It’s not often PublicWatchdog has a sharp disagreement with Mayor Dave Schmidt, but this is one of those times.
Last night’s City Council meeting was Schmidt’s last chance to veto the sweetheart Taste of Park Ridge (“TOPR”) 2012 contract between the City and Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) which, arguably, constitutes an improvement over the no-contract monopoly Taste Inc. has held for the past 7 years. But only because any contract usually is better than no contract.
Two weeks ago the Council endorsed, by a 6-1 vote (Ald. Knight dissenting) the deal which shamelessly perverts an ostensible 50/50 “profit-sharing” arrangement between Taste Inc. and the City by allowing Taste Inc. to pocket the first $20,000 of any TOPR 2012 “profits.” That extra $20,000 will get added to Taste Inc.’s hefty $80,000+ bank account, which consists entirely of money wheedled out of the City by Taste Inc. – in the form of $20,000+ of initial “seed money” and another $70-90,000+ in free City police, fire and public works services since 2005.
Taste Inc. will get that extra $20,000 before the City gets dime one of “profit-sharing.” And from what Taste Inc. has reported as its previous years’ annual “profits” from TOPR, it’s likely that profits won’t even cross the $20,000 threshold. But, astoundingly, 6 of our 7 aldermen apparently thought that’s a fair deal for the City.
We probably shouldn’t have been all that surprised. The contract was put together by City Mgr. Jim Hock, for whom spending OPM (“Other People’s Money”) is a lifetime avocation. And after 7 years of prior Councils letting Taste Inc. have its lucrative way without even a question, just getting this current crop of aldermen to demand that Taste Inc. reimburse the City for its expenses was tough enough. Their demanding profit-sharing starting with the first dollar – before Taste Inc. boosts its bank account to an unprecedented $100 grand level – would have been a minor miracle.
But, frankly, we had hoped Schmidt could muster the courage to veto the contract on that profit-sharing point. After all, he is the same “Mayor No” who consistently – and correctly, we might add – has vetoed numerous appropriations of public funding, including $3,168 for Meals on Wheels just last month.
Which leaves us wondering: If the Mayor doesn’t believe Meals on Wheels is deserving of $3,168 to provide “bread” for needy Park Ridgians for 3 months, how can he justify giving away as much as $10,000 of profit-sharing money to another private corporation that provides “circuses” for a mere 3 days?
If Schmidt had the courage to stand against a TOPR 2012 contract that puts $10,000 in the pockets of a special interest run by a handful of folks, instead of in the City treasury for the public interest of all City taxpayers, he might have given a veto address that began with a reiteration of his oft-stated belief that public funds should not be handed out to private entities except under the most limited of circumstances and only for essential City services, not entertainment.
He might have also noted that Taste Inc. doesn’t need another $20,000, since it already is sitting on more money than it’s ever had or ever needed to run TOPR; and that all of that money is actually City money accumulated by Taste Inc.’s not paying for all those City services it received over the past seven years.
He could have reminded his Council colleagues of their recent struggles to construct a balanced budget which, even with another 3%-plus property tax increase figured in, has required pinching pennies in order to avoid a return to the bad old days of million-dollar operating deficits, as well as to help ensure the long-term financial health of this City for ourselves, our children, and their children.
And, if Schmidt wanted to show some real leadership, he could have coupled his veto with the request that Taste Inc. agree to amend the contract language to split any profits with the City 50/50, starting with the very first dollar of profit – a split that is eminently fair and reasonable, given this community’s unwavering and generous support of the Taste event over the past seven years.
Unfortunately, instead of courage and leadership, Schmidt displayed his inner Cub fan with what amounted to an insipid “wait ‘til next year.”
So Schmidt will sign the TOPR 2012 contract; the City and its taxpayers will receive for the first time reimbursement for City services to be provided to TOPR this summer; and the handful of folks who run Taste Inc. as their little fiefdom will once again laugh all the way to the bank at the taxpayers’ expense.
But the bright side for Schmidt is that, in return for his endorsement of the Council’s $10,000 sell-uut of the taxpayers, the Tastees will probably let the mayor work the beer tent again this summer.
Boo-yah!
To read or post comments, click on title.
11 comments so far
I don’t know which to hope for more, a successful event or a rainout. On the one hand it does increase sales tax dollars to the county and brings in folks from other areas that might buy goods at Park Ridge stores thereby helping business. On the other hand, why are we the Park Ridge taxpayers and residents footing this bill?
Either way, the process is disappointing from the RFP request by the city to the Taste Inc. final approval.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The fact that Taste Inc. is run by a handful of people who have no qualms about filling their own bank account at the expense of the taxpayers is no reason to hope the TOPR event is unsuccessful. If a majority of our City Council (and every City Council since 2005) had the integerity and the concern for the public interest elected officials should have, this situation would have been straightened out two weeks ago – without the need for a Schmidt veto.
Hock’s drafting of the RFP set the process down the wrong track, and we believe this botched process will prove “successful” in warning anybody other than Taste Inc. that any future RFP is probably a sham and a waste of time. Which makes this year’s goat rodeo all the worse.
I am disappointed that the mayor didn’t veto the issue. I am guessing that since we are already in spring, a veto would cause headaches for the organizers. Still, I agree with you, the profits from the event should have been split with the City.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Taste Inc. put the 2005 TOPR together in less than a month and with $20,000 of the City’s “seed money” – and then got sore hands from patting themselves on the back about what a great event it was. The idea that they need to boost their private 501(c)(6) lobbying/political slush fund to a cool $100K to make it “self-sustaining” is a bunch of horse hockey (as M*A*S*H*s Col. Potter used to say).
Disappointing vote by the council, cowardly non-action by the mayor, offensive behavior by the Taste of Park Ridge people.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, that would be the Cliff’s Notes version.
I support the mayor in this situation. 1) It is preferable that Taste of Park Ridge happen as opposed to not happen. 2) The City Council voted to approve the contract with TOPR, Inc with a majority large enough to override a mayoral veto. 3) The group which was approved to run Taste of Park Ridge is the same group who have run Taste of Park Ridge in the past few years.
I applaud most of Mayor Schmidt’s vetoes. He seems to be genuinely trying to rein in municipal spending. But, a veto in this instance would have saved the taxpayers exactly nothing. Some spending fights are worth having. This was not one of them. Mayor Schmidt did the right thing.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Godfrey: There was no – NO – realistic chance that Taste Inc. wasn’t going to put on this event this year, unless the City chose another vendor. And there was no – NO – realistic chance that this City Mgr. and a majority of this City Council were going to give TOPR to another vendor, irrespective of the RFP charade.
We think that standing on principle is always worth doing. If Mayor Schmidt had vetoed only the Council decisions that he knew he had the votes to sustain, you would have had only half, or less, of them to “applaud.” And those issues would have received a lot less public attention than they did. Worse yet, he would have been playing the kind of finger-in-the-wind, go-along-to-get-along politics that has been SOP in Springfield for at least 30 years and, until recently, had been SOP in Washington. How’s that workin’ for you?
We agree that Mayor Schmidt has been trying, and generally succeeding, in reining in spending. But the bottom line here is that a shameless Taste Inc. chose to turn TOPR 2012 into a game of “chicken”; a clueless/spineless Council majority blinked; and a Cub-fan mayor defaulted to “wait ’til next year” mode. But unless TOPR 2012 makes a profit of zero, this decision most certainly will cost the taxpayers more than “nothing”: it will cost them 50% of every dollar of profit Taste Inc. registers which, even in a down year, should be more than the $3,671 to Meals on Wheels that Schmidt recently vetoed.
Which just goes to show that our City officials would rather pay more for a “taste” than for a “meal.”
This blog is a farce. The only time you disagree with the mayor is when he doesn’t come down on his perceived political rivals hard enough.
Just a few weeks ago, in the comments of your 3.05.12 post, this blog suggested that a veto would be unneccessary and useless. Now there is a change of heart.
This tactic is nothing more than a way for the mayor and his supporters to speak out of both sides of their mouths.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You must be referring to this Editor’s Note:
“No mayoral veto, even if sustained by the necessary 3 votes, is likely to convince anybody that this year’s process was fair; or that any future process supervised by Hock and endorsed by a 4-alderman Council majority, will be any better.”
Looking at it in the context of your comments, Zippy, we can see how a dull-witted person might interpret that comment as suggesting that “a veto would be unnecessary and useless.” So we’re sorry if we confused you.
As for Schmidt’s “perceived political rivals,” who are you talking about, Zip?
I was actually referring to the entire content and character of all your editor comments in response to the 3.05.12 post. If you read them all and come away without the idea that this post constitutes a change of heart, then maybe you shouldn’t be calling others dull-witted.
And the mayor and his supporters seem to think that anyone with a differing opinion about anything represents a political rival.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, Zip, but your “shotgun” attempt at covering your butt is no better than your “rifle-shot” that missed its mark.
As for political rivals, Zip, don’t project your paranoia or delusions onto others.
5:13AM,
You must be wearing blinders. This post seems to me to be a harsh criticism of the mayor.
Your rants remind me of lyrics from “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel:
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest ”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Actually, it was meant to be “a harsh criticism” of the Council, Taste Inc. AND the Mayor.
You simply weren’t advocating for a veto on 3.05 and you are now. That is simple truth no matter how you want to spin it.
To 7:02 – I am using more information than what is contained on this website to come to my conclusion, including yesterday’s H-A article regarding the mayor still not satisfied with the Taste and the mayor’s own public address, to conclude that the editor of this blog and the mayor agree on the substance of the arguement, but that it is politically convenient for them to not veto the contract and still rail on it in cyberspace.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Third time’s the charm, eh Zip? Yes, we did not advocate for or against a veto of the TOPR contract in our 03.05.12 post – basically because the post was written BEFORE the Council voted to approve that contract. But before you start drooling, we also didn’t advocate for or against a veto in our “update” of that post. If we knew who you were, Zip, we’d send you a crisp new $1 bill with the endorsement “To a fine young man/woman on finally getting something ‘right’ – even if it took 3 tries.”
As for the rest of your comment, there is nothing “politically convenient” about anything we write. We call ’em as we see ’em, which is why when Schmidt screws up we call him on it – just like we do with everybody else. And then we give folks like yourself a forum to share your views, even when we don’t agree with them.
Ten thousand dollars is ten thousand dollars. Why should it go to Taste instead of the City? Isn’t Taste a not for profit?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Although it claimed to be an NFP since 2005, Taste Inc. was actually for-profit until 2009 – when it closed down and re-incorporated as a 501(c)(6) NFP. Unlike a 501(c)(3) NFP that ostensibly exists for the “public interest” – like charities – a 501(c)(6) NFP is a “business league” or similar organization created to advance its members’ economic interests (we understand that the NFL is a 501(c)(6) organization).
Also unlike a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(6) organization is permitted to use its resources to lobby and promote particular issues and interests, although it cannot legally contribute directly to an individual candidate or individual cause.
and speaking of “The Boxer”
…and he carries the reminder
of every blow that cut him ’til he cried out
in his anger and his shame,
“I am leaving! I am leaving!”
But the fighter still remains.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for yet another Simon & Garfunkle moment, but if it’s intended to be relevant to this post you’re being way too obtuse for us.
Abstruse, but not obtuse. I’d say “The Boxer” kinda summons up a number of the current players, valiant and otherwise, don’t you agree?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe it’s time to put the bong away.
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>