Not all that long ago the Park Ridge Library Board of Trustees was the sleepy backwater of local public service.
Trustees quietly and consistently rubber-stamped pretty much anything and everything the Library’s senior staff recommended. Rather than actively manage the Library and its collection, the trustees and staff passively let socio-economic conditions – e.g., the 2007-09 recession and the 2010-present “recovery” – do the managing.
Consequently, as recently as 2012-13 it was a notable event when any reporter from one of our local newspapers – either the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate or the Park Ridge Journal – attended the regular monthly Library Board meeting. And it was almost a portent of Armageddon when one of those reporters attended a “lowly” Library Board committee meeting.
Even getting a three-year appointment to the Board tended to be fairly quiet and uneventful.
Boy oh boy, has that ever changed.
Starting around the Fall of 2013 the Library Board suddenly became the focus of all sorts of attention. Regular meetings that were lucky to draw a couple of residents started drawing 5, 10, 20 or more.
Not only did one, and sometimes two, reporters start showing up at every regular Board meeting, but the H-A reporter began adding committee meetings to her appointed rounds. And once the Board adopted the Committee Of the Whole structure – where all committee meetings were held on one night instead of two – she became a virtual fixture at those COWs.
Tonight the Mayor’s Advisory Board begins the process of selecting nominees for the three seats whose terms are expiring this summer. There are eleven applicants – a record (?) – for those three vacancies, including the three trustees currently holding those seats: Joseph Egan, Char Foss-Eggemann and Jerome White. The challengers are: Kim Biederman, Karen Bennett Burkum, Marcin Grochola, Stephen Kahnert, Josh Kiem, William McGuire, Mary Wynn Ryan and Herbert Zuegel.
The applications for all 11 of them can be found here .
These applicants will be interviewed by the Mayor’s Advisory Board, comprised of the four City Council committee chairs: Ald. Dan Knight (Finance), Ald. Marc Mazzuca (Procedures & Regulation), Ald. Nick Milissis (Public Safety) and Ald. Roger Shubert (Public Works). The aldermen will recommend three nominees to Acting Mayor Marty Maloney, who can either accept or reject each of them. Any nominees Maloney accepts them will be voted on by the full Council, with a simple majority needed for approval.
While a few of the usual social media suspects have rattled their balsa-wood sabers over the past few months about monitoring this year’s selection process to ensure who knows what, it was left to former Library board member Dick Van Metre to make the first overt attempt to directly influence the selection process – which he did at last Monday’s Council meeting.
Van Metre is Park Ridge’s version of Bernie Sanders. He seems to share Weekend at Bernie’s view that government is the answer to every socio-economic question, with the highest and best use of private funds being the payment of taxes so that government can grow bigger – and do more “free” things and provide more “free” stuff – even for people who could afford to pay but just don’t want to.
As can be seen and heard from 25:45 to 35:54 of last week’s meeting video, Van Metre claims to be speaking for the “vast majority of the people who voted for [the November 2014 Library referendum]” and for “the citizens of Park Ridge [who] have no leverage with the Library Board.”
SPOILER ALERT: Van Metre mentions my name several times, never favorably. That’s probably because we often clashed when he and I served together on the Library Board in 2011-12; and because our respective views of government are substantially different – as evidenced by three of this blog’s posts (03.03.08, 04.25.08 and 07.18.08) going back to 2008.
Early on in the meeting video, Van Metre proclaims how he was part of a group that “put an awful lot of time and effort into the Library referendum” before ripping into un-named more-reccently appointed Library Board members “who seem to take the passage of the Library referendum as something of an insult.”
The delicious irony of that criticism is that there never even would have been a referendum – which raised $4 million of extra property tax revenue for the Library over four years – if it had been left up to Van Metre and his cronies still on the Board from 2011 through 2014: John Benka, Audra Ebling, Margaret Harrison, Dorothy Hynous. John Schmidt and Jerry White. Or to Director Janet Van De Carr. Their preferred way of solving the Library’s funding shortage was to beef and moan about “the guys across the street” (i.e., then-mayor Dave Schmidt and the City Council) for cutting the City’s discretionary/supplemental Library funding in order to meet the growing burden of the Uptown TIF debt.
So when I, supported by Board members Egan and Foss-Eggemann, proposed a funding referendum question for the November 2014 ballot, Van Metre’s crony-majority rejected it – with not one complaint from Van Metre, naturally. But Mayor Dave and the Council respected the taxpayers enough to give them the chance to vote on a higher tax levy for the Library. And those voters came through.
Which is how Van Metre was able to become the crowing rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
Van Metre goes on to say, again grandiosely speaking for some nebulous constituency, that “[w]e want our Library back,” which he goes on to explain as being the Library “as it has been.”
Although he offered no real details on those points, we assume he means the Library as overseen by those previous bobble-head, rubber-stamp boards whose members couldn’t stop themselves from deficit spending by hundreds of thousands of dollars even after the Council told them no addtional funding would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. That’s the same Library whose board, despite all its deficit spending, nevertheless neglected replacement of the Library’s roof and windows until the leaks began causing interior issues.
That must also be the same Library whose board, despite being chronically short of funds, insisted on keeping the Food For Fines program that enabled Board members and staff to enhance their self-esteem by giving away thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars in forgiveness of book and material fines. And it’s certainly the same Library whose board preferred closing its doors on summer Sundays in 2014 so that it could give $20,000 of raises to some of its 90+ employees. Van Metre – who insists he’s the champion of “the people’s Library” – said nary a word about that closing even though “the people” got stiffed for one of only two weekend Library days.
He apparently also isn’t too enthused over the current Board’s pursuit of the first significant reconfiguration and renovation to the Library’s interior space in a couple of decades, a project intended to bring the building more in tune with current user needs and to attract the one-third of our residents who don’t even hold a Library card – or the almost two-thirds of our residents who don’t regularly use the Library at all.
And he clearly wants to return to days of yore when unidentified and un-regulated private tutors could run their for-profit businesses out of the Library while letting the taxpayers cover their overhead costs.
I repeatedly have challenged Van Metre – assuming he truly believes that a majority of taxpayers agree with his characterization of the new business/tutor policy as a way to “extort money from the people who were using the Library for tutoring” – to ask the City Council to put a policy repeal referendum question on the November ballot, or to collect the signatures needed to put such a question on the ballot by direct citizen action.
He didn’t ask the Council to do that last Monday night, and don’t hold your breath waiting for Van Metre or his fellow travelers to do that between now and the mid-summer deadline for such citizen initiatives.
That’s because, despite how they regularly invoke “the people” and claim to speak for a majority of them, their dirty little secret is that they are anti-democratic elitists who seem to view “the people” as rabble who can’t be trusted to vote on what they want and, more importantly, what they are willing to be taxed for. So instead of referendums where the questions can be debated, and support and opposition can be objectively measured, they anoint themselves as “the people’s” spokespersons. And they occasionally float some bogus “Survey Monkey” or “Change.Org.” survey question with for support.
At the close of Van Metre’s 10-minute spiel last Monday night, he had a semi-ominous warning for the Council:
“I and…some other people will be paying attention to what transpires from here on [regarding the Library Board appointment process]. If you continue to appoint allies of Bob Trizna to the Board, then we will have to conclude that you approve of the changes in the Library that he wishes to make and is slowly making.”
We’re pretty sure Van Metre is aware of the famous Santayana quote: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
For Van Metre and his allies, being condemned to repeat the Library’s irresponsible past is their paramount goal.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and publisher
Member, Park Ridge Library Board
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the Editor in that capacity, and not in his capacity as Library Trustee. None of these opinions should be viewed as representing those of the Library, its Board, its staff, or any other Trustees.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
Blah, blah, blah. As usual you’re twisting the facts to suit your agenda. Acting as if you’re some noble protector of the residents’ pocketbooks just because you and the late Mayor Schmidt deemed the library to be obsolete and its employees unworthy of respect. Your proposed referendum really backfired on you by actually passing and that’s clearly the driving force behind your continued attempts to trash anyone who doesn’t agree with your small minded, fringe ideology.
EDITOR’S NOTE: More mush from the anonymous wimp who can’t accept that “the facts” don’t need “twisting” to fit comfortably into my “agenda” of improving the Library for the entire community, not just the freeloaders, the greedy and opportunistic tutors and their customers, and the staff who is just so darn dedicated to the Library’s patrons that they would rather see the Library closed on Sundays than not get their modest raises.
And, yes, the Library as currently configured IS “obsolete” for the purposes modern libraries are serving, which is why I proposed looking into the multi-million dollar reconfiguration/renovation currently being explored.
As for the Nov. 2014 referendum, I’ve always been in favor of letting the voters speak on major issues. And it neither surprises nor bothers me that it ticks off the precious likes of you.
Hey 5:30 pm: I am a regular user of the Library and what Trizna writes above seems to add up. He also seems to be figuring out ways to improve the Library without just throwing money at it. As a taxpayer and a Library user I appreciate that.
I’d like to understand your opinion but you never state one. You just accuse Trizna of twisting facts without specifying which ones. Let’s hear a real debate. State your case.
As a regular library user I applaud the city council for putting the referendum on the November 2014 ballot when the highest voter turnout could be expected. I also applaud this library board for getting rid of food for fines, re-opening the library on summer Sundays, and considering a renovation to bring the library into the 21st century.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Technically, it was the 2014-15 Board that got rid of the Food For Fines and re-opening the Library on Sundays mid-way through the summer of 2014, although six of the nine current Board members were also part of that 2014-15 Board.
5:30 pm sounds like a Bernie Van Metre disciple, or maybe a disciple of Carol “Queen of the Tutors” Vangazo (or is that Benghazi?).
I agree with 5th Ward Taxpayer about 5:30’s cheap shots at Trizna without any facts. And it should come as no shock, judging from my occasional comments, that I see nothing “small minded” or “fringe” about the remarkably sane and frugal policies and practices Trizna and the current library board members are implementing to make the library better for everybody in our community.
Cheap shots? That’s Trizna’s MO, not mine. At the library director, the staff, the users whom he deems parasites. We don’t need a board member who disrespects the institution so blatantly while claiming he’s bettering it. It’s no secret the only reason he pushed a referendum is because he and his cronies were so smugly certain it would fail. It blew up in their faces, proving the community supported adequate funding for it. We don’t need a board member who seems even the simplest expenditures — or modest pay increase for staff — as fiscally irresponsible while at the same time crowing about spearheading a multi million dollar renovation. He’s playing games, as always. No way would he have supported the idea if the director had suggested it. And the he threatened to pull the plug simply because not enough people attended the architect’s presentations. I don’t think what he’s doing “adds up” or is “sane,” quite the opposite. I’m not advocating that the library be fiscally irresponsible just because I disagree with his methods and shenanigans. The nonsense he spews about the director and staff and past boards is just that, nonsense. He’s just angling for support for his, yes, small minded “vision” for the library’s role in the community. And apparently you folks buy it. Thankfully many more people do not.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor would love to debate all these points with you, face-to-face, preferably in a public forum like a Library Board meeting. But apparently you’re too much of a coward even to sign your name – which is typical of people holding such self-serving political and socio-economic views that they’re afraid to publicly own them.
What you call “cheap shots” are all fair comment about public figures BASED ON PROVABLE FACTS. What have you got instead?
Let’s start with your “it’s no secret,” which is reminiscent of former mayor Howard Frimark’s “a little bird told me”…which meant the next words out of his mouth were either false or a blatant lie.
FACT: Joe Egan, Char Foss-Eggemann and I wanted a levy-increase referendum, but neither the Director nor the rest of the Board did. Fortunately, the City Council stepped up and drove that bus.
FACT: I already am on record (in a spirited open-meeting discussion with Trustee White and Director Van De Carr at a COW a couple/few months ago) as believing the renovation should be done so well as to have a minimum 10 – 20 year life. Because that kind of project will cost substantially more than the $2 million of not-really-“surplus” 2014 referendum money (to which the Director is trying to limit it), the funding of that project should go to a referendum of its own.
FACT: The Director DIDN’T suggest the renovation, so who might have supported it is a moot point.
FACT: I didn’t “threaten to pull the plug” on anything: I asked whether we shouldn’t have MORE community outreach sessions since the ones we had were so poorly attended – in at least one instance because the Director or staff failed to check for conflicts and scheduled a community session on the same night a performance at the Pickwick packed the Library’s parking lot but not its meeting room.
FACT: The Director and the then-board majority chose to play politics by closing the Library summer Sundays in 2014 in order to use the money for pay raises and put pressure on the Council to give the Library more money. Fortunately, Trustees Lamb and Parisi were appointed; and they, along with Egan, Foss-Eggemann and I, re-opened the Library for the last month of the summer. A more detailed account of THOSE “shenanigans” by the Director and that old board – quoting from the actual Board meeting minutes – can be found in this blog’s 04.14.14 post.
So what else ya got?
Like his politics or not, since Trizna has been on the library board a new roof has been installed, the windows are being repaired or replaced, the wastefull food for fines program was discontinued, a $4 million referendum was passed, the board is looking at a major renovation, and somebody is actually paying attention to the library’s measurable performance after years of boards who have been asleep at the wheel. I’d say that’s good progress, which has gotten even better since the city council has appointed a majority of members who seem to share much of his philosophy and (especially Egan and Riordan) actually ask tough questions and demand answers. That is a positive reflection of the city council, and diametrically opposite to the school boards.
FACT: Your response proves my points. Each of your so-called “facts” is nothing but disingenuous posturing.
And to the poster who thinks library repairs were only completed thanks to Trizna’s diligence, think again. Those projects have been in the works for a long time and would have been completed whether or not he was on the board. As for measurable performance,” give me a break. Libraries don’t necessarily fit the types of metrics he’s trying to impose, mainly because he doesn’t understand how libraries should work. More posturing to convince you followers that something that wasn’t even broken need him to fix it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A “fact” is something that truly exists or happens, and has obective reality. Accordingly, by definition it cannot be “posturing” – “disingenuous” or otherwise.
Everything but God can be measured, even Library performance – except by people who don’t want the Library’s and their own performance measured other than by the “good enough for government work” standard.
It’s no surprise that the Dave Schmidt and post-Schmidt city councils have given us a library board in the council’s image. I, for one, am grateful for that. And I have to assume a majority of Park Ridge taxpayers are too, if judged by the fact that the two leaders of the Schmidt council (alds. Maloney and Knight) ran without opposition last year.Keep up the good work, aldermen.
As for the Nov. 2014 referendum, I’ve always been in favor of letting the voters speak on major issues. And it neither surprises nor bothers me that it ticks off the precious likes of you.
IF this were true you would have asked for a referendum on the tutor issue BEFORE passing a policy that obviously doesn’t have much support beyond the closed minded sheep co-board members that voted your way.
Instead you now challenge others to seek a referendum to undo what YOU did -guess you feared you’d lose big if you put it to referendum -you were wrong not only about how the library referendum would turn out but also about how the prospect park referendum would turn out.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A tutor policy isn’t even close to a “major issue,” Silly Drivel, except to 40-50 greedy tutors and their equally-greedy customers trying to beat the taxpayers out of $10/hour.
And now that most of them have moved on, guess what? Library attendance (at least by the inexact measure of door count) has increased. So that’s a win/win.
But apparently you’re too much of a coward even to sign your name – which is typical of people holding such self-serving political and socio-economic views that they’re afraid to publicly own them.
Doesn’t your statement above -if true-apply to BNONYMOUS and to 5th ward taxpayer? I didn’t see them sign their names. Guess they are “cowards” like the rest of us?
Or does licking your boots give them a free pass on the coward label cheap shot you take at those that call out your horse manure?
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Horse manure”? Ouch.
tutor policy isn’t even close to a “major issue,” Silly Drivel, except to 40-50 greedy tutors and their equally-greedy customers trying to beat the taxpayers out of $10/hour.
So why are you suggesting people waste taxpayer money putting it on a referendum to have it taken out? Hypocrisy?
Given that it drew more people to your meetings than most issues -doesn’t that make it a major issue in the eyes of those paying attention/interested? But I guess if those sting attention/interested don’t agree with you, the don’t matter? Right? That’s leadership!
EDITOR’S NOTE: “[W]aste taxpayer money”? Putting a referendum question on the ballot costs…wait for it…NOTHING.
Freeloaders and parasites ALWAYS show up when their greedy oxen are being gored. Meanwhile, it appears the average taxpayers realize they now have an honest, transparent, fiscally-responsible and accountable Library Board that will look out for their interests, and their Library, without them having to show up.
You’re welcome.
“Freeloaders and parasites……..” There you go again!! Why not also say they are “low energy”??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Because they aren’t “low energy.” In fact, when it comes to feeding at the public trough they are pretty high energy when it comes to defending their freeloading and/or parasitism.
Heck, most of them had never been to a Library Board meeting until the prospect of having their hours recorded (and, therefore, subject to audit via an IRS subpoena) and having to pay $10/hour energized them beyond all expectations. And when the policy passed, most of them energized themselves enough to leave.
So if referendum costs nothing in additional attorney fee to review or printing costs to the ballot – why weren’t you in favor of one for the tutor policy? Major issue or not a referendum would reveal if only those you defame as freelaoders are the ones against. Guess you were scared of the result?
EDITOR’S NOTE: It wouldn’t be a binding/levy referendum so it wouldn’t need attorney review to ensure the it complied with statutory requirements.
I’ve never advocated referendums for insignificant (except to the greedy freeloaders and parasites affected by the tutoring policy) decisions. And apparently the rest of the Board – even those three who voted “no” – felt similarly, since they didn’t propose a referendum. But I encourage you and your fellow freeloaders to ask the Council to put a repeal one on the November ballot and I’ll gladly live with the results.
We know you never advocated for it -because you feared the result.
But since you didn’t advocate for it -your challenge to those wanting it reversed to seek a referendum seems hypocritical at a minimum.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I just didn’t want to wait 11 months to stop all you freeloaders and parasites from your freeloading and parasitism. And because I’m on the Library Board with other thoughtful non-rubberstampers, I didn’t have to wait.
But I’m telling you in advance that I’ll accept the results of a repeal referendum because I have never “feared” any referendum result. So go get it on the ballot.
There isn’t a problem with charging tutoring fees to the tutor.
The problem is that the library should be charging a fee to customers that use the computers to conduct business (buying / selling on ebay, updating a resume, posting a resume, buying on amazon, writing a business proposal, researching a prospective company, etc.).
The library should charge a fee to all of the organizations that use the meeting rooms within the library.
The library should charge a fee to those using the rooms that are quieter than being out in the main part of the library.
The library should charge a service fee to those needing help with finding books or putting books on hold. If the person doesn’t know how to use a computer to hold or find books, they should charge a fee to teach them.
The library should charge the babysitter a fee for taking the kids to the library to keep them occupied with books, computers, trains, fish tanks, etc..
The library should charge a fee for waiting inside the library for Santa Claus when it is extremely cold out.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The real problem is idiots and their idiotic proposals. But even idiocy can be humorous, so please show up at the next Library Board COW on Tuesday, May 10, at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Board room on the third floor, and propose this nonsense to the Board for its consideration.
So charging tutors a fee to use the library is idiotic? I am glad you admit it! You heard it hear first, the tutoring fees was an idiotic proposal that should never have been past.
What is the difference between charging a fee to tutors versus charging an outside organization for using a library conference room?
Why is it more idiotic to charge a baby sitter who is getting paid who uses the library during that time with the kids different than charging a tutor who teaches?
Mr. Trizna, if I understand correctly you are an attorney by trade. I could be wrong about that, and it is not important. But if you were on the witness stand, you would be caught in a tangled web by your own admission. How are you going to rationalize your way out of this one?
What an idiotic proposal to you, is different from the idiotic proposals I made up. But you did agree that charging a fee for my proposals was no less idiotic than the one you voted for!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: You apparently aren’t capable of understanding your own comment, or distinguishing your proposals from your commentary on mine.
Read your previous comment again – don’t be embarrassed if you have to move your lips to aid your comprehension – and you will clearly see that your proposals, idiotic as they may be, start at the second paragraph and do not include charging a tutoring fee. So your attempted impeachment of me on the witness stand for an admission against interest or some sort of prior inconsistent statement(?) would be denied by the judge.
But please come to a meeting and demonstrate your idiocy in person, even if you already did so as one of the greedy freeloaders/parasites who spoke against the tutoring policy.
You thought my ideas of charging library users fees to use the library in specific circumstances was an idiotic proposal.
Therefore, the specific circumstance that is currently in effect of charging library users fees, specifically tutors, is also, henceforth, idiotic.
I would never impeach you on the witness stand for an admission against interest, you have already done that to yourself!
The judge, if he wasn’t corrupt, would overrule your denial. Why? Because you can’t handle the truth! What is the truth? If you can’t charge a fee to an outside organization for using a meeting room at the library, also known as renting space, to you an idiotic proposal, charging a fee against tutors is also “idiotic”. If you can’t charge a fee when the baby sitter takes the kids to the library, the baby sitter is getting paid, because it is idiotic, so is charging a fee to tutors.
I will be interested in your response, but I will not comment any further on this post. I have to drop off my kids to the library to hang out with the baby sitter for the next couple of hours. Oh, and I am paying the baby sitter, but I am not paying the library, imagine that!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you’re so proud of your idiotic ideas, I look forward to seeing you on May 10th. Bring Silly Drivel with you – I’m sure you know each other, and you can take turns dazzling us Library Board folks with your shared brilliance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, I just didn’t want to wait 11 months to stop all you freeloaders and parasites from your freeloading and parasitism. And because I’m on the Library Board with other thoughtful non-rubberstampers, I didn’t have to wait.
But I’m telling you in advance that I’ll accept the results of a repeal referendum because I have never “feared” any referendum result. So go get it on the ballot.
Easy to say you didn’t fear referendum after you already convinced your sheep co-board yes voters. Maybe those against your idiotic policy don’t want to wait months either to get a repeal in the ballot. Instead we can “vote” the bumbs out -or encourage appointment of better board members. Hopefully the mayor (now that many have stepped up and applied -guess your bone headed idea did some food by encouraging several to apply for the upcoming renewal spots on library board) will appoint some independent thinkers and not those that lick your boots and fall into your trance of stupidity.
You did fear the referendum -especially since the last to referendums went the exact opposite of what you wanted/thought would happen. You and your zombie followers in the board should go. I think we could survive the evils of a few tutors using space not otherwise utilized anyways -big (sarcastic) accomplishment dog. What next -kick a few kittens on your way home?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mixing gin and commenting doesn’t seem to be working for you.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>