In Chicago and Cook County political circles, wearing “the jacket” means getting saddled with the blame for some governmental snafu or other. Right now, whether he knows it or not, City Mgr. Jim Hock is being fitted for “the jacket” for the City’s current financial crisis, including the upcoming budget.
Ironically, the “tailors” doing that fitting are some of the same guys on the City Council whom Hock befriended upon arriving from Oak Park, Michigan, in July 2008. That looked like a savvy political move by Hock at the time, as the aldermen are the ones who voted to approve his hiring and, presumably, could ensure his continued employment.
So Hock curried their favor and that of their political master, then-mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark, by proposing a 2009-10 budget that Hock actually called “balanced” despite its $52.6 million of expenses and only $50.7 million of anticipated revenues. That’s almost $2 million of deficits, coming on the heels of two consecutive years in which the City’s General Operating Fund posted additional deficits totaling $4 million.
And Hock’s “balanced” budget caused the City’s fund balances to erode even further as money was drawn from them to make up for the budget deficit – just as closer scrutiny began to disclose what looks like significant portions of some of those fund balances being comprised of IOUs from other City funds. If that truly is the case, it’s a classic “robbing Peter to pay Paul” situation – something the City has also done when it borrows money from the water fund to meet the City’s payroll.
At this point in time it looks like Hock is over his skis on these matters, in no small measure because of the financial mess he inherited from former city mgr. Tim Schuenke, who seemingly pulled budget numbers out of thin air that the Council then mindlessly rubber-stamped because either they didn’t know better, or they just didn’t care.
Unfortunately, other than playing political footsie with the Council, Hock has done little to clean up that mess. He has also twiddled his thumbs in replacing departed Finance Director, Diane Lembesis, leaving himself short-handed for the task of budget preparation.
But when Mayor Dave Schmidt recently called out the Council for all this fiscal irresponsibility in his “State of the City” address, his aldermanic adversaries had to try to make it look like they weren’t the spendthrift boobs the mayor portrayed. Without any ideas of their own for how to cut spending or raise revenues, however, their strategy was to create a diversion by laying into Hock for not already having a budget document for them to review.
No discussion of any specific changes to substantive fiscal policy. No suggestions for what departments might be able to sustain significant budget cuts with the least adverse consequences. No meaningful debate on the reasons for maintaining and replenishing fund balances rather than depleting them. Just criticism of Hock and the “process” of producing the draft budget.
Yet despite all the criticism of Hock just a week ago, a peek at tonight’s City Council Committee of the Whole meeting agenda [pdf] shows no such discussions, suggestions or debate on those matters are scheduled under the Finance & Budget section. We do note, however, that the agenda shows a discussion about amending the City ordinance dealing with…wait for it…the budget “process.”
In many places that would be called “Fiddling while Rome burns.” But here in Park Ridge, Crook County, Illinois, it has another name.
Any bets on whether Hock is a 36 regular or a 38 short?
20 comments so far
For the sake of “complete coverage”, I would like to point out that you missed the biggest “tailor” in the group. Your view seems to be that the council is fitting him for the jacket. It fits nicely into what seems to be the world view of many who voted for Schmidt, that being “Schmidt good, council bad!!”
That is fine but how could you miss some of the most damning criticism came from the Mayor (our hero!!)
(continued)
He in essense accuese them or submitting misleading budgets based on a schell game….”The budget process has been a shell game, and the residents have been the victims of the scam”……or this one……”It took until January for us to have the first budget meeting and we accomplished very little,” Schmidt said last week. “I was told in December we would have a working budget by some time in January. That hasn’t happened.”
As we read the City Code, it is the aldermen – not the mayor – who vote to hire and fire the city manager, so their displeasure with Hock is far more relevant and significant than the mayor’s.
And because it is the aldermen’s job (not the mayor’s) to pass and enforce a balanced budget, they are the ones who have an incentive for off-loading onto Hock the blame for their failures in that regard – especially since, unlike Schmidt, not one of them has yet displayed the integrity of publicly accepting responsibility for the deficits and declining fund balances they’ve foisted on us the past two years.
We’re not saying Schmidt’s a “hero.” But despite his flaws and mistakes he has shown himself to be, at the very least, the tallest midget in this particular circus…by far.
Anon 10:56 and (continued),
At the risk of sounding like an apologist for the Mayor, which…
I.
Am.
Not.
…there is a difference between calling someone out for their lack of actual follow-up/through, and “fitting them for the jacket.”
In the first instance, the Mayor rightfully criticized Hock for not doing what he said he would do.
In the second instance, there’s nothing more than deflection of accountability and responsibility taking place.
Maybe that’s a subtle difference, or maybe I’m reaching a bit? I’m not sure.
In either case and despite the rather generous compensation package and the expectations it allows for, I have some sympathy for the political hornet’s nest Hock stepped into, the “minds” on the council with which he has to deal, the upheaval of the turnover in department management, and the economic hit the city has taken for various reasons.
All that being said, the job he’s paid so well to do has to be done, and he cannot claim ignorance of the ground upon which every city manager in every municipality in the nation has to walk.
In the past, the PublicWatchdog has offered real areas in the budget which can be cut. Those suggestions are as good a place to start as any.
Since there are lily livered elected officials screaming for more layoffs but too cowardly to say where or who, I’ll offer two; cut the job of the Economic Development Director and the Public Information position.
I’m sorry to say, the EDD has proved virtually worthless and the PI doesn’t even reach that level of competence.
The savings from just those two positions would be about $160K in annual salaries.
When those cuts and more are done, and the water rates are corrected, then the council will have to give serious weight to a 5% or more property tax increase.
Like it or not, this is the place we are at now, and if any of these guys are serious about getting PR back on its feet, then painful and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
I’m not going to hold my breath though.
I see….another case of it not so much being the message but who delivers it.
4:43
It’s both the message and the messenger, with the message being the more important of the two. But the identity of the messenger can be important, especially if he/she is a public figure whose conduct has been inconsistent with his/her message – like the alderdummies talking about fiscal responsibility.
anon:
Good god!!! I am not arguing with you about the Aldermen. You are right. The difference between us is that I include the Mayor. You seem to somehow give him a pass. His behavior is virtually the same. He criticizes and blames Hock, just like the Aldermen. He voted for the budgets when he was an alderman just like the other aldermen. Is that not conduct inconsistent with his message?!?!?! Kind of like his handling of the whole Frimark deal. Was that consistent with his message???
So in summary, I agree with you about the Aldermen but I cannot understand why I am the only one who seems to be including the Mayor.
645, wake up. The mayor did not give himself a pass. He accepted blame for voting for two unbalanced budgets in the first five minutes of his State of the City Address.
6:45
Schmidt was just like all the other alderclowns who voted for the last two budgets and watched spending go way past revenues. But unlike the other alderclowns, Schmidt has admitted his error and apologized to the taxpayers.
Advantage: Schmidt.
I did not say that the mayor gave himself a pas. I said that ya’ll are giving him a pass. Don’t you ever wonder how there could be such a change?? Call me a skeptic I guess but I am very curious how a smart guy (Schmidt is a VERY intelligent and accomplished man) could be just like all the rest of them related to voting for the budget while an alderman and suddenly change. I guess I am grateful for the change but I cannot help but scratch my head. I mean were the budget numbers he voted for as alderman somehow more believable (not)??? Did he feel that deficits were OK? Was he not paying attention?
A11:44,
Are you really asking posters here to speak to (and on behalf of) what was (and now is) in the mind of Schmidt? You want posters here to explain Schmidt’s feeeelings?
Seriously?
I could tell you what I personally believe, but it wouldn’t matter much since what you are asking for can only come from Schmidt, himself.
And what the mind of schmidt contained is indicated in his own words in the message he gave in his state of the city.
Mayor Schmidt\’s own words were the following:
”I did not do my job as an alderman…\”
And in Mayor Schmidt\’s response to a previous pubdog post (By Mayor Dave on 02.08.10 6:41 pm) he further indicates his deliquency of duty in the following quote:
\”I should have paid closer attention\”
I have to agree with the previous poster as to puzzlement about the Mayor being the issue de jour.
How can such an intelligent guy who argues legal cases to keep big insurance companies able to keep their money make such inconsistent statements and actions.
All this puzzlement leads one to conclude that Mayor Schmidt is not very trustworthy.
His words and actions (and as BEAN has said before, his INACTIONS) seem disingenous and the conclusion one can only reasonably make is that one should not believe half of what Mayor Schmidt says and disregard the other half.
Unfortuntately that creates for the citizens a figure who should have been providing leadership but who is providing nothing more than fingerpointing and political games.
That such potential should be wasted is a pity.
Alpha:
I am not asking posters to speak to anything. I seem to be a lone voice on this particular thread in that most jump on tha Aldermen but not Schmidt for their past (and in some cases current)actions. I jump on both.
Most poeple seem to be saying yeah Mayor Schmidt – you apologized!!! Yippee!!!! Aldermen bad, Mayor good!!! My prior post was not put their with the expectation that someone would provide an answer. I was hoping to give an idea of why I am skeptical.
A prior poster said”……especially if he/she is a public figure whose conduct has been inconsistent with his/her message – like the alderdummies talking about fiscal responsibility”. I could not have said it better myself!
A1:06,
I remain uncertain if you’re consideration and discernment of the Mayor’s statements is purposefully obtuse, or not.
As was previously pointed out, it is the Aldermen who are responsible for actually passing a budget. Not a single current Aldermen has ever accepted responsibility nor apologized for their past practices regarding the budget.
Mayor Schmidt has done both.
Are you seriously suggesting that acknowledgement of errors should be met with continued criticism? That instead of saying, “Thank you, go and sin no more,” the repentant sinner should be treated no differently than an unrepentant sinner?
You truely discern no difference between the two?
If any of the current aldermen accepted responsibility for the budget mess and said they were sorry, then they would have to change what they are doing or be called liars. They want to keep on doing what they are doing. Giving our money away to special groups and ignoring the zoning code for special developers. They can’t admit they are failures when they want to keep the give aways going.
I can only assume that Schmidt was either going along to get along or that he was baing stupid about the budget. Which is what I’m going to assume is what the other aldermen did, too.
The difference is Schmidt realized his mistake and the others haven’t. And Schmidt is calling for a balanced budget and the others aren’t. And Schmidt opposed more giveaways to private community groups and the others voted for it, except for Bach and Ryan who wanted to give away more.
This is not the representation the Founders had in mind.
The City Treasurer was such a waste. What was his line every week? “And the City remains in sound financial condition”, or some crap like that. That way the City Council, which is actually elected and charged with the responsibility to act as fiduciary for the taxpayers of Park Ridge, can then sit there and say “Well the Treasurer says everything is just nifty”. Of course that’s great because it lets them off the hook. Task forces for everyone!!!
I wonder if the anon poster has ever in his/her entire life made a mistake or an error in judgement only to find later that he/she was was wrong? Perhaps due to misinformation or just simply not paying close enough attention. I ask this because the constant “head scratching” over someone realizing that they made a mistake and then wanting to correct that mistake shouln’t be that puzzling. I agree bean, I believe they are simply acting obtuse for arguments sake.
At the 2/15 Council meeting, the city manager stated he could not produce a draft budget because he didn’t have a Director of Finance and he literally had no one to enter the data.
Wait… you need a DIRECTOR-level person to enter data??? I think you can easily farm that out to Maine South Seniors! It’s Excel for chrissakes!
A resident volunteered to do the data entry for them and no one took her up on it.
So what does it take to get a draft budget together so we can review line-item expenses???
They’re going to end up passing whatever is put in front of them at the 11th hour, again.
At the 2/15 council meeting, City Mgr Hock stated that he couldn’t get a draft budget in front of the council because he didn’t have a Director of Finance and “didn’t have anyone to enter the data.”
First of all, I didn’t realize it took a Director-level person to do raw data entry. I bet we can farm this out pretty easily. Second, one of the residents VOLUNTEERED to do it for them and no one took her up on it.
Seems like no one wants to look at the budget on a line-item basis because then there wouldn’t be an excuse to just rubber-stamp it at the 11th hour.
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>