In the 18 months he has been the mayor of Park Ridge, Dave Schmidt has already done something no Park Ridge mayor in memory had done – and he has done it 4 times, by our count.
He has vetoed City Council actions.
That’s the one power Illinois law gives our mayor to deal with legislation to which he objects. And we believe Schmidt used that power wisely the first three times: to veto the budget (over-ridden); to veto handouts of public funds to private community groups (10 of 13 sustained); and to veto a flawed contract for the city manager (sustained).
But we think Schmidt’s fourth veto this past Monday may have been his most significant use of that power, if only because it appears to have been something no other suburban mayor has done before: he vetoed a Council resolution that would have benefited one of his friends and campaign contributors by as much as $50,000!
That veto prevented O’Reilly’s Irish Pub from receiving funding from the City’s misbegotten and fiscally-foolish Façade Improvement Program. One of O’Reilly’s owners (and a neighbor of Schmidt’s), Ed Berry, contributed $175 to Schmidt’s mayoral campaign.
Given the size of the City’s budget, saving $50,000 – assuming Schmidt’s veto is not over-ridden by 5 aldermen at the Council’s December 6 meeting – isn’t earth-shattering in the economic sense. And those inclined towards trivializing achievements they oppose will undoubtedly note that $50,000 is less than 1/10 of 1% of the budget – like Alds. Allegretti and Ryan so often did in response to Schmidt’s veto of the Council’s public funds giveaway to private community groups.
But in this corrupt, “Ubi est mea” political cesspool known as Illinois, a public official stopping public money from filling the pockets of friends or campaign contributors is tantamount to the occurrence described by the fictional newspaper headline: “Man bites dog.”
On even a local level, Schmidt’s conduct stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Howard Frimark, whose tenure was marked by such questionable maneuvers as his closed-session lobbying for the City to buy 720 Garden from one of his country club buddies…at $200,000 more than the City’s own appraised value; or his casting of the tie-breaking vote to give $1,000 campaign contributor Napleton Cadillac $400,000 of site clean-up money even as GM was pulling its dealership.
We’d like to think that Schmidt’s victory over Frimark was, in part, a product of the voters’ rejection of such chicanery in City government, but that remains to be seen. Questionable deals like billboard licensing and the Fairview parking lot purchase still lay in the weeds; and, this being Illinois, they most likely are only the tip of the iceberg.
But this mayor, once again, has demonstrated that fiscally-irresponsible “business as usual” is no longer the unchallenged rule at City Hall.
To read or post comments, click on title.
17 comments so far
I’m sure a few of the mayor’s critics will respond with…criticism…and it’s not like the mayor has been perfect. But your point is valid. It’s nice to see. Speaking of Napleton, does anyone know what’s going on with him suing Park Ridge because of the rezoning of his parking lot? We heard that it was mentioned at the City Council meeting earlier this week.
I also would like to think that voters finally saw through Frimark’s dealmaking at our expense, but look at how long the voters allowed shysters like Ryan, Blago, Daley, Madigan, Blase, Stephens, etc. to bleed us dry.
The good news is Bach, Allegretti and Ryan are leaving. Good riddance! I’m not sure whether I hope Carey and Sweeney go or not, just like I’m not sure whether I’m sorry to see Wsol go with the way he tried to screw up the police station referendum.
I just hope there are contested elections in every ward so that voters have a choice between two or more candidats rather than between voting or staying home.
Pub-dog, don’t you ever get tired of being a shill for this mayor?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t consider it “shilling” for the mayor when he happen to agree with what he says or does, and then say so on this blog – just like we aren’t adverse to barbecuing him on those thankfully rare occasions when he leaves the reservation and does something questionable or stupid, like his handling of the Frimark ethics violation (“‘Show Trial’ An Affront To Park Ridge Residents,” 11/04/09).
God knows he’s stumbled and even bumbled on occasion, but he seems like a genuinely honest guy; and we get no sense that he’s involved in government to make a buck for himself and/or his buddies – unlike his predecessor and too man other public officials in this State.
3:10 what is your preference? That we harp on DipSchmidt and Pub-dog about: a.) American Eagle, b.) DipSchmidt’s drinking and drinking buddies, c.) why DipSchmidt hates (not in order) charitable groups, cops, firemen, old people, city staff, the city manager, and whoever else people whine incessantly about, d.) any other non-sensical issues that you can come up with but that don’t mean squat in the grand scheme of things?
Should I go on?
For you, Pub-dog is apparently not quite enough unrepentant and whatever the hell else goes on over at PRU and occasionally writes a piece actually giving some credit where credit is due. Whether it’s directed at DipSchmidt, the Scouts, some random city staffer or outside group can you not take it for what it is worth? Ever?
Good God man… get a hold of yourself!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t be sexist – 3:10 could be a woman.
“….but he seems like a genuinely honest guy”. Toooooo funny!! That is the best you can come up with? Maybe you chose to use those words. Kind of makes it seem like you hardly know him like most voters. Makes it seem as if you are not in his inner circle.
4:04
Since you make it sound like you know the mayor not to be “genuinely honest,” please share some examples of what you and “most voters” know that I don’t.
I never said I found to be “not genuinely honest”. I will say that he has not followed through on some of his campalgn statements but that does not mnake him dishonest.
My post was a aimed at Editor’s comment and the way they said it. The words I found to be amusing were not “genuinely honest”. It was the “seems like” part.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We used “seems” because we are relying on what we have seen, heard, and have read in the public record – and inferred from the combination of that information. Sadly, this being Illinois, the presumption of honesty in public officials is not what it should be – which is why we believe Mayor Schmidt’s most recent veto is so significant from a policy standpoint.
Pubdog said:
We used “seems” because we are relying on what we have seen, heard, and have read in the public record – and inferred from the combination of that information.
Well then, using that as the basis of applying the word “seems” —
“Seems” like the PW and Schmidt are full of ______ (it rhymes with the mayor’s last name and is as foul).
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hope you feel better getting that off your chest. Now, please confine yourself to the issue of the post.
Well 1042, you are the most clever creative blog poster I have ever read. Thank you so much for your contribution.
10:42… That was really clever, about as much as me telling you that you comment was the opposite of the name on this post. Why not add something to the “conversation” rather than just be a jerk?
You mus be from PRU…are you unrepentant or just stupid?
Anonymous 11.21.10 10:21 am and not stupid 11.21.10 1:25 pm:
Please confine yourselves to substantive comments about the post rather than name-calling.
It looks like 10:42 was adding opinion based on a statement made by PW that suggest substantively the person disagrees with the views offered by PW and Mayor. Because the person chose a creative and engaging (it did elicit response) manner to express it indicates that there are varied opinions in the body politic as to the veractiy in actions and statements of PW and Mayor and questions regarding the motoviations of the aformentioned PW and Mayor.
It makes for lively debate.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, 10:42 simply makes an unsubstantiated comment that doesn’t address the substance of the post. And as best as we can tell, you are 10:42. Now, whether you are also PRU-dence or just one of her elves is uncertain, but it’s time for you to go back to PRU.
This is the main problem with this blog (and it is even worse on the other one). Instaed of discussing the subject of the post, comments attack certain people or the blog itself unrelated to anything in the post.
I don’t care whether there are “varied opinions in the body politic as to the veracity in actions and statements of PW and Mayor.” There are loads of opinions out there that are just plain crap. If somebody thinks the mayor or PW hasn’t been truthful, especially in a way that has measurably hurt the City of Park Ridge or its taxpayers, they should say so rather than play around with these rinky dink insinuations from goofs like 10:42 and by extension (if PW is right in its Note to 11.21 at 1:55’s comment), 1:55.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s a problem we are in the process of addressing.
Back to the subject of the post, I agree that Mayor Schmidt’s actions were surprising in that they effectively removed city financial support for his friend’s business. Originally, when the Mayor recused himself from the liquor license debate and vote, I thought he was taking an easy way out of a debate that would place his principles at odds with his contributor’s needs. He apparently drew the line here.
technically,
mayor vetoed the suspension of the program. that veto provides for the program to be in full effect.
Should the council suspend the program again and the mayor does not veto, then the campaign donor friend of the mayor will not benefit.
Technically, the mayor did not stop program—he kept it in effect!!!
Talk about a load of bullschmidt that sir barksalot at Pubdog is spewing.
How’s that for substance!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Fine, if the “substance” people want is lies. You might have better luck peddling that kind of “substance” over at PRU.
We did not state that Schmidt stopped the facade program, only that his veto was intended to stop the sweetheart exemption for O’Reilly’s that the Council approved on Ald. Sweeney’s boneheaded request. And Schmidt’s veto statement specifically requests the Council to promptly enact the suspension of that program sans O’Reilly’s exemption, so he’s clearly on board for nuking the program and every application that was not approved and contracted for at that time.
To 12:26’s point about the mayor drawing the line in the sand, it sounds like he got involved only when he had to, after the COuncil itself botched the job thanks to Sweeney, Allegretti and Ryan passing the O’Reilly exception over DiPietro’s and Wsol’s “no” votes. I can understand Allegretti’s and Ryan’s votes, because they’ll spend whatever isn’t nailed down. But what the hell was wrong with Sweeney? Was he doing the bidding of his constituents?
anonymous on 11.22.10 6:09 pm asked:
But what the hell was wrong with Sweeney? Was he doing the bidding of his constituents?
It was if his consitutents include the Mayor’s “boozem buddies”, Declan Stapleton (who
happens to also run afoul of the law in his other boozer establishment in Tinley Park —
check the police reports down there–rife with violations) and Ed Berry (or should he be called “Beery”?
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>