It took the signatures of more than 2,800 Park Ridge voters to get one honest, straightforward and understandable police station referendum question on the April ballot, but it took the votes of only five Park Ridge aldermen to put an ambiguous (and, arguably, dishonest) referendum question on the same topic – penned by Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward) – on that same ballot.
So why doesn’t it surprise us to hear that the Council voted 6-1 at Monday night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, with Alderman/mayoral candidate Dave Schmidt as the sole dissenter, to spend $3,500 of taxpayer money to send a mailing to 14,500 homes for the purpose of “educating” the voters residing in those homes about…wait for it…the Wsol referendum question?
Admittedly, $3,500 is chump change compared to the much bigger bucks the City regularly squanders on questionable things like consultants and “studies” designed to tell our elected and appointed officials exactly what they want to hear. Example: The City paid a lot more than $3,500 to architect/consultant Fred “Bigger is always better” Moyer, and then architects Sente Rubel Bosman Lee, to tell us that we “need” a new cop shop four times the size of the current one.
Of course, figuring out things like how Park Ridge taxpayers are going to pay for such a “Taj Mahal” never seems to be part of those consultants’ job descriptions, although the Sente Rubel website advertises that Carol Sente “often assists in projects…such as…referendum campaign planning.” For the uninitiated, “referendum campaign planning” is the equivalent of “referendum propaganda mongering,” although we must concede that it sounds so much nicer the way Sente Rubel spins it.
We here at PublicWatchdog think it’s just plain wrong for any branch of local government to do anything about a referendum question other than put it on the ballot, or stay out of the way of any citizens who are trying to put one on the ballot. We also think that it’s an insult to the voters to assume that they need “educating,” especially by their local governmental bodies who seem to spend more time concealing useful information than providing it.
If the voters want “educating” on the referendum issues, however, we think they are more than capable of educating themselves – by reading the newspapers and the blogs, by talking to their neighbors, and simply by reading and thinking about the referendum issues. Or maybe private citizens or interest groups will form to advocate for or against a particular referendum question.
But apparently that’s not good enough for Mayor Howard “the Coward” Frimark and his Alderpuppets, who surely can’t be looking forward to the possibility that the voters will soundly reject both cop shop referendum questions.
That result would require the Alderpuppets to effectively thumb their noses at the voters if they nevertheless choose to move forward with the new cop shop. So spending a few thousand easy-come, easy-go tax dollars to persuade the voters – in the name of “educating” them – to see things the Alderpuppets’ way probably makes sense to anybody that favors government by stealth and deception.
And, after all, to the Alderpuppets it’s just $3,500 of OPM: Other People’s Money.
8 comments so far
I am irate that six of our elected officials thought it was OK to authorize public money– no matter how “small” the amount– to “explain” a convoluted advisory referendum question that one of them drafted and 5 of them voted to put on the ballot. Are they going to hire a consultant to write the mailing?
Give me the $3500. I will run a full page ad in the local papers and tell the voters everything they need to know about that referendum question: That they should SKIP IT, and vote on Egan’s question.
Once again, Dave Schmidt is the only one in the room making sense….
And I would have money left over.
The Advocate reports that Wsol believes there will be no hanky panky by Staff on this “educationa” piece because they will “‘compile strictly educational material with factual information they have compiled over the years’ concerning the condition of the existing police facility.” What a crock from the same guy who has been tap-dancing every which way just to get something built that he can put his name on.
What the City will be doing has not a snowball’s chance in hell of being unbiased, because Wsol and his pro-police station cronies have over the years filled the record and the media with so much bull about the so-called need for a new police station that nobody on the City payroll will even try to separate “fact” from opinion, assuming they would be competent to do so in the first place.
Be ready for a stream of quotes from “consultant reports” and “findings” by Wsol, et al. based on blind rubber-stamping of those reports.
The taxpayers and voters get railroaded once again.
Will Joe Egan and his people get a chance equal space on the City’s mailing for their facts about the current police station and the new one?
A11:56,
No, they won’t. The City’s policy #34 states:
PURPOSE
To establish a standard for determining what referenda information will be included in the City’s “Spokesman” newsletter.
RATIONALE
From time to time the City receives requests from other taxing bodies to publish information in the Spokesman about upcoming election issues. It is desirable and appropriate for the City to designate what type of information should be included in the “Spokesman” and how its readers will interpret that information.
POLICY STATEMENT
The following criteria will be used as a guideline for determining what referenda information shall be included in the Spokesman
1. Referenda questions and pertinent information for City sponsored referenda shall be included in the “Spokesman.” The “Spokesman” will serve as a tool to outline the issue(s) for the citizens.
2. For referenda sponsored by other taxing bodies, groups, or individuals, only an announcement that there will be a referendum on the ballot, the date of the election, and a phone number for additional information will be included.
What does not seem clear is whether or not the City can rightfully spend any additional money, outside of the usual cost for printing and mailing the “Spokesman”, on additional mailings for City sponsored referenda.
I find the current proposed mailing by our City Council as offensive and bordering on idiotic. This is the same City Council (excluding Alderman Schmidt) who would not even debate whether or not a question should be on the ballot back in December. ONLY after 70+ people braved the cold of winter to gather 2,800 signatures did Frank Wsol’s propose at the 11th hour a question that is misleading (some say purposefully)and is compound which leads to confusion and a response, whether yes or no, can be interpreted different ways. The Alderman who voted for this question, which includes Aldermans Wsol, Carey, DiPietro, Bach, and Ryan, should now have to pay for the mailing since they voted for such a convoluted and confusing question. These 5 Aldermen should be embarrassed, ashamed of what they have done, and should pony up the money since they created the mess.
Also, in case you have not noticed, the misleading question by our grammatically challenged 5 alderman refers to “the administrative/public and police facilities…” It sure sounds like multiple facilities and not just a police station. If it where just one facility it would end in a “y” and not “ies”. I have yet to find a single City record that refers to the purposed construction as nothing other than a police station. Come on gentlemen, call it what it is and stop the shennanigans. I suggest in the mailings you clear up this little misleading reference in YOUR question. Shame on you!
Absolutely correct, Mr. Egan.
And thank you again for doing what you did. If more people got involved the way you did, we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we have because our elected “representatives” wouldn’t be able to get away with all the garbage they get away with when nobody’s looking.
http://www.electdaveschmidt.com
I not only signed the citizen petition but worked to get others’ signatures on it, too. This is a slap in the face to me and over 2,800 other people.
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>