Time for the ‘Dog to offer a few shout-outs to the “locals” who deserve them:

To John Heyde and the District 64 School Board…for hiding in closed session while they interviewed candidates to replace departing board member Russ Gentile.  What’s so secret about those interviews that you folks have to go Star Chamber on us? 

To Don Bach…for his out-of-the-blue announcement at Monday night’s City Council meeting that he won’t run for re-election as 3rd Ward aldermen because of the success of his business.  Sounds like a win/win to us.  

To Five Guys and Romano’s…for opening their doors in spaces that have not had the best rate of success.  We sure hope they succeed, because Park Ridge needs both their tax revenue and their contributions to achieving the kind of economic “critical mass” for Uptown that Edison Park enjoys - assuming that’s the kind of “vibrant” Uptown a majority of Park Ridge residents want.

To the Private Community Groups…most of whom appear to have received more in “donations” of taxpayer funds from 4 (or 5) aldermen Monday night then they get from the 37,000 taxpayers themselves during the rest of the year.  Hey, folks…have you stopped to think why that might be?

To the Seniors from the Senior Center…who got a $32,500 handout (the second biggest amount) from the Council even though their “club” (Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.) had $114,000 on hand as of year-end 2008 (per their latest GuideStar Form 990-EZ) and they only pay $35 a year in dues for the use of that nifty clubhouse that cost the taxpayers $190,000+ last year alone.  Great job feeding at the public trough, seniors! 

To City Manager Jim Hock…for getting away with a 1st quarter financial report that provides a bunch of numbers without actually answering the questions: “Do we currently have an operating surplus or a deficit; and how much?” and “Do we currently have a surplus or a deficit measured against the budget; and how much?”  Or did we just miss it?

To Acting City Finance Director Linda Lazzara…for warning of another possible year-end deficit if the current trend continues.  That probably didn’t add to her boss’ comfort level but, assuming it’s an accurate analysis, it’s a refreshing bit of candor from City Hall.

To Ald. Jim Allegretti…for proving that the Council can make fiscally irresponsible decisions without him.

To Ald. Rich DiPietro…for proving that politics means more to him than principle, by voting for something (certain of the community group handouts) he says he’s against just to pass it so the mayor can veto it.   

And, last but not least, to Taste Inc.’s Albert Galus…for not producing the “final number” (whatever that means) for this year’s Taste of Park Ridge that he told the Park Ridge Journal he would have six weeks ago.  Hey, Albert…did you guys net another $65K from this year’s event?  And what are you planning to do with all that cash now that you changed your status so you can use it for lobbying and running political campaigns?      

What does Ald. Robert Ryan know that the rest of us don’t?

We can’t help but wonder upon reading this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Debate to resume on parking lot purchase,” July 28), which describes Ryan’s continuing effort to get the City Council’s endorsement of his plan to spend $700,000+ of scarce City funds to buy the Scharringhausen parking lot that the City has been renting for around $20,000 a year. 

We also wonder if Ryan’s concept of sound municipal finance really is: “Hey, why spend $20,000 a year renting a lot when we can spend $700,000+ to own it” - especially when (according to an analysis by City staff) it generates only $22,800 in annual commuter parking fees? 

Frankly, we thought this was just a typical ”insider” deal, where an established Park Ridge community member (Scharringhausen) cashes out long-term R.E. investment (Fairview lot) through connected R.E. broker (Owen Hayes II), who enlists the aid of a friendly elected official (Ald. Ryan, whose campaign treasurer was Hayes).

But it sounds like Ryan may have bigger plans than just a one-off property deal.  As the H-A reports, Ryan is talking about the Scharringhausen lot supporting “new development” within the surrounding Uptown area.  And he wants the City to spend some money on a “feasibility study” to determine whether a City-owned parking deck could fit on that site.

Unfortunately, that’s vintage Robert Ryan: Spend taxpayer money on a consultant to tell you how to spend even more taxpayer money and/or pile up public debt.  That’s why he may be the biggest, most consistent spendthrift on this Council.  And that’s saying a lot, give the drunken-sailor mentality of most of them.

For anbody who needs some help finding ”dots” to connect, you can start with Ryan’s strong advocacy for sinking public funds into Uptown Redevelopment when he served on the Uptown Advisory Task Force (“UATF”) a decade ago.  Before that, as a member of the District 64 School Board, he led the charge to borrow and spend around $15 million to knock down what was then the District’s newest school building (Emerson Jr. High) and build Emerson Middle School.

That expenditure and related debt service appears to have sent District 64 into a financial death spiral that put it on the brink of the State Board of Education’s taking over its finances, until the District snuck through $5 million of “working cash” non-referendum (”back-door”) bonds as a band-aid measure in 2005, and followed that up with its big tax increase referendum in 2007.

We’ve seen what Ryan can do with the taxpayers’ money, so we think it’s time to see what Ryan can do with his own money.

If Ryan really wants to ensure that parking remains on the Scharringhausen property, he should buy the property himself and get into the parking business.  Or he could form a partnership with buddy Owen Hayes to do it.  That way, the taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill; and the property stays on the tax rolls.

Maybe they could get some of those behind-the-scenes land speculators we keep hearing about to invest in the deal.  They could all form an LLC to buy the lot and run it - which, fittingly enough, would support all that “new development” some of those same behind-the-scenes folks are reputedly looking to promote in and around Target Area 4.

If those land-speculation rumors are true, the speculators must be chomping at the bit by now to get some action on their TA-4 “investments” that were supposed to be short-term flip-jobs but have been languishing in this bad economy.

We don’t care whether Ryan is trying to help out some friends on a parking lot deal, or whether he’s trying to jump-start TA-4 - so long as it’s done with private money and/or debt instead of public funds.  That’s why we encourage Ryan and Hayes to pony up their own cash to do the deal.

“R & H Parking,” anyone?

Roughly one-third of our growing property tax bills goes to Park Ridge-Niles School District 64.  That’s a reason to pay attention to what’s going on with D-64, even if you don’t have kids enrolled in its schools.

In the past we have been critical of D-64’s unimpressive performance on the ISATs, noting that - as reported in the Chicago newspapers - D-64 schools are regularly outperformed by less affluent districts and/or those that spend less per student, on teachers, and on administrators.

But according to an article in last week’s Park Ridge Hearld-Advocate (“Kids not reaching ‘full-growth’ targets on standardized tests,” July 20), during the just-completed school year only 56.7% of D-64 students reached their “MAP” full-growth targets in reading; and only 57.2% reached their “MAP” full-growth targets in math. That’s down from 60.5% and 61.4%, respectively, for last year’s scores.

The MAP evaluation, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association (”NWEA”), appears to be the latest educational BFF of D-64 teachers and administrators, presumably because – unlike other tests – the MAPs are designed to measure a student’s educational growth against his/her past performance rather than against other standards.  Those test results also are used to set curriculum priorities.

NWEA is a not-for-profit corporation based in Oregon that claims to be “dedicated to helping kids live their dreams” (really, that’s on its website!).  Such dedication can be pretty lucrative, however, as NWEA booked over $54 million in revenues in 2008 (based on its latest IRS From 990 posted on GuideStar) - and its President/CEO made almost $400,000 that year.  Not too shabby for an organization not interested in “profit.”

But back to D-64’s MAP quest. 

Diane Betts, assistant supt. for student learning, is quoted as saying: “We’re a little disappointed that we slipped down.” 

And well you should be, Ms. Betts.  And so should be the people who pay the bill for it, because high-quality education is extremely important for the students, their parents, and the community as a whole (e.g., for the positive effect good schools have on property values).  

Betts went on to state that there is “some variance between buildings and teachers.”  Surprisingly (or maybe not), neither the H-A article nor anything we could find on the D-64 website identified those variances, buildings or teachers. 

When it comes to how our schools and teachers are performing their duties, there shouldn’t be any secrets.  Any “variance between buildings and teachers” should be explained, with those buildings and those teachers identified so that parents and community members can meaningfully address those variances at public meetings.  And so they can hold teachers and administrators accountable for them.

We can imagine the D-64 administrators and teachers union…uh, we mean the “Park Ridge Education Association”…howling about “rights to privacy” and a “lynch mob” mentality if such information were readily available.  To that, we say: “Too bad.”

If you want the security of a public paycheck, pension and benefits, then you owe those taxpayers accountability for what you do to earn them.  And that goes for teachers and adminstrators alike.

As we have noted before, it appears the price taxpayers of Park Ridge are paying for education signficantly exceeds the quality of the education the students are getting, at least based on standardized test scores like the ISATs.  And, so far, we have not heard any satisfactory explanation of that situation from either the administrators or the teachers.  Worse yet, our “representatives” on the D-64 School Board - Pat Fioretto, Russ Gentile, John Heyde, Sharon Lawson, Ted Smart, Genie Taddeo and Eric Uhlig - continue to be deafeningly silent.

Which is why we’re also troubled by Ms. Betts’ quote that “[t]he lofty 70-percent goals may not be realistic” for D-64.

Those “lofty” goals she is talking about are reportedly the student growth rates of NWEA’s claimed 3400+ “partner” school districts, the better performers of which have 70% of their students meet or exceed their average growth standards, whatever that really means.  So if one of our head educators thinks 70% - which is a “D-” in most school grading systems - is too “lofty” a goal for our students, it sounds like D-64 may have a “standards” problem.

Unimpresive ISAT scores are one thing, but how can D-64 get lost with a MAP?

Happy Independence Day! 

Although we have come to celebrate “Independence Day” on July 4th – the day that the Continental Congress approved the wording of the Declaration of Independence – the vote declaring independence from Great Britain actually occurred on July 2nd, 1776, when the Congress adopted the following resolution of independence on motion of Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: 

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation. 

This language was incorporated into the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which ends with those Congressional delegates pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the principles of independence.  And after approving that Declaration, those Congressional delegates went out and acted on those principles to build this great nation. 

That’s why, as we have done in the past, we mark these patriotic days with a call for Park Ridge residents to live their patriotism more fully by getting involved in local government. 

Sure, it’s easier to sit around with friends and beef and moan over coffee or stronger drink about what’s going on in Washington or in Springfield.  But rather than wringing your hands about those things, you can accomplish a lot more by rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in the governance of the City of Park Ridge, the Park Ridge Park District, and School Districts 64 and 207.  

And to bring home that point, we offer the following: 

“Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.”  Thomas Carlyle
 

“The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.” Justice Louis Brandeis
 

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”  Albert Einstein

On this Independence Day weekend, give some thought to what you can do to make our local governmental bodies better.  Nobody’s expecting you to pledge your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to that cause. 

Just pay closer attention, go to some meetings, and demand accountability from the people we elect to govern on our behalf.

Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits is at it again.

This week’s Park Ridge Journal carries another letter from Kenny B (“Council Must Stay At Seven,” April 21) arguing against restoring the City Council to the 14 alderman size it had for close to 100 years – before it was cut in half through a referendum initiated by former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark.

Although he would never admit it, we’re pretty certain that cutting the Council in half was Frimark’s strategy for making it easier to control City government: it’s easier to elect a 4-alderman majority than an 8-alderman one.  And Frimark was instrumental in recruiting and helping elect the current Council majority Alds. Jim Allegretti, Don Bach, Robert Ryan and Tom Carey in 2007 – another one of Frimark’s “gifts” to the City that keeps on giving – who, 2 years later, returned the favor by contributing over $3,200 to Frimark’s unsuccessful re-election campaign.

The central thrust of Balaskovits’ letter is his more-aldermen-mean-more-uncontested-elections spiel, which ignores the fact that the 14-member City Council produced more contested races in the past decade than the other three 7-member local governmental bodies (School District 207, School District 64, and the Park Ridge Park District) combined!  From 2001 through 2005 (the last election year for the 14-member City Council), the Council had 35 candidates for 21 seats, compared to 16 candidates for 12 seats on the Park Board, 13 candidates for 12 seats on the District 64 board, and 14 candidates for 11 seats on the District 207 board – and that’s including 2001, the last year of Homeowners Party domination, where 6 of the seven HOs ran uncontested.   

But Kenny B was never one to let facts get in the way of a totally bogus argument, especially one of his own.

Balaskovits warns readers of his letter: “Do not sign this petition and, if you have, make an effort to have your name removed.”  In other words, don’t let the matter even get on the ballot.

Frankly, we think a referendum on restoring the size of the City Council is worthy of voter consideration…certainly a lot more worthy than at least one of the 3 referenda proposed by Ald. Bach: Whether to reinstate the position of City Treasurer, which was a worthless one before it was eliminated in 2005 and has no realistic prospects for providing any greater value if reinstated.

So we applaud the restore-the-Council petition circulators for their efforts; and we encourage the voters to help them put this important issue on the November 2010 ballot. 

Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 School Board president John Heyde’s got a secret: He knows who the next District 64 superintendant is going to be, and he’s not telling.

Whether they are being arrogant, disrespectful, or just plain petty and juvenile, Heyde and his accomplices on the School Board (Pat Fioretto, Russ Gentile, Sharon Lawson, Ted Smart, Genie Taddeo and Eric Uhlig) have decided to play games with the taxpayers, as evidenced by District 64’s posting of “An Invitation from Board President John Heyde” [txt] to meet the “preferred candidate” that the School Board has chosen as the new superintendent to replace the retiring Sally Pryor.

The superintendent effectively is the chief executive officer of the District, the governmental body that consumes about one-third of our property tax revenue and is responsible for educating thousands of our children.  And as the District repeatedly reminds the taxpayers when it comes to us for more money, “the schools” are what keep Park Ridge property values high.

So why all the secrecy about the identity of the new superintendent and his/her bona fides?

Whether out of more arrogance, disrespect, or just plain petty juvenility, Heyde isn’t saying.  According to yesterday’s article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Board won’t share name of ‘preferred’ superintendent candidate,” April 6), all he is saying for the record is: “We’re not ready to let go of the candidate’s name and information yet.”

What are you hiding, Mr. Heyde?

Now that you and your Board have made your decision and have even visited the “preferred candidate’s” current school district, what’s there to conceal?  If you truly want feedback from the community before your hiring decision is finalized, why not get the name of that “preferred candidate” and that person’s credentials out to the entire community as soon as possible?   

Could it be, Mr. Heyde, that what you and your Board really want is a rubber-stamping of your decision from a relatively controlled group of community members – the kind of audience that you are more likely to get when you don’t announce the name and credentials of the “preferred candidate” in advance, and when you schedule a meet-and-greet for only one hour on only one night during a week when the local parochial schools are on Spring break?

Those parochial schools educate over 1,000 students whose parents pay taxes to the District, don’t use its services, but may well have something to say about the new superintendent and about the District as a whole.  But, then again, it may not be what Heyde and his Board want to hear.  So why take that chance?

Even if it weren’t parochial school Spring break week, one hour for “the community” to meet the “preferred candidate” and make any kind of informed decision about him/her that would yield useful feedback is, frankly, ridiculous.  It’s also a slap in the face of every one of the voters who, just three years ago, voted the District a huge tax increase to make up for the questionable financial management [pdf] that occurred for several years last decade, when Supt. Sally Pryor and School Board members Joe Baldi, Rich Brendza, Ares Dalianis, Christina Heyde, Ron James, Barb Jones, Marty Joyce, Dean Krone, Steve Latreille, Steve Lieber, Jane Meagher, Chris Mollett and Sue Runyon were at the helm.

So when Heyde and his Board play this kind of game about the identity and credentials of their choice for superintendent, we can’t be sure whether they are being arrogant, disrespectful or simply petty and juvenile.  But we do know they aren’t being open, honest and transparent.

Badly done, folks.

Every so often one of our public officials or a resident comes up with a really ridiculous proposal for one or another of our local governmental bodies.  Which is why today’s post is about the letter to the editor [pdf] in this week’s Park Ridge Journal from Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits (“Time To Adopt Village Form Of Government,” March 17) in opposition to a possible citizens’ referendum to restore the Park Ridge City Council to 14 members. 

Balaskovits not only opposes going back to 14 alderman from the 7 the City Council was reduced to in 2006, but he advocates changing Park Ridge from a city into a village, “with six to nine trustees, elected at large.” 

That may be the most cockamamie idea about City government we’ve ever heard – even worse than former mayor Howard Frimark’s successful plan to cut the City Council in half, which we recall Balaskovits supporting.  Nevertheless, Balaskovits is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own set of “facts.”  And, frankly, his whole letter appears to be based on nothing but fiction.

Let’s start with his reference to the “study” he describes as having been done by “[t]wo aldermen” that he claims found only one other suburb (Elmhurst) with two aldermen per ward.  Try as we might, we could not find any mention of such a “study” anywhere.  We did, however, find a “study” by one former alderman – Jeannie Markech (2nd Ward) – in the 11/2/06 edition of something called the “Markech S’up Date,” which we understand she occasionally sent out during her brief term (2005-07) in office. 

The relevant “S’Up Date” pages [pdf] tell quite a different story from Balaskovits’ tale, as Markech identifies 11 suburbs that elect two aldermen per ward. 

Whether you choose to believe Balaskovits or Markech on this point is up to you, although we note that Markech’s “S’up Date” provides chapter and verse while Balaskovits’ letter is basically generalities and bare conclusions.  But even if we judge Balaskovits’ arguments for turning Park Ridge from a city into a village just on their own merits, those arguments appear to be based on more false information and just flat-out wrong.

For example, he contends that an “at-large” election of City officials would be better than the current ward-by-ward elections because “[w]e just do not have a sufficient number of candidates who are able and willing to serve as aldermen” in each of the 7 wards.  Once again, Balaskovits provides no data to support that contention, perhaps because the available data actually disproves that contention.

According to the Cook County Clerk’s election website, for election years 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, a total of 45 candidates ran for 25 City vacancies, with 39 of those candidates running for 21 aldermanic seats.  Contrast that with the “at large” elections held for the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board and the District 64 School Board, where during that same period the Park District produced just 13 candidates for 11 vacancies while the School Board produced a mere 17 candidates for 15 vacancies.

That causes us to wonder whether Mr. Balaskovits is merely an incompetent researcher or someone who will outright lie to make his point?

As for his claim that “[t]he issues in Park Ridge are not all that different from ward to ward,” we suggest he try telling that to the flood-prone folks in those six designated areas of Park Ridge that the City’s flood consultant has deemed most in need of flood relief.  Or to the people beefing about the airplane noise under the approach to new runway 9L27R.  Or to the folks in the 1st and 2nd wards whose airplane noise has lessened since the new runway was opened.  Or to the anti-billboard group in the Second Ward near the Tri-State.

Balaskovits fares no better when he delves into “policy” with his argument that “[t]he purpose of an election is to provide the citizen with choice so that we have a representative government.”  No, Mr. B, the purpose of an election is to give the voters a means for conferring their governing authority on their chosen representative, thereby binding the social contract which John Locke described as “government with the consent of the governed” that the Founding Fathers adopted in our Constitution.

While contested elections give the voters the benefit of choice, an official elected in a contested race has no greater legal authority than one elected in an uncontested one.  After all, it’s not the candidate’s fault if nobody else cares enough to run against him, is it?

We think Balaskovits also is all wet when he writes that turning Park Ridge into a village “would place us more in conformance with surrounding communities” – without identifying so much as one other community that he contends is better managed, or better governed, than Park Ridge.  So why should we mindlessly mimic those communities, especially given the uniqueness of Park Ridge and the many differences between it and its neighboring communities? 

But our personal favorite bit of Balaskovits silliness is his closing pitch for making Park Ridge a village: “It is a time for change but not for change that takes us backward but rather for one that deals with the realities of today and moves Park Ridge forward.” 

Apparently Mr. Balaskovits doesn’t know that Park Ridge once was a village…prior to 1910.

Or maybe he’s just one of those “one step forward, 100 years back” kind of guys.

Are Billboards Back?  At Monday night’s City Council COW meeting, Ald. Jim “Billboards” Allegretti resumed his fight to get “supermajority” re-defined so that it requires only 5 aldermanic votes rather than the current 6 votes from a combination of the mayor and all 7 aldermen.  That’s a pretty clear indication that Allegretti and his newest best friends at Generation Group, Inc. (“GGI”) will be back trying to end-run the Planning & Zoning Commission’s rejection of billboards for GGI.

With Allegretti’s having voted Monday night against increasing water rates, we can’t wait to hear him renew his impassioned pleas for the needed revenue that GGI’s billboards will bring into the City.  And when that time comes, we hope he brings along his public-spirited law officemate, Frankie DiFranco, whose sincere concern about the City’s financial welfare mysteriously evaporated when the billboard deal fell off the table.

District 64’s Got A Secret  Sounds like the Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 Board has narrowed its choices for the replacement of retiring Supt. Sally Pryor down to five candidates, at least according to a story in this week’s Park Ridge Journal (“District 64 Supt. Search Down To Five Candidates,” Feb. 24).  But we find it strange and troublesome that those candidates weren’t identified in that Journal story.

Whether the cause of that omission is incompetent reporting by Dwight Esau or intentional concealment by the District 64 Board, we see no good reason for this kind of secrecy – especially for any of the candidates who already are Dist. 64 employees and whose application for the superintendant’s position would not cause the same kind of concern by their bosses that an application from another district’s employee might cause his/her bosses.   

Richie D. Talks Trash  This week’s Journal also quotes 2nd Ward Ald. (and Finance Committee chairman) Rich DiPietro about the new budget, thusly: “If I had my way, we’d try to get [the new budget] done by Easter (Apr. 4).”

That’s just a bunch of hooey. 

Why wasn’t Richie D demanding the acceleration of the budget process back in November, December or January – when it might have mattered.  And just as significantly, April 4 is only 3 weeks before the deadline for passing the budget, so Richie D’s “way” is pretty much just more of the same old same old.  Which means we shouldn’t expect a better budget this year than in the past.

Maybe Fifth Ward Ald. Robert Ryan didn’t realize the full implication of what he was saying near the end of Monday night’s Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting, when he took the opportunity to once again trumpet his idea for a citizens finance task force/committee to do the work City Staff and the City Council seem to be so incapable of doing…or doing right.

Ryan, mustering all of his stiff upper lip resolve, stated that “there is one taxing entity in this town that doesn’t have financial problems” because “they have a tremendously strong financial committee.”  The object of his ardor: Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64.

That’s right, folks.  Ryan wants the City to create a citizens finance task force/committee because the one over at District 64 has done, according to Ryan, “a super job advising the District 64 School Board.”

We don’t know whether to laugh or cry over a statement like that, because we can’t tell whether Ryan actually believes that ridiculous beeswax, or whether he knows it’s beeswax but is just trying to sell it to naive, uninformed Park Ridge residents – like the ones who bailed out District 64 with a massive tax increase 3 years ago in response to that administration’s and Board’s mismanagement of its finances even with the advice of a citizens finance committee!  

Ryan didn’t mention that referendum, which he supported.  And he didn’t mention the $5 million in working cash bonds the District issued without a referendum back in 2005, effectively replenishing the District’s depleted reserves and preventing the Illinois State Board of Education from taking over the District’s finances after several years of it being on the ISBE’s “early warning” or “watch list” for poor financial performance - tied in no small measure to the District’s drawing down its reserves to fund its regular operations, just like Ryan and his buddies have enabled the City to do in the wake of recent budget deficits.

But we suspect that what Ryan really doesn’t want taxpayers remembering is how the deterioration of District 64’s finances can be traced back to the construction of the new Emerson Middle School – for which then-District 64 Board Member Ryan was one of the main cheerleaders – that replaced what was then the newest school in the District.  As best as we can tell, the debt service on that new building and the costs of its operations were underestimated and/or misrepresented in the course of the successful “Yes/Yes” referendum campaign.

So when Ryan praises the District 64 finance committee, what he’s really saying is: “The City needs the same kind of committee that let District 64’s finances go down the drain before recommending a sneaky $5 million bond issue without a referendum, followed by a referendum for a multi-million property tax increase.”

Why didn’t you just say so, Robert?

A multi-million dollar tax increase would solve many of the City’s financial problems.  And, unlike District 64, which has to go to referendum to raise taxes above a modest amount, the City – as a home-rule body – can raise our taxes by mere resolution.  If that’s what Ryan and his fellow big-spenders on the Council are trying to achieve by continuing to jackpot the City treasury, they should have the decency to just say so.

Meanwhile, since neither Ryan nor Finance Committee Chairman Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) seems capable of figuring out how to cut the budget in lieu of raising taxes, here’s one free bit of advice for moving forward on the budget while awaiting Hock’s draft document: Tell each department head to cut 10% of the current year’s expenses for the upcoming budget year 2010-11.  Such an exercise might not provide a final answer, but at least it’s more of a start than we’ve seen from the Council so far.

And it didn’t even require a citizens finance committee.

Monday night the District 207 Board of Education unanimously said “No” to the Maine Teachers Association, a/k/a the teachers union, when it voted to go ahead with its plan to cut 137 jobs, including 75 teaching jobs.

That was the fiscally responsible decision, and we applaud it – even though Board member Eric Leys was visibly uncomfortable bucking the teachers, and Board member Sean Sullivan sent yet another clear signal of the Board’s pliability when he noted that this decision could be rescinded later this month if there were “negotiations.”

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention to the fiscal buffoonery of our local governments – especially our two school boards – over the past couple of decades, Sullivan’s comments mean that the Board is eager to roll over and dip into the District’s reserves in response to virtually any “concession” the teachers union might offer.

That’s because the management tradition of both the District 207 Board and the District 64 Board (members of whom are hand-picked by the District 64 & District 207 School Caucus, then rubber stamped by the voters in uncontested elections) is one of weakness and fuzzy thinking, when they think at all.  So it’s easy for them to ignore the fact that the teachers (especially the more senior ones) and most of the administrators are already overcompensated, thanks to years of mindless giveaways by teachers in “administrator” clothing and go-along-to-get-along board members.

Want proof of the weakness and fuzzy thinking? 

Just look at the “compromise” District 207 has already offered the union.  Despite saying how important it was not to dip further into the District’s reserve fund, the Board nevertheless offered to do just that – in an unspecified amount – if the union would agree to lower the pay increases that the Board foolishly gave away in the last contract negotiation, and also agree to a one-year freeze on the cost-of-living increase.

In other words, because the District 207 Board previously gave away the store, it is now begging the teachers to return a can of corn.

That’s just plain spineless, and it explains why the union responded so shamelessly, with union president Emma Visee promptly demanding that the District throw its “compromise” money (from the reserve fund) into the pot, irrespective of whether the union agrees to any concessions.

“If you have identified $2 million you can spend for the students, then do so,” said Visee.

Give a mouse a cookie, and he’ll want a glass of milk. 

Except in the case of the teachers union, the mouse is more of a gorilla.  And as we’ve seen time and time again, it’s not going to settle for just a glass of milk.

So kudos for now, District 207 Board. But we’re still sticking with our prediction that you will sell out the taxpayers, once again, before this is over.