As reported in both local newspapers (“Park Ridge Police: Union votes down concessions, six employees out of work,” Herald-Advocate, Apr. 27 and “Firefighters Safe But Officers Face Layoffs,” Journal, April 28), the police union voted not to make certain concessions that the City was requiring in order to not terminate four police officers and two community service officers.
The dollars we’re talking about: according to the newspaper stories, approximately $284,000, although that seems a bit low to us. Those cuts will eliminate the Police Department’s traffic division, the duties of which reportedly will be distributed among other officers.
Some people will say the problem is greedy cops. And an argument can be made that police officers in an upscale community like Park Ridge have relatively safe and well-paid jobs for which they should be grateful, especially in this kind of economy. That was basically the same argument made about the District 207 teachers, and it’s one we agreed with in that context.
But we find it less applicable to police officers than to teachers for several reasons, the four most significant ones being:
(a) public safety is a more important governmental function than public education;
(b) police work is far more dangerous than teaching;
(c) police officers work pretty much 12 months a year while teachers work between 8 and 9; and
(d) a mistake by a police officer can cost the officer his/her life, and possibly the lives of others.
So while we agree that Park Ridge is a lot closer to Mayberry than it is to Fort Apache, The Bronx, stopping a speeding, weaving car filled with “non-resident” young men at 2 a.m. is a quantum leap from demanding missed homework from a callow Park Ridge youth in the hallway of Maine South at 2 p.m.
Could those cop jobs have been saved? Sure, in a variety of ways. And they still can.
Taxes can be raised even higher. Fees can be jacked up a few more bucks. Cut a little bit of City service here, cut a little bit of City service there. Give a few more City employees a few more furlough days.
In a $50 million-plus budget, finding a way to dig up $300,000 is not impossible.
But why not do what Mayor Schmidt proposed: Instead of cutting more City personnel and City services, why not cut the $165,000 for the latest marathon O’Hare battle and the $186,000 for those private community groups?
Even our friends over at ParkRidgeUnderground support 82.44% of those cuts – the PRU Crew’s two big exceptions being the preservation of the no-strings-attached giveaways to the Center of Concern (“CoC”) in the amount of $55,000, and the Maine Center for Mental Health (“MCMH”) in the amount of $6,600.
As we’ve said many times before, private organizations – no matter how noble their purpose – shouldn’t get government handouts, much less get them with such regularity that they expect them. If those private organizations are providing essential government services to Park Ridge residents, they should be doing so by means of lawful contracts with the appropriate governmental body that specify what is being done for our residents and what each unit of service is costing.
The current process of tossing indiscriminate amounts of money at these organizations (including the overlooked Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”), which mysteriously avoids inclusion on the “charities” list even though it takes down $23,000 of “free” City services each summer) is bad public policy. It is irresponsible-bordering-on-reckless, especially given how non-transparent and un-accountable to the taxpayers CoC, MCMH, Taste Inc., and most of these other organizations are – despite their nifty websites loaded with propaganda but little of the financial nuts-and-bolts that well-run, cost-effective essential service providers should be touting.
Which brings us back to the cops v. “charities” and the O’Hare-A-Thon.
Like it or not, that’s one of several plausible equations of budget balancing our City Council is employing. But at least the O’Hare funding is public, so we already know exactly how all those dollars would be spent. Or, if you prefer, wasted.
That’s a lot more than can be said about the handouts to those non-transparent, un-accountable private community groups.
27 comments so far
PD:
It is, has and will always be crystal clear how you feel about private organizations receiving public funds. As we have all seen, there are folks in town who disagree with that, some just allowing for COC and others wanting to give money to all the groups. What I find amazing is there seems to be so little discussion about locating and removing other waste from the budget. I see so many trucks from outside vendors driving around town doing city business. Pavers and tree companies are the biggest. I have not seen discussions about renegotiation rates or starting a new bidding process. I know that either way you would still not want public funds going to these organizations, I have to believe there is another 250K out there that can be trimmed without sacraficing police. 0n a 50 mil budget that is 1/2 of 1%.
Is it me, or does it seem funny that all along they want a new police station and yet they all vote not to make consessions to save 6 people?
They wanted a new police station because many of them don’t live in Park Ridge and wouldn’t be paying anything toward it. And the ones living in Park Ridge would be getting a brand new building (and maybe a bigger office, or more bells and whistles) for whatever extra taxes they were paying, compared to the average taxpayer who would pay more taxes but get absolutely nothing for it.
If I remember correctly, that’s another bad idea that only Schmidt publicly opposed.
Claypool is leaving Maine South … can he take Hock with him?
I was with a friend yesterday driving down Gillick around 11am. At 230 Gillick there was a large raccoon in the middle of the road walking in circles, crossing back and forth between the road and then stumbling when it hit the curb. We stopped before it and watched it for about five minutes. It appeared to be sick, maybe rapid, not sure. (Raccoons are normally not out during daytime) I called city hall and was transferred to the police. I said I was just reporting a potentially large sick raccoon and the officer immediately replied “I am sorry we are short staffed and cannot come out”. I replied that I was just reporting it gave him the address and said it was up to them.
I can just think of how common that response will be come Monday when more of our public safety personnel get their pink slips……
I want to make sure I’m correctly following your policy position on contributions to community groups.
You’ve singled out a set of three to use as examples of
O.k. You are probably right. These groups should all be disclosing their financial statements on their “nifty websites” for public review.
What I don’t understand is why you now have chosen to berate groups like CoC and MCMH. Why now? Is it just because of the budget crunch?
Over the last two years, Pubdog has written no less than 12 articles taking the Taste of Park Ridge NFP to task for their lack of transparency and disclosure. I agree they should post the relevant documents on their website too.
What I don’t understand is the lack of demanding the same transparency and review for all of these groups over the last two years. Why spend two years only on Taste of Park Ridge NFP, when you knew or should have known all of these groups were getting handouts? Why write 12 articles on a group receiving half as much as the CoC and as much as the Teen Center and less than the Senior Center?
Two years ago you wrote one article on the Center of Concern and in it you said
Two years ago you seemed to believe the CoC was serving residents of Park Ridge. What has changed your beliefs in the last two years? When you wrote about supporting the CoC, and encouraged Park Ridge residents to do the same, did you forget to mention your disapproval of how “non-transparent and un-accountable to the taxpayers” they are? Why would you encourage private donations to these groups receiving public monies when these groups are not being accountable and transparent? If you suspect something is amiss in the use of the public monies, why encourage private donations? It’s o.k. for private donors to get suckered?
I fully agree with demanding public disclosure of any private organization receiving public donations and support. What I do not understand is how you’ve gone about making those demands with a lot of emphasis on one group and ignoring almost all the others, until now.
It’s very odd.
Anonymous on 04.30.10 12:11 pm
We still believe CoC is serving residents of Park Ridge, we’re just starting to question how many and whether it’s $55,000/yr worth. We’re also less trusting of CoC now that we’ve looked a little more closely at their Form 990s, on Guidestar (and still only for 2007) because CoC apparently doesn’t want to sully its nifty website with crass financial data.
Should we have voiced our disapproval earlier of how “non-transparent and un-accountable to the taxpayers” all those private organizations are? Absolutely…and we did, a year ago at this time when we pointed to their lack of transparency as “reason enough to deny them scarce tax dollars in the middle of a fiscal crisis.” (See “Mr. Einstein, Meet Mr. Stengel,” 05.18.09)
But if we are being a bit harder on CoC than some of the others, chalk it up to the fact that CoC gets a bigger handout than the others; and to the fact that we have given them props over the years (e.g., “A Great Time To Support Our Center Of Concern,” 06.16.08) and don’t like the fact that they reciprocate by stonewalling.
As for why we’ve hammered Taste of Park Ridge NFP, maybe it’s because it’s such a “special” organization that it doesn’t even have to show up with the rest of the organizations to get its handout; and it hasn’t posted ANY Form 990s, not even on Guidestar. So the Tastees seem to have mastered the arts of both non-transparency and non-accountability.
Just to clarify, does this mean that as you previously encouraged PR citizens to “show your financial supporet” you are not on the record as encouraging PR citizens to not support CoC in any way?
Forgive the typos. Rather than not I meant now.
Thank you for responding.
Asking the CoC to answer the question of how many Park Ridge residents are being provided with services is a fair question to ask and expect to hear answered when CoC is receiving $55,000 in public monies.
My understanding of the Guidestar and tax forms is they are done after the fiscal year of the organization ends and then the forms are filed during the next filing period. I’m less suspicious of viewing a 2007 tax form for an organization whose fiscal year began in July 2007 and ended in June 2008 and whose tax form was filed in January of 2009.
I have to admit, I have thought of Guidestar as being the place for public review of tax filings for charities and non profits, and then publication on a charitie’s or non profit’s websit doesn’t seem crucial, but it would be a courteous action to do for the public.
Your response to the issue of demanding disclosure as a general rule is puzzling because you say
What you appear to have done is voice your general disapproval about all of these groups together once last year. You are now being “a bit harder on CoC” now instead of continuing to voice disapproval of all of these groups in general based on your premise that any private organizations are obligated to disclose their financials to the public.
Also, you don’t bother to address any differences in services each provides to the community so why do you then single out CoC based on the difference in the amount of money they receive? If the underlying principle is what matters then the different amounts doled out should not. If the amounts doled out are what matters then you still have made very little effort to hold CoC out as an example while you have taken considerable time to highlight Taste of Park Ridge NFP.
If the underlying principle is what controls the demands for disclosure then no amount of money should be taken into consideration, just as you chose to ignore the relatively small amount of money Frimark would have received when he sold insurance to the Uptown homeowners and you criticized Schmidt for his vote not to prosecute Frimark for the ethics violation based on the principle of enforcing the ethics code.
I would like to ask who you believe the CoC is “stonewalling”? I could have missed the story about when any of the aldermen or the current Mayor asked any of these groups to produce their tax forms for public review or publish their tax forms on their websites. Do you mean to say that you have asked here on your blog and have been stonewalled? In my mind, until the Mayor or any of the aldermen make the demand for disclosure a policy of the city before contributions will be considered, the issue is a non starter.
The Taste of Park Ridge NFP members as I remember have gone before the city to make their case. They don’t receive checks written to them as donations in the same way these other community groups do. The Taste of Park Ridge NFP receives their support through the city providing police and fire employees during the event. Also, the Mayor and aldermen did not want to review any events being planned even though the Mayor had said he wanted to review event costs. I’m not sure how the Mayor expects the city is supposed to review costs for events but not the events being planned before the city incurs costs. It would seem very hard to get event organizers to repay the city after the city has spent the money and the event is over.
I agree with you that all of these groups along with the Taste of Park Ridge NFP should be required to disclose their financials but I also think the Mayor or the aldermen should make a requirement for these groups to do that. I can’t really blame the CoC more than any of the others based on only the amount they receive, and if you do then those 12 Taste of Park Ridge NFP articles should have been about the CoC instead because of their getting the biggest amount, or those 12 articles about Taste of Park Ridge NFP should have included the Senior Center and the Teen Center because all three are for recreation.
It has probably been said…..Des Plaines has 2 social workers on its staff while PR has none that I know of. Perhaps CofC is one good reason why PR gets along without paying those costs of service
Des Plaines also has billboards and a casino coming. Maybe we should set our sights a little higher than comparing ourselves to Des Plaines.
The Park Ridge police have a social worker on staff part time. The salary for that position is around $26/hr. The average full time social worker salary in Illinois is reported at http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Social-Worker-l-Illinois.html as being $63,000.
You could be right. CoC contributes to keeping what the city actually pays out for providing for human needs services to a minimum.
What you haven’t discussed is the Pubdog request for an answer to the question of how many residents of Park Ridge receive services and if you think CoC and all the other non profit organizations getting public monies to subsidize them should be publishing their financial statements on their websites.
I agree with the Pubdog on those topics.
HEY MAY”OR, get the TASTE to pay the City for public safety $$. Stop coddling them.
anon on 05.01.10 9:00 pm
How is he supposed to do that when he can’t even get the council from throwing money away for o’hare?
Anonymous on 04.30.10 5:35 pm:
We see nothing “puzzling” re our demand for more disclosure from CoC than from, say, the Kalo Foundation. While we believe anybody who requests or receives public funds owes the taxpayers full disclosure, we also subscribe to the principal that: “From those to whom more is given, more is expected.”
As for the difference between our treatment of CoC and TOPR, call us silly if you will, but we see a significant difference in the social and governmental value between the housing and related services provided by CoC and the street festival TOPR provides. Let’s call it “bread v. circuses.”
As for the Frimark ethics question, the City ordinance doesn’t distinguish between amounts of money, so neither did we. And we criticized Schmidt as much for his raising the issue and then abandoning it.
The CoC is stonewalling the taxpayers of Park Ridge whose tax money CoC seeks and receives. The fact that the mayor or the City Council isn’t demanding disclosure from CoC doesn’t excuse CoC’s failure to voluntarily provide that info. And the same goes for TOPR – although another difference between CoC and TOPR is that a few Form 990s from CoC appear on Guidestar but nothing of the sort from TOPR, either in its prior or its current incarnation.
Annonymous on 05.01.10 10:11 am:
And perhaps CofC is no reason whatseover why PR gets along without paying for 2 social workers. We see no point in idle speculation.
Thank you again for your response.
What is puzzling is your discussion of the amount of money being the foundation for the greater emphasis and demand for disclosure in highlighting CoC while you ignored that biggest receiver of public monies for two years in favor of highlighting a receiver of much less public monies. It does seem clear though that when that inconsistency was highlighted you now want to excuse the inconsistency by determining that “bread” exceeds “circuses” in social and governmental value, which seems nothing less than a contradiction of your original premise which seemed to flatly set aside any differences in your original statement that
I also find very puzzling your statement
The city policy on contributions to community groups doesn’t distingquish between social and governmental value, or amounts of money, so why have you chosen to make the distinction beyond the city policy on this topic but not the ethics topic?
In answer to my question about who you believe is being “stonewalled” you say
I could have missed another story or segments in the videos but I do not recall hearing taxpayers demand to see publication of tax forms for the CoC or any other groups on the websites the groups have. I do understand that you have demanded that action here on your blog but I think you should be reminded that your blog is more a reporting source of information and opinion than representation of taxpayers.
I will say again I agree all these groups who receive public monies should voluntarily disclose their tax forms as a courtesy to the people who are contributing the monies, but until the actual elected representatives of the people make doing that a policy of the city on the taxpayers behalf then the issue of not voluntarily doing so is a non starter when the only place I have seen this issue mentioned is here and on the Park Ridge Underground.
What has also been said here on your blog is that the tax forms can be requested from the IRS. Have you done that? In light of how pressing the issue of publication of Taste of Park Ridge NFP tax forms appears to be to you, with the writing of no less than 12 articles on the topic over the last two years, I would have expected you to have done that by now.
I also would have expected the Mayor to have brought the topic of disclosure and publication of tax forms of community groups forward since he ran for office and emphasized his dedication to transparency for the taxpayers. I wonder why he hasn’t taken that action on behalf of the taxpayers.
I should have added to
By pointing out that the Senior Center receives more in public monies and has for a longer time for their “circuses” than the Taste of Park Ridge NFP does, but I do not recall the Senior Center receiving even close to as much coverage of their “circuses” as you have given to Taste of Park Ridge NFP. I would also point out that the Senior Center restricts access to their “circuses” to only seniors when the Taste of Park Ridge NFP welcomes everyone to participate in their “circuses”.
“And perhaps CofC is no reason whatseover why PR gets along without paying for 2 social workers. We see no point in idle speculation.”
Kind of snippy. Maybe you just don’t like ideas from the pews!! OOPS, that’s speculation.
Anonymous on 05.02.10 7:07 pm:
Whether the Mayor or the Council or the taxpayers “demand” that information, or not, seems irrelevant: frankly, we can’t understand the kind of mind-set of people who would seek and accept tax dollars yet not publish that information voluntarily and timely. That’s why the failure/refusal of CoC, TOPR and the rest of those community groups to do so causes us to wonder why they don’t “get it”; and what they might be hiding?
Annonymous on 05.03.10 6:57 am:
There are many “ideas from the pews” we don’t like, but we publish them. And there are many “ideas” we think are foolish, but we publish those, too.
Speculation that CoC – which on its website claims to offer “social services to individuals living in the northwest Chicagoland area” and not just in Park Ridge – somehow serves as Park Ridge’s equivalent of Des Plaines’ two social workers is both an “idea” we disagree with and one we think is foolish. And we reserve the right to be “snippy” in response to those.
I think you’re missing a great deal when you say
Who demands disclosure is relevant. The CoC has filed their tax forms and those tax forms can be viewed on Guidestar. Whether that satisfies your appetite for the most current information is irrelevant since you are not an elected representative of the taxpayers, there has been no groundswell of demands from the taxpayers, and as far as I know you have not made any request of the CoC other than here on your blog.
Just as you didn’t think to more often highlight the “circuses” being offered by the Senior Center which receives more annual donations of public monies over the “circuses” being offered by the Taste of Park Ridge NFP, or just as you didn’t think to more closely look at the Guidestar tax forms for CoC before you encouraged donations, it could be the CoC and the other community groups hadn’t thought of publishing their financial statements on their websites.
Until the elected representatives of the taxpayers officially demand such disclosures from all of these groups, not only the ones you have chosen to inconsistently highlight based on inconsistent reasoning, and until any of these groups actually refuse to do so in the face of such an official request, speculating about what all these groups may be hiding seems silly.
As we’ve consistently said before, taxing bodies should not be making “donations” to private organizations – end of story.
And as we also consistently have said before, when private organizations accept tax dollars, they owe the taxpayers transparency and accountability – irrespective of whether or not it is formally demanded by feckless politicians and/or public officials.
So if CoC, TOPR and those other organizations didn’t ask for and/or accept those tax dollars, and if the City Council didn’t irresponsibly give those tax dollars away, transparency and accountability would not be this kind of issue. They could be as opaque and irresponsible as federal and state laws permit.
And because Form 990s don’t disclose (or are even designed to disclose) how many of the Park Ridge tax dollars given to those organizations are used solely for the benefit of Park Ridge residents, we advocate a contract purchase arrangement between the City and those organizations that claim to be providing essential services.
But when those organizations don’t even post their 990s on their websites, they’re not even trying to be transparent or accountable for the tax dollars they’re pocketing. And that’s a sure sign they are hiding something.
I thank you again for your response.
I would not characterize your statements about contributions to community groups as having been consistent in light of your inconsistent treatment of donations to community groups. First you strongly urge the public to make donations to the CoC without mentioning their lack of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers, the public. You then proceed to suggest the amount of money involved with donations is the reason for now highlighting the CoC receipt of public monies. Then when it’s pointed out you highlighted another community group, Taste of Park Ridge NFP no less than 12 times over the last two years, even though they receive less money, you suggest you’ve done so based on the different value between “bread” and “circuses”. Then when it’s pointed out that another community group, the Senior Center, receives more money for their “circuses” than does the Taste of Park Ridge NFP who does not restrict access to their “circuses” and has received public monies for shorter period of time, you come back to
You have been consistent in urging publication of financials on community groups websites. However, what you seem unwilling to accept is doing so here on your blog falls far short of legitimizing the accusation that these groups have failed to be transparent and accountable.
The most you can really claim about the issue is whether or not the community groups are being courteous to the sensibilities you hold. Are you aware of any taxpayers who have asked for copies of the most recent financials from any of these groups and have been told no? Isn’t filing federal tax forms available for review on Guidstar being transparent and accountable?
You do admit to recognition of what the law demands by saying
So even you seem to understand that unless the law requires further disclosure than the filing of federal tax forms, these groups are doing exactly what the law demands. So why haven’t you brought equal pressure to bear on the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor to require these groups to not only submit their most current tax forms to the council and mayor but also to require these groups to publish their most current tax forms on their websites?
So why not write 12 articles demanding the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor demand to know the breakdown and then demand the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor enter into contracts with each and every one of these community groups?
I think their failure to post their tax forms on their website is a sure sign the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor have not asked them to nor demanded that they do as condition for receiving public monies.
Just so I am sure I understand your position on disclosure and transparency, are you saying that anytime a group doesn’t disclose something involving public monies they’re hiding something?
Anonymous on 05/03/10 12:26 PM:
As much as we enjoy this discussion, we are now officially moving on to today’s topic, the mayoral veto; and we suggest you do the same.
Accordingly, we will take the liberty as this blog operator to have the last words on this topic, as follows:
1. Your attempt to fabricate an inconsistency where non exists fails because you are comparing apples (our encouragement of private donations to CoC) to oranges (our criticism of CoC’s lack of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers for CoC’s receipt of tax dollars). Voluntary private donations and involuntary donations of public funds aren’t even two sides of the same coin.
2. As for our distinction between “bread” (CoC) and “circuses” (TOPR), the Senior Center isn’t relevant. But even if it were, the Senior Center is a public – although not a City of Park Ridge – “organization”/facility; and its finances are “public” and disclosed in the Park Ridge Park District’s reports. Consequently, all of its revenues and expenses are publicly reported, unlike TOPR revenues.
3. No, “filing federal tax forms available for review on Guidstar” is not “being transparent and accountable” when the issue is how many Park Ridge tax dollars are being used by CoC (or those other organizations) for Park Ridge residents. The fact that feckless public officials don’t demand such transparency and accountability doesn’t mean the taxpayers don’t deserve it, just like the fact those same public officials don’t provide fiscally responsble government doesn’t mean we don’t deserve it.
Finally – and we do mean “finally” – we believe that any time an organization that has formally applied for and/or is receiving tax dollars fails or refuses to disclose something about the use of that money, there is a likelihood that organization is hiding something; and that what it is hiding is very likely to impact its ability to receive future tax dollars.
Case closed.
PubDog
You just don’t get it!! You seem to think that the $55k to CoC that you have your eye on runs the agency. CoC is a $1 million dollar a year revenue agency. Do you really think that PR does not get at least $55k worth of social benefits from the efforts of these people?? Do you really think we could pay for 2 social workers with $55k?
Annonymous on 05.05.10 3:33 pm:
Yes, we really do get “it” – we get that CoC doesn’t want to be transparent or accountable, so it refuses to disclose exactly what specific services it provides to how many Park Ridge people at what cost.
Mary Schurder just shows up, smiles, tosses out some random numbers about what she claims CoC is doing for Park Ridge, and then collects $55K for an hour or two of schmoozing – easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
We never said Park Ridge (we assume that’s who you mean with your “we”) “could pay for 2 social workers with $55k,” nor have we said that there is any reason to do so – with or without CoC.
But rather than dealing in all these vague and nebulous benefits CoC purportedly provides to Park Ridge, we have suggested that CoC provide all those details and then let the City contract with CoC for the services.
If CoC really is providing $55K (or more) of services to Park Ridge, it should be begging for that kind of fee-for-services arrangement – unless it isn’t, and that $55K is a windfall to CoC.
To whom has the CoC refused to disclose those things? Did I miss your coverage and reporting on the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor making that request to the CoC?
Is Ms. Schurder the only person in town “schmoozing” for money? I don’t think so. I hear there are a number of “schmoozers” in town who will “schmooze” anybody they think they can get money from.
The last part of your statement sounds as if you don’t believe there could be those in need in Park Ridge. That is very odd in light of your statement about the CoC a year ago:
I think you are missing a great deal in your following statement:
You are completely ignoring the fact that the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor have not asked for anything you have suggested. Why aren’t you writing articles about the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor’s refusal to demand disclosure from all community groups?
Do you really believe the $55K going to the CoC is a windfall? I ask again, why aren’t you writing articles demanding the “feckless” and “irresponsible” council and mayor stop this abuse of the public trust and monies?
Anonymous on 05.05.10 4:31 PM, we forgot we had ended this discussion the other day, and entertained some additional comments.
So this really will be the “last word” – as in: No more comments will be published for this post.
There literally is nothing that CoC provides in the way of documented information by which we or anybody else can tell with any reasonable degree of certainty exactly how much of its money CoC is spending on Park Ridge residents. That’s nobody’s fault but CoC’s.
As for our encouragement of private donations to CoC in the past, we stand by those statements when made. But the more we see how CoC operates and the longer CoC continues to feed unaccountably at the public trough without providing chapter and verse on how it spends Park Ridge tax dollars, the less enthusiastic we are about that endorsement.
But we will take your advice and, sometime over the next few weeks, we will take the “feckless” and “irresponsible” public officials to task for abusing the public trust with giveaways of public funds to private organizations.
THE END