for, because, this will not a be a good look for the Mayor. As said at 8:31pm above, at what point do we look at our city and ask “WTF is going on that we can’t even afford the library to be open on Sundays? ”

Mayor Dave writes : “The fact is that times are still tough for us financially, and with the ballooning Uptown TIF deficit, they are going to get much tougher.”

Ok, we understand, but what has the council done to attack that issue? Cutting services won’t solve the problem and is a regressive approach.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re conflating a number of different things, either ignorantly because you’re confused or intentionally in order to confuse.

Referendums are always “ridiculous” to those who are afraid of their results. And “put everything to referendum” is the standard objection of the simple-minded freeloaders who don’t want to be denied what they want by an actual objectively measurable vote, when they have been so successful in getting what they want by arguing anecdotes and rigged “surveys.”

Virtually ALL “City services” have been reduced since Schmidt took office in 2009, which is why the City is no longer running the big deficits his predecessors made customary, hile only raising taxes around 3.5% annually. And apparently that’s what the taxpayers want, as evidenced by an even bigger victory margin in 2013 than in 2009, despite the endorsement of his opponent by the three previous mayors and twenty-five former aldermopes who taxed, borrowed and spent the City into the mess Schmidt inherited.

Apparently you missed the fact that the Library CAN remain open on Sundays even without a referendum, by the Library Board: (a) charging fees for computer usage and/or programs; (b) cutting 1 hour from each of the five weekdays, so that the Library is open “only” 11 hours Mon-Thurs, and “only” 8 hours on Friday; or (c) not giving raises this year. Or, more likely, you just don’t like any of those and would prefer to bark at the Mayor and the Council.

And if you don’t like cutting services to make ends meet when the City’s share of the RE tax bill is increasing by around 3.5%/year, show up at City Hall tonight and ask the Council to raise your RE taxes another 3-4-5% so that cuts won’t be needed. You can even show up anonymously: wear a paper bag on your head with “CW” written on it in crayon, then refuse to state your name and address for the record on the grounds you’re too embarrassed to admit to such stupid ideas.

The reality is that the Park Ridge Library budget has been cut dramatically every year that this mayor has been in office.

Park Ridge will have the library that it chooses to pay for. As long as the mayor’s office continues to slash the budget (which has already led to lay-offs and closing of positions– i.e. not hiring replacements for retirees), the library will continue to be forced to reduce services and/or find ways of supporting itself through increased fees on users. That’s pretty simple arithmetic.

If Park Ridge values its library services, it needs to convey that to the mayor, and tell him to restore the budget. Otherwise, expect to continue seeing diminished service. You get what you pay for, people.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Glad to see you can do “pretty simple arithmetic,” Mr. “Klock.” That puts you ahead of the previous commentator.

And “[y]ou get what you pay for, people” pretty much nails it, so you’ve really distinguished yourself.

The same Ms. Enright has taken credit for the comments on her Facebook page. I wonder if the Library still has Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in stock. I think she needs to read it. Calling people names and insulting those who exert control over the situation is unlikely to get anyone to change their minds. Bad strategy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, what ever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?” Have we become so weak and fragile that mere words send us into tears, or therapy?

One reason we don’t mind being called names by people is that they often then go on to display their mindset, values, thinking (or lack thereof) and selfishness – so it’s actually a good thing.

PD:

I never stated that you have called ALL library user freeloaders. My question to the Mayor as well as my quote from you are VERY clear about differentiating the “category” of what you call freeloader. It is the Mayor’s answer that lacks clarity. He does not seem to break out those for which you would like to see a fee. By his answer it at least appear he would not use the term for a user of ANY library services, including those that you have labeled services.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “quote from you” are you referring to? And if “clarity” is what you’re looking for, can you direct our readers to all your other “anon” (or otherwise unidentified) posts we can more easily determine whether YOU belong in the ranks of the freeloaders?

Here is the quote that I pasted a few posts above…….”Of course, we expect this suggestion to create howls of outrage from the freeloaders who flock to such programs so long as somebody else (a/k/a, the non-user taxpayers) is paying the lion’s share of the costs. That usually includes parents of young children for whom these programs – along with many of the programs offered by the Park Ridge Park District – effectively serve as no-cost/low-cost babysitting”.

It is a direct quote from you as written on this board. As this quote indicates, you clearly were not (and have not) referred to ALL library users as freeloaders. It is clear you were referring to people who take advantage of programs for which you believe there should be fees. Having “mere elementary school reading and comprehension skills”, it is clear that you have not called a person going to the library to do research or check out materials or use other basic library services a freeloader.

Again with the anon barbs?? All you have to do is make a rule. Simply state that you will no longer accept anon comments. Hell, require all posters to first submit their name and address to you via e-mail if you like. It is your blog. Of course that will exclude the vast majority of the posts on this thread.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It appears that you still missed the operative qualifying phrase: “who flock to such programs so long as somebody else (a/k/a, the non-user taxpayers) is paying the lion’s share of the costs.”

That qualifying phrase was placed there intentionally because, mirabile dictu, many/most Park Ridge residents seem willing to pay a fair price for valuable services, at least if asked – just like they’d also donate food for the needy without requiring a Food for Fines bribe.

Unfortunately, the freeloader minority can’t fathom that concept, so they have to project their own greed onto the rest of the community in order to feel better about themselves and to feel like they are part of the majority.

If we made the rule change you want, then we might lose people like you whom we now get to make fun of both for the insipidness of your ideas and for your cowardice. So why cut our fun in half?

I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be to be the Mayor or one of the Council and have people constantly saying things like “Ok, we understand [the city has $27 million in TIF debt to pay back], but…Cutting services won’t solve the problem…”

It’s like that phase kids go through before they understand how money works: “Okay mom and dad, we understand you have bills to pay, but not buying us Samsung Galaxy S5 phones and cool clothes won’t solve the problem…”

What does solve the problem is simple- paying for the things you want. We wanted the TIF and now we’re paying for it, like it or not. Only a fool doesn’t understand how massive long-term debt = decreased opportunities for spending in the future.

The guy who commented upthread that Park Ridge is not Gary, Indiana should have been around to point that out to the TIF salesmen years back and then maybe we’d be somewhere now.

On every one of these “gimme gimme free services or I’ll cry victim” threads I want to try and understand what people think is really going on. If you claim to understand the significance of the TIF debt, then where is the misunderstanding? Is anyone implying that the Mayor/Council is mismanaging the re-payment of that debt or ignoring a magical way to make it all go away? Okay, let’s see proof. Otherwise, we have plenty of new retail revenue coming into PR in the last couple of years, so clearly the problem is being “attacked” from that angle. The property tax levy has been going up a reasonable 2-4% per year, though that could end up being much higher this year even with DECREASED library funding. So that angle is addressed as well.

At this point, if forcing organizations like the library to raise money to cover the costs of their premium services is unacceptable to some of you naysayers, then why don’t you just come out and admit the only possibility that remains: you simply DO NOT care what percentage increase it takes on anyone’s property tax bill to get your little list of wants met! You think we all owe you something!

Now go hook up with the dozens of other groups who feel like they are owed free everything else: plaques for historic buildings, use of park & rec buildings for private teams, D64 daycare, flood control for everyone, facade renovations, non-merit based raises, endless social service funding, tens of millions spent on new parks, and on and on, and just for fun see how high you can get the tax levy to increase before your wishlist is exhausted. For what I’ve just listed, it would take several thousand dollars per household in extra revenue, and many years of it, for the city to be able to pay for all this. But isn’t it much easier to never focus on the big picture and pretend it’s only ever just $5 extra per family here and $17 per year there? Nonsense.

For those who want a “full-service” Park Ridge, let’s see someone stand up and support this course of action in its entirety for once. Where has Larry Ryles gone when you need him?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You got it just about right, Paine in PR, except the part about “[w]e wanted the TIF.”

“We” – as in the taxpayers – never got a chance to say whether we “wanted the TIF” because the folks running the show back then wouldn’t give US a vote on it. They didn’t want to take the risk that a majority of voters would vote “no” on the TIF – and then the gutless mayor and elected officials would have to make the tough choice between abandoning the project, or telling those voters to pound sand and risking a backlash at the next election. (That’s the same strategy the Park Board employed with the Centennial water park, by the way).

You’re right about Ryles being MIA despite all his grand business-friendly ideas during the 2013 campaign. But the folks who really OWE THE TAXPAYERS some grand ideas for dealing with the Uptown TIF are the former city officials who foisted this albatross on us without a referendum: former mayors Wietecha, Marous and Frimark; former city manager “Tiny Tim” Schuenke, who had been collecting his sweet Illinois pension while picking up an extra six-figure salary as city administrator in Delafield, WI, from 2008 until his second “retirement” in 2012; and all those aldermen who aided and abetted the TIF between 2001 and 2007, many of whom then endorsed Ryles in 2013.

They got us in this mess, primarily by providing multi-millions of subsidies to developer PRC that was borrowed through bond issues that the TIF revenue has never covered.

I AM a taxpayer-and buddy-you do NOT represent me when it comes to the library. And I am all for a referendum-as long as it is a binding one.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We all are, sweetheart, so don’t think you belong to an exclusive club. And, like it or not, I DO represent you when it comes to the Library, irrespective of whether or not I particularly want to.

But at least we seem to have found common ground on a binding referendum. Now let’s see if the Library Board majority and senior Staff can overcome their terror of letting the taxpayers actually vote on a higher levy. Too bad they’ve already nuked summer Sunday’s this year, so that even a November vote comes too late to save them.

SLICK-you are a special kind of stupid. You think that by eliminating the food for fines that runs for a month would fund the Sunday hours? How much money in fines do you think the library brings in? I don’t think you have a clue. And before you give another condescending answer-give the facts

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ll overlook your stealing our use of the term “Slick,” Abby. And I don’t even mind you calling me “a special kind of stupid” – for the reasons set forth in the “Editor’s Note” to “Huh” at 8:56 a.m.

Unfortunately, the Library’s management is so inept at keeping track of information – especially information it doesn’t care about – and so enamored of the FFF program that it apparently has never actually kept track of how much in fines it has written off through FFF. However, it has been estimated (based on $80,000 of annuay fine revenue) that FFF costs the taxpayers in the $6-7,000 per year range – an amount that would keep the Library open 4-5 Sundays this summer.

Are those facts non-condescending enough for you?

Yes, that distinction is absolutely correct. It’s much more accurate to say simply that “we GOT the TIF and now we’re paying for it” as the only ones who had a choice in the matter besides the elected officials would have been school districts 64 and 207.

Honestly I don’t recall what the general sentiment in town was at the time (how it might have been voted on if it had gone to referendum), as the Baldacchino/Summit lawsuit is the main thing that sticks in my mind. One can only hope a gigantic, decades-spanning blunder like this would be be recognized as such and as a cautionary tale, but I still don’t come across many residents who seem to view it that way.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The proponents of the TIF masterfully manipulated public opinion, first by claiming the TIF would bring big-time retail to Park Ridge, then by creating the Uptown Advisory Task Force of prominent, well-meaning volunteers who were mostly viewed as sufficiently gullible and malleable to embrace whatever tripe would be handed out by then-mayor Ron Wietecha and then-CM “Tiny Tim” Schuenke, aided and abetted by a well-cooked study by consultants Trkla Pettigrew Allen & Payne.

And they did.

As a result, even today all most residents can see when they look at that development is a shiny bauble of buildings, not the multi-million dollar giveaway of tax dollars to the developers (generated through bonded debt that we’ll be paying through 2027) that has been draining the General Fund and is currently projected to produce a $20 million-plus deficit rather than the predicted $20 million-plus windfall profit.

Geeze, funny how those idiots became masterminds just to thwart you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Those public officials thwarted the taxpayers, and locked in that thwarting for a period of 23 years. They might have been idiots, but they were “Rain Man”-caliber savants when it came to scamming the taxpayers out of what is now being projected as $23-27 million by the time the TIF expires in 2027.

Has anyone ever given a figure for what it would cost per tax payer per year to pay off the TIF? I realize there are many factors that would change over time but there must be a estimate somewhere. I have done some digging but must not be looking in the right place.

EDITOR’S NOTE: First of all, we assume that by “per tax payer” you mean per parcel of real estate, as the only way the City could assess such additional tax would be against the property. But we have never heard of such a calculation being done.

And even if it were calculated, the ability to pay off the TIF (and the wisdom of doing so) while also paying for things like flood relief would require some serious debate; and would deserve a referendum, even if only advisory.

PD:

My question was only for general information. I was simply trying to gage the size of the issue in a different way in terms of how much my (and all of our) tax bill would increase to just get rid of it. Of course it will be costly no matter how you slice it and of course any decision such as that would require a referendum and a hell of a sell job (maybe Mel could do it).

EDITOR’S NOTE: The cost of paying off the TIF cannot be viewed in isolation.

You fail to mention that one of the sitting alderman was part owner of the development company that build that monstrosity. I’m sure he helped to pursuade many on the council. Don’t just go after the city manager or Mayor at the time. I remember it being very UNpopular with the public, yet it was still built

EDITOR’S NOTE: We failed to mention it because we don’t believe it to be true. But feel free to enlighten us as to his identity and whatever facts you have to support your contention.

We would also disagree with your contention that the Uptown TIF or the development itself was “very UNpopular with the public.” Most of the “public” was totally bamboozled by the “Uptown Redevelopment means more retail and lower taxes” heifer dust being shoveled and spread by the Uptown Advisory Task Force, “Tiny Tim” Schuenke, Ron Wietecha, the Chamber of Commerce, et al. So while it might not have been all that popular, it also wasn’t “UNpopular.”

$500,000 of taxpayer money was just WASTED on redoing the sidewalks and ripping out trees that were just recently planted just to put in new trees Uptown on Prospect. There was no need for that. Why no complaint from you? Because your pal wanted it?

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we pointed out in our 09.09.13 post and notes, those sidewalks and trees were part of a “streetscaping” plan tied to Uptown Redevelopment that had been in the works for years, and included parking along the tracks on Summit. An IDOT state grant paid for approximately $1.1 million of the work in return for the City’s paying around $500,000; i.e., no $500,000 from the City, not $1.1 million from the state.

Frankly, we think it’s stupid and corrupt for our bankrupt State government to provide this kind of grant money. And we question whether the City should even be applying for such grants – although we’re certain that if Park Ridge didn’t get that money it would have been given to some other town, thereby providing no savings to the state. But that’s a topic you should take up with Sen. Dan Kotowski and Rep. Marty Moylan.

Reading the “Notes” and some of the comments above really show how rotten the discourse has become locally. We are to be vilified for expecting an “upper class” city to have a library open 7 days a week, along with lights that work and workers that at least get COLA raises?

Paines whole post was boorish. Seriously, blaming a losing Mayoral candidate who stepped up to run for office, for something that he has no control over? And no editor, it isn’t the former elected officials who are to answer for the TIF, it’s the CURRENT elected officials. That’s why they were elected.

I guess entrusting a city with a Mayor who didn’t even raise his family here, but came here for the “old houses” was a bad idea.

This is why the cantankerous, rigid relics in our city control everything. Here’s their odd philosophy:

* Cut things, because if you use anything from your tax dollar, you are a freeloader.
* Do not let outsiders in, or at least don’t let them see where they are going at night.
* Praise crap like an old cemetery or old home, but don’t keep a city asset open 7 days a week.
* Pools broke…TOO BAD! Go elsewhere. In fact, the slide color interrupts my stroll.
* No digital signs! People might crash.
* “We are business friendly” (except for signs, rules, zoning and permits or even a business plan)….and “shhhh, our TIF district is empty, but we don’t need an ED position, even though I campaigned on it”
* We are bleeding money from the TIF, but let’s make everyone suffer instead of solving it.
* Throw away $59,000 of free grant money to make a point.

People shouldn’t be fooled by this referendum crap. It’s right out of the playbook of leadership with no solutions. They are scrambling and we are losing our city.

So next election, just watch who the crotchety folks back, and look elsewhere.

It’s ridiculous that there is a side of the city that is truly advocating shuttering library services or charging virtually to breathe in the special air.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, those former elected officials who locked this City and its taxpayers into this 23-year lose/lose TIF box – then slithered away from City Hall – are the ones who deserve to be held accountable for what was, at its very best, a stupid idea badly executed; and at its very worst, a fraud on the taxpayers knowingly perpetrated for the benefit of the developers and certain other special interests.

Now, if you actually cared about the Library being open 7 days a week, you would be excoriating the Library Board majority and senior Staff who came up with that Sunday-closing idea instead of charging modest user fees, or instead of cutting 1 hour off the Library’s 9-12 open hours each week day, or instead of deferring the 1% raises. But it’s obvious from the rest of your rant that Sunday closings aren’t really your concern.

So we’ll suggest to you what we’ve suggested to all your fellow travelers who think you’re entitled to Lake Forest-quality government services: show up at City Hall and demand that the Council raise taxes by whatever amount it will take to satisfy the Library’s wish list, cover the TIF deficits, solve the flooding problems, etc. And make sure you demand that it be done without any of that “referendum crap.”

“Now, if you actually cared about the Library being open 7 days a week, you would be excoriating the Library Board majority and senior Staff who came up with that Sunday-closing idea instead of charging modest user fees, or instead of cutting 1 hour off the Library’s 9-12 open hours each week day, or instead of deferring the 1% raises. But it’s obvious from the rest of your rant that Sunday closings aren’t really your concern.”

I think Anonymous’ post showed a larger concern for the direction this town is taking in general, the actions with the library being a prime example.

But while I appreciate you no longer to referring to “staff” in your claim and now referring to “senior staff” as you well know, “senior staff”, i.e.: the managers of the departments, also don’t have a say in the Sunday closings. The only one you could possibly be referring to would be Jan Van De Carr and she’s actually the director of the library.

But I guess if you can continue to use the word “staff” you can keep putting the meme out there that the staff of the library is somehow trying to punish the patrons.

As to this mysterious library “wish list” you refer to, as cute as that is, the library “wish list” is simply about operating expenditures (which have risen every year while the library has been asked to do with less). I mean, I would guess that many involved in the cuts “wished” they didn’t have to fire three people or “wished” they didn’t have to cut so many things, or “wish” we could still be open but hey, there’s nothing really exotic about that.

As for “user fees” what it sounds like to me is that you’re in favor of slowly turning the library into a vending machine and that’s pathetic. How about if we start charging people step into the door? Maybe we could charge baby-sitting fees for the children who come here after school from the area schools. When does it stop.

Perhaps on paper a “for profit” library sounds great, but people need to understand that once it becomes “for profit” it’s no longer their library. There are ramifications involved with that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The director IS a member of “staff,” and she always talks about how she consults with “staff” on such decisions. So “staff” it is.

What’s truly “pathetic” is closing the Library on its busiest or second busiest day when something as modest as a $1 computer usage fee could pay not only to keep it open but, also, for the raises that some “staff” members (such as you, LLE?) care more about than they do about keeping the Library open. Enlightened self-interest is fine, but let’s call it what it is.

Nobody but you has said anything about a “for profit” Library.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: The director IS a member of “staff,” and she always talks about how she consults with “staff” on such decisions. So “staff” it is.”

I guess I’m confused cause you had no problem previously referring to Jan Van De Carr by name yet suddenly she is a member of senior staff (as I said before, you and I know how powerful words are and I know exactly why you use certain words).

For the record, she’s not happy about the Sunday closings either.

Be that as it may,

“What’s truly “pathetic” is closing the Library on its busiest or second busiest day when something as modest as a $1 computer usage fee could pay not only to keep it open but, also, for the raises that some “staff” members (such as you, LLE?) care more about than they do about keeping the Library open. Enlightened self-interest is fine, but let’s call it what it is.”

I’m glad you agree that Sunday is a busiest day. I’d have to look at numbers to see if it’s the “busiest day” giving that we’re open on Saturdays and Saturdays can be a really busy day (I know it works better for your cause though if Sunday was the busiest day) But yes, it is pathetic to close the library on Sunday. It’s also pathetic not to fund the library properly for years and then try to make it for-profit, as seems to be your desire.

“…for the raises that staffmembers (Such as you, LLE?)”

Why the question mark, Mr. T? I’ve already identified myself as a member of the library staff when you implied that I didn’t care about the staff being affect by closing on Sundays. I know there’s been a ton of back and forth comments since then, but have you forgotten so soon. That was when you told me you were the only one concerned about the staff and then I had to show you your own words that indicated otherwise.

Or are you trying to worry me by outing me. So as to not add to any further confusion, I’ll just use my name. LLE was just easier to pop in for the comments.

As I stated then, I don’t believe we will be getting raises and even if we did, it wouldn’t make up for what I’m going to lose from closing on Sundays. A even if I didn’t work at the library, I’d still be irritated with an attitude such as yours. But then my people have been library aficionados for years. We’ve always appreciated what a valuable thing for a community to have. As I stated, I’d prefer the library not be turned into a vending machine.

But that’s me. If you’re good with charging your neighbors for the stuff they already pay for, wonderful.

As far as “enlightened self interest” aren’t you in fact practicing a form of “self interest” by not only being on the board, but treating your fellow board members, the director and the staff so disrespectfully in blog posts in an effort to demonize them in the eyes of your fellow taxpayers? Just wondering.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, Ms. Enright, glad you could finally come out of the shadows and join us under your own name. Welcome!

It appears Sundays are the busiest or second busiest day of the week, based on average attendance per hour opened (5 hours on Sunday, v. 12 hours Monday – Thursday, 9 hours on Friday and 8 hours on Saturday). But, not surprisingly, I had to do that busiest/second busiest calculation myself because “staff” did not – presumably because the results would have raised even more questions and/or hackles about Sunday closings.

If Ms. Van De Carr truly were “not happy about the Sunday closings,” then she could have avoided them by the various things I, Ms. Foss-Eggemann and Mr. Egan have suggested. Her refusal to advocate for alternatives demonstrates, at the very least, that she is happier with the Sunday closings than with those other choices. So if you are losing money from those closed Sundays, take it up with her or the Board majority that endorses them.

If you can find “self-interest” when it comes to my service (unpaid) as a Library Board member for the past 2 years, or my service (also unpaid) as a Park Board commissioner from 1997-2005, have at it. Unlike you, I don’t draw a paycheck from the taxpayers, so I don’t expect raises from them that will far exceed any additional taxes I will pay (if any) to cover those raises.

Finally, if telling the truth is disrespectful to my “fellow board members, the director and the staff,” then I plead guilty as charged because “[t]he truth is incontrovertible: malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end there it is.” Winston Churchill.

“What’s truly “pathetic” is closing the Library on its busiest or second busiest day when something as modest as a $1 computer usage fee could pay not only to keep it open but, also, for the raises that some “staff” members (such as you, LLE?)”

I probably also should clarify, even though I mentioned this before too, that I’m also a member of this community (moved here in 1999). So this would affect me one way or another.

EDITOR’S NOTE: But it will affect Sunday users in only one way: adversely.

Mr. Trizna,

Can you answer a question I’ve been curious about for a long time? What, in your view, should a public library be?

EDITOR’S NOTE: My view of what a public library should be comes from Andrew Carnegie, who built almost 1,700 libraries but required the local government to provide the site and pass a taxation ordinance sufficient to fund the purchase of books and provide for future maintenance.

He intended each one to be different and, accordingly, there is no arbitrary or even objective standard. A library should be what its unique, individual community wants it to be and is willing to pay for it to be. In that way it truly embodies and reflects the community’s character and values.

“What’s truly “pathetic” is closing the Library on its busiest or second busiest day when something as modest as a $1 computer usage fee could pay not only to keep it open but, also, for the raises that some “staff” members (such as you, LLE?)”

I probably also should clarify, even though I mentioned this before too, that I’m also a member of this community (moved here in 1999). So this would affect me one way or another.

EDITOR’S NOTE: But it will affect Sunday users in only one way: adversely.”

Yeah…that’s my point. Cause as a resident it will affect me adversely if I want to use the library that day for research and as a staffmember it will affect me adversely cause I’ll be losing pay.

I didn’t think that point was so complicated.

I’ll say this. We agree that Sunday users are going to be adversely affect. We just don’t agree on why this is happening.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for clearing that up for us, Ms. Enright. Now we all know that your concern about summer Sunday closings aren’t about the adverse effects on the hundreds of Sunday Library users but solely about those effects on YOU: how YOU won’t be able to use the Library on Sundays, and how YOU will lose pay. In other words, it’s all about YOU.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, Ms. Enright, glad you could finally come out of the shadows and join us under your own name. Welcome!

It appears Sundays are the busiest or second busiest day of the week, based on average attendance per hour opened (5 hours on Sunday, v. 12 hours Monday – Thursday, 9 hours on Friday and 8 hours on Saturday). But, not surprisingly, I had to do that busiest/second busiest calculation myself because “staff” did not – presumably because the results would have raised even more questions and/or hackles about Sunday closings.”

Come now, Mr. Trizna, don’t be disengenous. We’ve had plenty of discussions where I used my name. If I was so concerned about staying in the shadows, I don’t think I’d use the initials LLE when my name is plastered all over letters to the editor. Again, nice try spinning it that way, but no.

As for calculations, well I hardly needed calculations to see what days are busy since I work there (and work every Sunday) and see how busy they are. I can understand, as someone who rarely sets foot in the library, that you might need the calculations. But I saw it first hand. Why do you thnk I know how big a deal closing on Sunday is?

EDITOR’S NOTE: I hate to break this to you, Ms. Enright, but “LLE” isn’t JFK or LBJ – it’s not instantaneously identifiable with you.

Even though I visit the Library two Sundays per month on average, I don’t base important decisions on anecdotal evidence like mere observation, especially if hard data is available. That’s why I looked at the numbers Library Staff provided, and why I did the calculations to determine that Sunday’s really are the busiest or second busiest day of the week, based on per hour attendance.

While I’m concerned about the 700+ people, on average, who use the Library on Sundays, you’ve already told us why closing on Sunday is a big deal to you: because YOU will not be able to use the Library on Sunday, and YOU will lose Sunday pay.

If you can find “self-interest” when it comes to my service (unpaid) as a Library Board member for the past 2 years, or my service (also unpaid) as a Park Board commissioner from 1997-2005, have at it. Unlike you, I don’t draw a paycheck from the taxpayers, so I don’t expect raises from them that will far exceed any additional taxes I will pay (if any) to cover those raises.”

Now remember, I’m the one who doesn’t expect raises at all cause I don’t think it’ll happen.

But I think you can get yourself elected to something (unpaid or not) and have it be out of self interest. Are you that niave?

And I think by now the taxpayers reading this know I draw a paycheck from them. So I know hammering it home like that is a wonderful way to continue the game your playing, but it’s getting a little old.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I am neither “niave” nor naive.

But there is self-interest in my public service, albeit different from the economic self-interest you have in your public paycheck. It’s the honor and privilege of serving the people of this community that was given me directly by the taxpayers/voters who elected me, first in 1997 and again in 2001, to the Park District Board; and then given me by the elected representatives of those taxpayers/voters on the City Council who appointed me to the Library Board in 2011.

In each instance I swore an oath to do what I thought was best for the entire community, as a whole. That is what I have done, and that is what I will continue to do so long as I am accorded that honor and privilege.

You have only ONE interest in Sunday users. Limiting Sundays is the method by which the majority of your fellow board members have chosen to meet the limits put on their budget by the council. That pisses you off because you have always wanted fees at the library. You have been on record about it for a long time on this blog and this is probably one of the reasons the Mayor picked you. It also pisses you off because you hate to loose. But it has NOTHING to do with this deep concern for the Sunday user. That is nothing but crap.

The truth is there are some legitimately bad reasons to close the library on Sundays in the summer. One that comes to mind is that I am betting there are a lot of seniors who would be in the AC at the library on a hot Sunday afternoon (especially if the do not have AC) to get out of the house. Why didn’t you try that angle?? After all we all know your deep concern for seniors.

But concern for the Sunday User?!!? HA!! Based on your own statements, if they use a computer at the library or attend a library program, they are nothing but freeloaders.

If the board had decided to stay open on Sundays but open an hour later during the week you would bemoaning the loss to the poor “early morning User”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “pisses [me] off” is mismanagement of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money confiscated from them, albeit legally through taxes, by people who don’t seem to give a rat’s derriere for either those taxpayers or their money – so long as their own paychecks clear twice a month – because they have learned how easy it is to be liked when you give away other people’s money to the greedy rather than the needy, because the greedy shamelessly demand it.

And what also “pisses [me] off” are public officials who, instead of looking out for those taxpayers, gladly become co-conspirators in fleecing the taxpayers in order to pander to the shamelessly greedy – in this case, at the expense of the Sunday Library users and the employees who would be working those Sundays.

And, finally, what “pisses [me] off” are the freeloaders for whom paying taxes is simply one part of a game, the more important part (to them) of which is figuring out how to get as much, or more, in benefits than they actually pay in as taxes.

Because JFK’s direction “[a]sk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” actually means something to me.

Comprende?

That’s your answer?? As a member of that “unique, individual community” and a member of the library board you don’t have some picture in your mind (or at least a little more detail for Mary) of what YOU think it should be??

You clearly want fees for a variety of programs and services that people use and are currently provided for free. Isn’t that going to change the library (beyond just the balance sheet) to something different (good or bad) than it is today? I am not trying to speak for Mary but perhaps that is what she was trying to get at.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, that’s my answer. But since “pictures” apparently matter to you (and/or “Mary”), the current Library’s “picture” works for me at this time.

But, pray tell, how will charging $1 for computer usage, or $1 for attending a movie or program, “change the library (beyond just the balance sheet) to something different (good or bad) than it is today”?

So what happened last night?

EDITOR’S NOTE: If by “last night” you mean the City Council’s Monday night meeting, the Council decided to move forward on a Library referendum this November by referring the matter to its Finance & Budget Committee. The Council invited the Library Board to cooperate in framing the referendum question.

There will be a special meeting of the Library Board’s Planning & Operations Committee to address the referendum matter at 6:00 p.m. next Tuesday night, April 15, in the basement of the Library.

This has been an unsettling conversation, bordering on personal. So clearly there are a lot of strong feelings and resentments. Too bad, because we could stand to focus on finding facts and what to do about them (in that order). The only fact I can see through all this is that the city budget is very limited and the library, along with many other taxpayer-funded services, is feeling the pinch.

In the last couple of comments (Anon 5:03 and 5:49 pm) there seems to be some resistance to “fees” as part of the solution. I suppose it depends on what the fees cover and how much they are, but why is that such a problem?

By the way, I could sign this “5th Ward Library User”, because I am a happy user of the library and a happy believer in Benjamin Franklin’s original idea for public libraries.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t let the “bordering on personal” unsettle you, FWT. Sometimes that’s all that’s left to argue when the facts are unpalatable and unfavorable to someone’s personal economic interests.

Make no mistake about it: fees don’t have to be ANY part of the solution – if the taxpayers are given the chance to vote to increase the Library’s levy by a sufficient amount and a majority of them vote “yes.” So come to next Tuesday (4/15) night’s Planning & Operations Committee meeting (6:00 p.m., Library basement) and contribute to the referendum discussion.

5th Ward Taxpayer, This discussion has been unsettling, and indeed much of it has been personal. But it’s because, unfortunately, Mr. Trizna has chosen to make it so.

When I joined the library board almost two years ago, I was aware of the city’s financial situation. I was prepared to work with fellow board members and the Library Director to find ways to help the Library continue to operate with less funding. I wasn’t expecting a group who agreed on everything, but I was expecting a collective effort on behalf of the community and a civil give and take.

For example, the board has not dismissed Mr Trizna’s suggestions to collect fees for certain services, we have considered them seriously. We have even already implemented fees for non-residents, something that is unprecedented for the area.

But it seems that, because we have not jumped to immediately implement everything Mr. Trizna has suggested, we have been labeled as “dishonest,” “waging a misinformation campaign,” “sycophanic” and many other derogatory and, frankly, false things. What was once collaborative has become adversarial. If you don’t agree with him, whether you are a board member, an employee or a patron, forget about civil discourse, you apparently are labeled the enemy.

If you have visited the library, you’ll see that it is not overflowing with excess, not even close. It’s about as utilitarian as a library can be. But the real value lies with the staff who provide a consistently high level of service to the community and collections and programs that are exceptional.

Yet Mr Trizna insists on continuing to accuse us of “demanding…hundreds of thousands of dollars…” and “whatever additional funding it asks for,” as if out of pure greed, as if supporting a public institution with a 100 year history in our community is somehow wrong. As I’ve mentioned previously, it’s hard to have a rational discussion when a fellow board member’s mindset is not only closed but combative.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Audra, this isn’t about disagreement, it’s about dishonesty – and it’s time you stopped lying to cover up how you, the rest of the Board majority and senior Staff have jackpotted the Library, its Sunday users and even some of its employees solely to pressure the folks at City Hall to give the Library the money that you folks never have had any intention of raising through user fees and/or referendum.

Want proof?

Let’s start with when I suggested $1 computer usage fees, $5 program fees, and a referendum during the November 2013 Board meeting – even before the decision was made to close the Library on summer Sundays. I pointed out that the extra revenue could be used to retain staff members, but the director immediately shot down that idea; and you sat there and said nothing, as Page 5 of those meeting Minutes confirms.

I repeated those same arguments at the December meeting in response to the decision to close summer Sundays even though Sundays generally are the busiest days of the week (based on average attendance per hour). I was joined in those arguments by Ms. Foss-Eggemann and Mr. Egan. But Mr. Schmidt, joined by the director, endorsed those closings for the purely political reason that they would “make a visible impact with the public.” Once again, you sat mute, according to Pages 3-4 of those meeting Minutes.

Later in that same meeting, when it was suggested that Staff be asked to come up with a way to raise the $20,000 so that the Library could remain open summer Sundays, you (along with Ms. Hynous, Mr. Benka and Mr. White) actually argued against that idea, smugly stating that your “Committee already discussed all of these matters and did all the work at the Committee meetings” – even though any committee decision is subject to re-opening and debate at the full Board meeting. If you need to refresh your recollection on that, check out Pages 5-6 of those Minutes.

And if you can’t quite remember how you, the Board majority and the director outright rejected (or to use your word, “dismissed”) my suggestion that the January 23 Press Release (embedded in this post) include actual amounts of projected additional revenue that might be generated from computer usage and program/movie fees – based on actual usage, so that the taxpayers could see in real terms what kind of revenue was being ignored by you folks – you can find that discussion at Pages 9-11 of the January meeting Minutes.

As for that “unprecedented” implementation of fees for non-residents which the director proposed even though she provided no pro forma, no revenue projections, and said that “she honestly believes the cost in staff time in managing the computer use and fees will be greater that the revenue taken in,” I was the only Board member that asked why we were doing it if it wasn’t going to generate any net revenue. Once again, you sat mute, which you can confirm by looking at Page 7 of the February Board meeting Minutes.

Those are just a few examples of your, the Board majority’s and senior Staff’s dishonest attempts to sabotage the Library because of your political disagreements with the Mayor’s and City Council’s efforts to manage the City – and the Library – in a fiscally responsible, non-deficit manner while keeping tax increases at around 3-1/2%. While I think you are dead wrong on these issues and don’t have the support of anything close to a majority of the taxpayers – which would be demonstrated beyond peradventure by a referendum in November – I respect your right to disagree.

But I don’t and won’t respect the dishonest way you and your allies are plying the taxpayers with intentionally incomplete, inaccurate and outright misleading information about the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars you are trying to wring out of the Council by what amounts to, effectively, extortion through your irresponsible and purely political strategy of cutting employees, cutting employee hours, and closing the Library summer Sundays – and then blaming City Hall.

Finally, for someone who claims to want to have “a rational discussion” about these issues, sitting mute at Board meetings while the Sunday Library users, the Library employees and the taxpayers get sold down the river is a strange way of doing it.

5th Ward,

You are absolutely correct when you say: “The only fact I can see through all this is that the city budget is very limited and the library, along with many other taxpayer-funded services, is feeling the pinch.”

It’s totally disingenuous when commenters here try to act like this is not a clear cut issue or even worse they push the idea that the Mayor/Council are specifically acting out of hatred of the library (or replace that with the police/social services/local businesses as the topic changes). No, they are simply protecting the taxpayers who should have every right to assume that when the next year’s tax levy comes around, that they will be able to afford it. But to some of you, a person’s ability to pay their taxes and stay in their home is not nearly as important as free internet and movies at the library!

After my comments earlier in this thread Anon 8:57 called my thoughts “boorish” and then went on to say “We are bleeding money from the TIF, but let’s make everyone suffer instead of solving it”, as if he/she believes there is actually a way to repay a $27 million debt without either increasing the tax levy or cutting services. If I am “boorish” than he/she is completely DELUDED, as are many others! It’s maddening after awhile to watch people come into these threads with their hyperbole about ruining Park Ridge and destroying the character of town and the library and the dangers of “entrusting…a Mayor who didn’t even raise his family here” blah blah blah, but then bring up the massive pit of debt we are currently in and you can hardly even get anyone to acknowledge it as a problem, like it’s no big deal. I still can’t tell if this is intentional denial or just reckless stupidity?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paine: Do you dare to suggest that the Library’s charging $1 for computer usage or $1 for program or film attendance WOULDN’T mean the end of the world as we know it here in Park Ridge?

5th Ward:

You make a valid point. This discussion is bordering on personal. I do not know about you but I for one think it is about time that all these shameless, greedy, freeloaders stop making their comments so personal.

After all the only thing worse that a shameless, greedy, freeloader is a shameless, greedy, freeloader that makes personal attacks. Everyone knows that, right??

But of course, thanks to PD, we all understand their motivations. Ya see it is the shameless, greedy, freeloaders who are making personal attacks and they do so because that’s all they have less to argue.

I sure hope all those shameless, greedy, freeloaders decide to take this as a lesson about their choices of personal words, or attacks…..bunch of shameless, greedy, freeloaders!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Rats! I thought we had all bases covered with “shameless, greedy freeloaders.” But your comment highlights the fact that we forgot about “stupid.”

PD:

“…..fees don’t have to be ANY part of the solution – if the taxpayers are given the chance to vote to increase the Library’s levy by a sufficient amount and a majority of them vote “yes.”

Fees do not have to be ANY part of the solution even if there is no referendum. If there is no referendum, the board is required to live with the constraints given to them by the council. The majority of them could vote to do so in a way that does not involve fees which is essentially what they have done at this point.

EDITOR’S NOTE: True that…EXCEPT that they have done so only by deliberately Draconian measures with the specious (if not dishonest) justification that our elected officials over at City Hall are villains who are ignoring the will of The People by not giving the Library all the money it needs to avoid such Draconian measures.

This blog is silly and I imagine the man who writes it sits in his office crafting positive comments from “anonymous” users to support his own posts.

http://whois.net/whois/publicwatchdog.org

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Joe”:

How astute of you to have figured that out! Your mom must be so proud of just how special you are, so come up from her basement and give her a big hug and maybe she’ll give you some cookies and milk.

Paine- So those are THE ONLY ways to alleviate “pain” from the TIF? Wow, you are brainwashed by this do-nothing mayors council.

Yes, it does make a difference that the Mayor didn’t even choose Park Ridge as his home for most of his life. He came here for the “old homes” and that is his #1 goal, to keep Park Ridge old and broke. That’s why he surrounds himself by others who agree with him. They think those old homes (that pay LESS in property taxes) are charming. I think they are ugly and use government to keep them in place. That’s the plaque peoples (apparently the mayor too) goal. Background is important, because often it tells why politicians advocate certain things.

Paine- do you think closing the library on Sundays is even change on that TIF? Or a $1 for computer usage (which is INSANE in 2014 since that’s a function of the library?)
THAT’S THE POINT, the Mayor and his cronies and alder-puppets want to blame everything on the TIF, but none of this stuff that he is doing, is doing a damn thing. Does he have a calculator?

5WT, Paine and this editor are still burned up that they see Park Ridge taxpayers seeing wtf is going on here. WE chose a new park. WE are happy Centennial Pool is being replaced with a nicer facility. So now, the old crotchety folks move to shut down the library as much as they can. If you think $85 – $100 per year on my tax bill is going to upset me, when the whole city gets a new park, then YOU have a confused outlook on what OPM is. As a community, we want an open library, functioning pools and salted streets, along with a beautiful new park.

Call me radical.

The fact that there has to be an election (referendum) to fund the library just shows how small and impotent our CITY elected officials have become. This will be the first election the Mayor loses. What a waste of time and resources.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Want to prove just how “radical” you are, “CW”? Show up at Monday night’s City Council meeting (7:00 p.m., 505 Butler Place) and tell those “small and impotent…CITY elected officials” to raise property taxes to cover the multi-million TIF deficits, the $100 million-plus of flood remediation, full funding of the Library, etc.

They would LOVE to hear from people like you, but for some strange reason they never do. So show up, and bring 04.05.14 @ 4:37 pm with you. Oh, wait, that’s you too.

Never mind.

Bob, we can argue this all day but I’ve hardly sat mute in every meeting, as your diatribe implies. Cherry picking certain discussions from the minutes where I didn’t reply to your inquiries must have taken a lot of effort on your part but is hardly proof of anything dishonest. But feel free to keep up the misinformation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Audra (I assume):

The Library Board keeps the most detailed meeting minutes of any of our local governmental bodies, a fact that I applaud – and which is why what you call my “diatribe” quotes directly from those meeting minutes, even citing the specific relevant pages. Sad, but not surprising, that you would call that “misinformation.”

There was no “cherry picking” because you sat mute during the relevant discussions, thereby providing no comments from which to “cherry pick” – unless you are implying that those minutes somehow excluded your statements on the relevant topics.

It’s not your silence that’s dishonest, but the revisionist history you’re trying to fabricate from that silence, from the silence of your allies concerning staff and hour cuts, and from their admissions about their reasons for closing summer Sundays.

CW, you are wrong about so many things, but I’ll stick to the last one. I will not “lose” this election, because the voters will have decided. That is a “win” for everyone. You don’t even know how I plan on voting. And don’t presume to know, because you don’t. As it turns out, I voted in favor of the Youth Campus referendum.

One other thing: it is difficult to do much about the TIF, because it involves mandatory bond payments and contractual obligations to other taxing bodies which were put in place 10 years ago. However, I can tell you that if we had not been cutting expenditures over the past few years, we would likely already be in default. I know that does not play into your theme, but it is fact.

p.s. I have lost an election before. I came in 6th out of 9 for Student Body President at New Trier East. I got over it.

The irony just freakin’ kills me!!!

For a term and a half I hear and you go on and on about the poor taxpayer as you make cuts (some I agreed with and some not).

Now it turns out YOU voted to raise my taxes. You went on about the 2.15 levy and it turns out voted to give much of what you “saved” me right back again.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The “irony” that “freakin’ kills” us is that you didn’t know that Mayor Dave and the Council voted in each of the last five years to raise your taxes – it was in all the papers, and discussed here repeatedly. Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your kazoo.

Dear CW: I assume you’re calling me out by referring to “5WT”, so here’s my response.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up parks when this is a library budget discussion.

As for the library, yes, of course I want “an open library” and I think my previous comment makes that clear.

Actually, the encouraging thing about this discussion is that everyone seems to agree that Park Ridge should have a library.

The only disagreement seems to over the level of funding, which has to be looked at in the context of the whole city budget.

That budget is stretched. As far as I can tell, all departments of city government suffer for it, not just the library.

CW, you said in your comment that, lamentably, “there has to be an election (referendum) to fund the library.” From what I read in the local press (see link below), I don’t think that’s true. No one has suggested whether we should publicly fund the library; the referendum being discussed would decide the level to which the library is funded, i.e., via an additional property tax.

http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/libraryref-PRA-04102014:article

EDITOR’S NOTE: Correct, FWT. The Library gets its current $3.7 million in funding almost exclusively from property taxes, and will continue to do so. Whether it gets substantially more than that – the extra $400-500,000+ that it wants – will likely depend on the voters in November, because the Council already has said that it is not planning to raise the Library’s levy or provide additional funding.

Mr. Mayor, you said to a commenter that he/she doesn’t know which way you are going to vote on the referendum. What?! Why the implication that you might vote yes? What kind of game are you playing? You deny the library’s levy requests yet you may vote yes to a referendum? That makes no sense, unless you’re trying to play both sides of the fence. What a joke.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Is the concept of letting the taxpayers decide, via referendum, whether they want to pay more taxes for the Library than the mayor and the Council believe those taxpayers want to pay, foreign to you, or simply beyond your ken?

CW, it’s less a matter of being “brainwashed” and more a matter of being convinced by the 85-page Kane McKenna TIF report, which you might want to read. It contains a good amount of logic and fact, such as:

“In the absence of new redevelopment projects or a more robust growth rate in valuations,the City will need to coordinate review of a “TIF” based action plan in conjunction with the broader fiscal management and debt management policies as well. Careful monitoring of the revenue flows as well as cooperation between the taxing districts offer the potential to address some of the imbalance but difficult decisions will be required from a fiscal management perspective…”

( http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Events/2013%2001%20Kane%20McKenna%20Uptown%20TIF%20District%20Review%20Plan%20(revised%20final).pdf )

Your idea that the Mayor/government controls the housing market in town and prevents new houses from being constructed is so absurd as to sound paranoid. It’s also easily disprovable with a quick drive down Ashland between Sibley and Elm.

Also your logic about closing the library on Sundays not even being “change on the TIF” is totally wrong. The projected losses on the TIF in 2014 are just under $1.5 million for the year, while the library’s budget for that year is a few thousand dollars under $3.7 million. So it turns out that any money cut from the library’s budget will actually be a much larger % of the total when applied to the TIF.

Finally if you think $1 for using a computer at the library is INSANE, wait until you try and use the services at the new park you voted for. I can guarantee they won’t be free, unless you intend to merely park and walk around the perimeter: http://www.prparks.org/sites/default/files/youth_campus_-_operating_budget.pdf

May I ask CW what the hell ever gave you the silly idea that Mayor Schmidt wants to keep the town old a broke? Especially old.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You mean besides his efforts to balance the budget, eliminate deficits from operations (i.e., the General Fund), and build up reserves to the recommended level so that the rating agencies won’t further downgrade the City’s credit rating?

CW-Not everyone who opposes the financially irresponsible building of an $8,000,000 waterpark or a $13,200,000 park is old and crotchety. Call us fiscally responsible.

The new park that will cost all of Park Ridge taxpayers money but will only financially benefit a few and the new waterpark are both money losers and will always need to be subsidized by the PR taxpayer. But the taxpayers did not get to vote on whether or not $8,000,000 taxpayer dollars should be spent on a limited use asset. And the PRPD used some questionable tactics to get the $13,200,000 referendum passed for the YC park-which will also lose money annually and need to be subsidized by the taxpayers beyond the $85 – $100 per year we are already scheduled to be hit with.

Thank goodness someone at city hall is paying attention to how the city’s allocated tax dollars are being spent and thinking of the strain the ever increasing real estate tax bills are putting on many families in Park Ridge. Too bad the PRPD is not more fiscally responsible.

There is no reason whatsoever that the library shouldn’t be charging fees for some of its programs if that would generate revenue from those who actually use the services. Is a $1 for a DVD or an hour on the internet really that outrageous?

If the library does go to referendum to ask for an increase in funding from the taxpayers, hire Gayle Mountcastle and Mel Thillens to lobby the taxpayers. They may be able to fool the taxpayers a second time.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We would once again emphasize the difference between Youth Campus Park and the Centennial Water Park: the former went to referendum so the taxpayers got their say, unlike the latter where the Park Board arrogantly and cowardly kept that vote away from the taxpayers because the Park Board: (a) knew what the taxpayers wanted (arrogance); and (b) were afraid of losing that referendum, or winning that one but then losing the Youth Campus Park referendum because the taxpayers would have figured they already had given the Park District enough money (cowardice).

Would this referendum be to only fund the library to keep Sun open, or would other “wish list” items be conjoined with Sun openings funding?

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the summer Sundays would cost only about $20,000. The referendum would be to fund at least the $450K in above-statutory funding the City had previously been providing the Library, but stopped as part of the City’s efforts to end deficit spending and stablilize its General Fund balance. It will be up to the Library to determine if it wants/needs more than that to do what it wants to do over the next 3-5 years the levy increase being discussed would last.

So, in order to get $60,000 the Library wants to get a levy for most of a half a million dollars and they’re holding Sunday openings hostage to get it.

And some people don’t see a problen with that?

And CW and others are so willing to get a tax bill increase, but won’t pay a $1 for movies or computer usage.

No wonder our finances are such a mess.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the Library wants $450K (or more) to replace the $450K they used to get as a special additional levy from the City back in the day when $1 million deficits were commonplace and the City’s General Fund had to borrow money from the special Sewer Fund just to make payroll.

Summer Sundays are being held hostage for approx. $20,000, which could have been paid for by: (a) charging $1 for computer usage; (b) charging $1 for program and movie attendance; or (c) deferring raises for Library employees. There are probably other ways as well, but since the Library Staff and the Board majority want summer Sunday closings in order to bring pressure on the Council to give the Library additional funding, they didn’t even come up with (a), (b) or (c), much less the referendum or any other ideas.

5WT, Paine, & Anons, Without the hyperbole, here’s my problem with the pattern in town.

I think there is a segment so fed up with Illinois and Federal Government (as they should be) that they focus their anger where it shouldn’t be, which is our city and parks.

Locally, your voice is heard. Corruption is very limited, if at all. Changes are very tangible. Please think to the future of the city. There are investments that need to be made in the parks and city. Of course there is waste and changes that need to be constantly monitored. However, it’s disturbing to see the focus of so many for everyone to live on an island with a completely selfish view of LOCAL government.

10 years, 20 years from now, Youth Campus Park, will just be a park. The city will have done the almost impossible…create more space instead of mini-mansions, apartments and condos!

Same goes for the library but in the other direction. As we force the library to be a revenue producer, what are we losing in the process? I think we lose the whole point of the library. A place to go for all ages that is primarily focused on a free local outlet for education that we all chip in for.

Keep in mind, these library workers are not pensioned 9-month a year teachers making $125,000 a year to teach 3rd grade art class. They are mostly hourly employees.

For the record, I haven’t stepped in the library for at least a year, maybe 2 or 3. However, I recognize it’s a positive place in the center of our city that should be celebrated, not slashed. Yes, $450,000 on that budget is slashing.

I advise anyone involved to look at their total tax bills and focus their anger where it should be. The city takes such a small amount of money out of our bill comparatively. Look at 64, 207 on your property tax bill. Or your raised state income taxes. Those are places to focus your anger. That’s where your money is going. I want a nice city. We live in Park Ridge and there is pride here in rhetoric, but lately not in action.

As we can see from the many comments above (including mine), this is very high profile issue. But when you look at the dollars involved, it shouldn’t be.

Lastly, to Mayor Dave: Thank you for your response. But if you are for funding the library, then please use your voice to advocate for funding. You won two elections, so these are things that we are looking for you to be our voice for. We do not need a referendum for $60,000 or even $450,000 on this matter.

My last two cents on the issue, but thought I’d clear up my thoughts since I was mentioned several times above.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “[S]elfish view[s] of LOCAL government” come in a variety of forms.

Folks like you see it in the taxpayers who don’t want to pay for more government and/or government amenities. We see it in the people who demand more government and/or government amenities, but only so long as EVERYBODY has to pay for them – in order to subsidize, if not cover entirely, the cost of the usage.

Whether or not one agrees with Youth Campus Park, the taxpayers did vote for it – even though the Park Board had no choice but to go to referendum after having burned all its non-referendum bonding power on the Centennial water park. So that’s that, at least for now.

If the taxpayers want the Library to get an extra $450k a year, or an extra $1 million for that matter, that’s their choice and that will be that, too.

Except for folks like you, “CW,” who don’t want to risk the taxpayers telling them “no” and, therefore, don’t want those taxpayers do get a vote on a $450K (or more) tax levy increase that the Library says it needs and that the taxpayers want, but that the Council will not provide for legitimately sound reasons.

“Holding Sundays hostage.” Talk about inflammatory and hyperbolic. Your insistence on portraying library personnel and your fellow board members as this scheming, evil cabal is laughable. Or pathetic, I’m not sure. I’m no expert on libraries but it seems to me that computer/internet access is a basic service in this day and age. Maybe people are resistant to paying extra for them not just because they already have paid for them via their taxes but also because that’s not what libraries do. Is there another library around here charging for computers? I highly doubt it. If you want to fundamentally alter and redefine the concept of a public library, that’s fine. But don’t be surprised, defensive and/or angry when the vast majority doesn’t embrace such a fringe notion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s exactly what it is, and what the senior Staff and Board majority intended it to be.

I used the $60,000 to represent 3 of the 3-5 yrs that the addtional levy would cover at the minimum. I perfectly well understand your points on every issue, whether or not I support all of your choices on the facts (NOTE “FACTS” READERS) you disclose.

But I’ve been following this (silently) for a week and THESE PEOPLE!!!

It’s bad enough when the politicians and special interests play politics. But when the public (who never takes to time to understand government, the facts, the paries involved and , above all, the rights afforded to “the people” on taxation that are guaranteed by the consitution – twarted those most of those rights have been by now) start playing politics.

So to all of these people on here that want to passionately argue about Sundays at the library, beautiful new parks, wonderful swimming pools, and – please lets not forget – water in basements, street repairs, empty stores and plots of land, etc, etc…, due to reduced funding (like every other city department) need to realize that with so many things wrong with the way we do governmental business on every level in this country, that you really need to start doing your research before you come on here spouting your noble and passionate views.

I know that sounds like boring stuff – facts and figures and all that But start with this: remind yourself that this country’s basic foundation started with “taxation without representation.” And if you think we adher to that founding princpal, then why is there no money in the pension funds in IL? Now we have a mayor and council that is fighting hard to preserve that right for us, the taxpayers of Park Ridge, and they are criticised for doing so? REALLY?

I would also advise googling something “problems with majority rule” and enlighten yourself on the principal that when major rules the minority get screwed. Do it if only to know how many greast thinking people in our times, some of which were the founding fathers of this country, felt about such principals – and others, like democracy itsel- which, by the way, many did not support.)

The library is holding closing Sundays hostage to sway public sympathy in getting their budget reinstated (over all the other cash-strapped city departments). They need $20,000 to keep Sundays open, but they want to push to get ALL THEIR FUNDING BACK. It’s scary how some of you people can’t see that. And, not to in any way demean you staffers (my hours were cut at my job and, believe me, it hurts alot), instead of pushing for the Library Board to take any of the suggested ways they could fund Sundays, you drink the Kool-aid and tramp on your own rights as a taxpayer, even if you don’t live here.

That’s all I have to say if anyone’s still reading this.

CW, you ask me to “focus my anger” where it belongs. I’m not angry. All of my comments have been dispassionate.

Yes, I have commented often on this blog about public spending, including, as you suggest, the school districts.

Everything local adds up to a great big property tax bill I have to pay twice a year, and I’m allowed to express an opinion.

In the case of this library discussion, please go back and read my comments of yesterday 4/10 at 11:49 a.m.

Then let me know if you think I’m angry, or just trying to get the facts straight.

I have a friend that works at the library, and your blog breaks my heart. You are making the kind of blanket statements that are a huge issue in our society.
The entire staff is not happy about these changes, and making such a generalization, you look very uninformed, and uncaring.
I would suggest that if you’re going to lead a witch hunt, that you at least get your facts straight. Maybe you should get a clue what articles like this do for morale around your library.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Please advise what “facts” we don’t have “straight.”

For the record, once again, even before the idea of closing on summer Sundays was floated BY SENIOR STAFF I argued for user fees “as opposed to cutting personnel”; or, alternatively, for a referendum “if there truly is community-wide support for the Library” that the Staff and Board majority insisted there was. See November 19, 2013 Board meeting minutes, at Page 5. Needless to say, the Board majority REJECTED those suggestion.

So maybe you are the one who needs to “get a clue” about who cares for the Library and its personnel, and who more concerned about playing political games with the City Council.

I have a clue. You skirted the point I made, as you have with the majority of these posts. No one is blind to it. You are name calling the staff member who addressed you “stupid”. You represent your CITY, and the LIBRARY. Is that the typical tactic of someone in your position? Name calling for having a differing opinion. The staff is in crisis. THAT should be your concern. After all you are representative of the library. Correct? Sadly, you don’t give a tinker’s damn about how many people you hurt making your point, you just want to have the loudest voice. In the end, you have to live with yourself as a human being, and I feel sorry for you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “point” did you make that I “skirted”?

As Forrest Gump so aptly stated: “Stupid is as stupid does.” I just calls ’em as I sees ’em.

That the “staff is in crisis” is, and should be, the “concern” of the highly-paid executive Staff who are paid to manage that staff. Except that executive Staff is too busy playing politics and MANUFACTURING the “crisis” so that it can blame it on the Mayor and City Council whom the taxpayers elected and/or re-elected – and who get paid a damn sight less, cumulatively, about 15% – that’s right, 15%, CUMULATIVELY – what the Library director makes.

And if you, Mr./Ms. “anonymous” who doesn’t have the courage to even identify yourself, needs to “feel sorry” for anybody, look in the mirror. And if/when you get past that oh-woe-is-me self-absorption, feel sorry for the Library personnel who are losing their jobs or losing their pay because of inept, wrong-headed and politically-obsessed Library management by senior Staff and Board majority who would rather put Library employees out of work so they can blame City Hall, than charge people a measly $1 for a computer use or a program/movie.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Please advise what “facts” we don’t have “straight.”
For the record, once again, even before the idea of closing on summer Sundays was floated BY SENIOR STAFF I argued for user fees “as opposed to cutting personnel”; or, alternatively, for a referendum “if there truly is community-wide support for the Library” that the Staff and Board majority insisted there was. See November 19, 2013 Board meeting minutes, at Page 5. Needless to say, the Board majority REJECTED those suggestions.
So maybe you are the one who needs to “get a clue” about who cares for the Library and its personnel, and who more concerned about playing political games with the City Council.
Here are the “facts” you don’t have “straight”.

According to the March 18, 2014 Library Board Minutes,

“Mr. Trizna stated he is sure that if he were to compare the last four years of statistics he would be correct that he doesn’t see the logic in closing on Sundays, on what appears to be the busiest day of the week. Mr. Egan asked Mr. Trizna if he is suggesting the Board bring the matter back to a vote, to which Mr. Trizna said, “no, I can count heads”.“

So, you have the opportunity to revoice your objections, make an argument, revote on it, and you turn it down. Hmmmm…

Further, as for library fees, also from the March 18, 2014 Board minutes,

“Mrs. Van De Carr replied that last November during the budgeting process, the Board asked her and Library staff to come up with a list of possible new revenue sources. She provided the Board with a chart of estimated revenues from charging program fees, charging for computer use, and charging non-residents for borrowing DVDs. All these items were based on suggestions from the Board. The total estimated revenue for charging for these combined items was approximately $10,000 and the Board approved going forward with charging for these items. Mrs. Van De Carr noted the only item not implemented thus far is that of charging non-residents $1 for borrowing DVDs because she is still awaiting a reply from the Illinois State Library regarding whether or not, in their opinion, the PRPL can charge non-residents to borrow materials that residents aren’t also charged a fee to borrow.”

And as for charging for movies…..

“Mr. Trizna had a question regarding the Planning & Operations Committee minutes, regarding the statement “licensing agreements prohibit charging for films; libraries get special pricing for the license to show movies” and asked what special pricing the Library receives. Mrs. Van De Carr stated that she had spoken with the licensing company, and they said they will have to know the exact number of films and attendees but that the licensing fee to the Library is significantly less if it doesn’t charge people to see the film.

And, when the topic of referendum was brought up, NOT ONE PERSON objected to it. They merely discussed the best course in going forward with it. Who they would need to talk to, procedures, and the wording of it, and any statutes and limitations involved.

“Mr. Trizna again raised the issue that the Trustees should discuss going to referendum, and making sure to state in the referendum if the Library would want to generate a certain amount of revenue, what amount of increase to annual property tax dollars that would mean to each household with a home value of $x – like they do with the Youth Campus and Park District referendums. These would be informative to the taxpayers, instead of the Library just stating the cuts to its budget. Mr. Schmidt asked who would draw up the question for a referendum if the Board decided to do so and what is the procedure? Mrs. Van De Carr replied that it would be prudent to converse with a consultant and then they would have to go to the City Council for permission to do it, and then the question would have to be drafted, such as, “should the Library levy be increased to $x” and there are limitations to what can and cannot be included in the question.” And, “Mrs. Van De Carr stated that you have to be very careful when asking about funding to assure that the question is worded correctly. Mr. Trizna said there are limited statutory restrictions to composing referendum questions.”

Now please explain to me, exactly where did the Board REJECT your suggestions?

And while your at it, maybe explain who’s really playing games here?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Those suggestions were rejected in the November 2013, December 2013, January 2014 and February 2014 meeting Minutes, as previously noted.

In fact, the only point that you are correct on is my decision not to ask for a re-vote on closing summer Sundays after the Board majority had endorsed those closings in each of the three prior months and I could “count heads” to know the outcome of such a re-vote. And guess what: none of those “heads” chose to ask for a re-vote, either. Q.E.D.

But at least you’ve started reading the meeting minutes, so you’ve taken the first step out of total ignorance. Now if you’d just read the minutes from November through February you might be able to answer your own question about “who’s really playing games here?” – although I’m pretty sure you won’t like the answer.

I think the point is that although the initial suggestions may have been rejected, after more discussion they were eventually implemented. And yes, any other board member COULD have called for a revote, but my point is that YOU had the opportunity, and didn’t.

EDITO’S NOTE: I have no idea what you are reading (or smoking), but NONE of the things I suggested – not the $1 computer usage fee, not the $1 program/movie fee, not the referendum, not putting more complete information in the FAQs – has been implemented. That’s okay from the standpoint of that’s how majority rule works, so long as the majority (and executive staff) accept accountability for those decisions.

Fortunately, in view of the Library’s reluctance the City Council has decided to take up the referendum idea itself, so the Library director and Board majority will either have to hop on board that train or be left at the station.

Mr. Trizna, Please take my question(s) in the manner intended (not personal) for I realize you seem to be on the proverbial “hot seat”. (1) you were appointed to the park district – correct ? (2) you were appointed to the library board – correct ? (3) you have received 0 compensation – correct ?. (4) you are a proponent of the classic – Andrew Carnegie – public library structure and funding model (5) your background is financial, e.g.: cost accounting, cash flow analysis, business entity models / restructure(s) , valuations, management, management teams, modernization and/or revenue “non-profit” consultants, ? (6) In your opinion, it this post purely about the sunday closing or other under lining problems (7) what is your overall statement of position ? I a park ridge tax payer, seem to have lost site of the issues here… I am seeing finger pointing but zero resolutions…. I am seeing reductions in people and services. I am also seeing “politics” which do not introduce solutions to the problem at hand. (8) again what is your statement of position (9) what can the staff do to help in your opinion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 1. No, I was elected to the Park Board twice: in 1997 and in 2001.

9. This is not a “staff” problem.