As regular readers of this blog know, we are no fans of individuals or special interest groups who look to gain personal advantage at the expense of the taxpayers.
That’s why, for example, we oppose giveaways like the City’s facade improvement program and donations to private charitable organizations. And that’s also why we are big fans of user fees for uses of government facilities or services that are extraordinary, measurable and specifically allocable – especially when those facilities or services are amenities instead of necessities.
That’s also why, over the past couple of years, we have devoted several posts – including those dated 12.01.10, 07.29.11 and 04.16.12 – to the greed and intransigence of a small group of Park Ridge senior citizens who talk and act like they, and not the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District (and all of its taxpayers), own and control the Senior Center building at 100 S. Western.
Which provides a context for the Park District’s recent press release declaring its willingness to surrender in the recently-filed lawsuit over a $330,000 bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” by deceased Senior Center member Betty Kemnitz: Grodsky v. Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, Case No. 2012 CH 2032, currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
That seems like a good thing in our book, because this litigation has the makings of an expensive goat rodeo.
Let’s start with the fact that the plaintiff is Teresa Grodsky, whose 30-year employment as manager of the Senior Center terminated last year amid reports of insubordination and of secret dealings with Park Board member Steven Vile detrimental to the Park District, but beneficial to a private corporation with no legal affiliation to the Park District: Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.” or “SSI”), also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Grodsky apparently was so sure that Ms. Kemnitz intended Seniors Inc., rather than the Park District and its Senior Center facility, to receive her bequest directed to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” that Grodsky reportedly gave Seniors Inc. $250,000 of before the Park District woke up and claimed the bequest for its Senior Center. When she received the Park District’s claim, she promptly lawyered up and filed the lawsuit.
Perhaps because Grodsky and certain seniors were worried about the Park District’s prevailing in that litigation, a group of Senior Center “members” led by Helen Roppel are trying to join the suit by claiming to be an unincorporated association calling itself…wait for it…the “Senior Center.” As in: Let’s say we’re an association, call ourselves the “Senior Center,” and then say we’re the “Park Ridge Senior Center” named in the bequest.
How convenient. And how blatantly petty and dishonest.
And as if those aren’t enough goats for one rodeo, add to the mix the “Park Ridge Senior Center Senate,” whose officers drafted and circulated to Senior Center members a self-serving letter, along with some even more self-serving Senior Center Q & As, ripping the Park District for daring to challenge their “rights to control what happens at the [Park District’s Senior Center] building,” including their entitlement to Senior Center dues (“our dues”) that “should have been deposited in our accounts” rather than the Park District’s accounts, and deciding who can be a member of the Senior Center (“it was the Senior Senate which made those membership rules”).
It’s no secret we view the “leadership” of Seniors Inc. and this “Senior Senate” as a bunch of greedy geezers who make bratty young children seem temperate, cooperative and frugal by comparison. Which might explain why they are stomping their feet and threatening to take “their” money and start their own senior center independent of the Park District.
Great! How soon can they leave?
Whatever good intentions may have accompanied the founding of the Senior Center 30 years ago have been replaced by a greedy entitlement mentality by this senior “leadership” which insists on members’ paying a paltry $45/year in “dues” (that’s 17 cents a day!) even as they continue to bleed the taxpayers of roughly $160,000 each year to cover the Senior Center’s operating deficits. As best as we can tell, that’s the lowest-priced fee – by far – the Park District charges for any facility membership or program, which makes the $160,000 shortfall sucked out of the pockets of all Park District taxpayers all the more unacceptable.
So the sooner these geriatric welfare kings and queens pack up and leave, the better off everyone else will be.
But don’t expect that to happen anytime soon. The greedy always know when they’ve got a great deal and how to exploit it to the max. This senior crowd has been feeding at this particular trough for 30 years, and they’re not about to give it up – especially when they’re confident the Park District is likely to cave in to their demands if they keep playing hardball.
This fiasco is just another example of the shameless-versus-spineless contests we regularly write about, with governmental bodies invariably lacking the backbone. And it should be a warning to the Park District about the dangers of abdicating management and control of its programs and facilities to self-serving special interests like Seniors Inc. and the Senior Senate. And of not keeping a close and measured eye on its own employees.
Although Grodsky was a well-paid, high-seniority (pun intended) Park District employee, she apparently “went native” years ago, aligning herself with those 800-1,000 “seniors” (anybody 55 and older) belonging to the Senior Center instead of with the tens of thousands of taxpaying residents of the Park District – including the several thousand “seniors” who have never belonged to the Senior Center and likely never will. That twisted allegiance gave Grodsky an almost cult-like following among the Seniors Inc. leadership and Senior Senate members to whom she effectively turned over Senior Center decision-making, some of whom talked about her in ways reminiscent of steamy jungles, guayabera shirts, dark glasses and adulterated Kool-Aid.
Which is why, even though the Park District has waved the white flag in the Grodsky lawsuit, we aren’t betting on Grodsky, or the Seniors Inc. leadership, or the Senior Senate, accepting that surrender promptly or graciously. They’ve already got $250,000 of Kemnitz found money in addition to the $241,000 sitting in Seniors Inc.’s treasury (as of its 2010 Form 990-EZ), so the remaining $80,000 of Kemnitz’s bequest could easily become a litigation war chest.
As we’ve already seen, these petty and greedy geezers don’t give a damn about running up the taxpayers’ tab for their own benefit.
To read or post comments, click on title.
17 comments so far
You guessed right; that sad and squalid Buttinski or whatever blogger is encouraging the crew to refuse the gift in case they want to make more trouble in the future, after getting the monies. You are wrongly informed in one thing: Despite giving some of the money to the SSI while taking the PD’s paycheck, Ms. G. did eventually acknowledge that Mrs. K. meant the funds to go to the Park District facility at 100 S. Western where she and her friends had such a good time. But even St. Teresa’s belatedly truthful statement is no match for the ingrates’ greed — and worse, the desire to be front and center in a psychodrama worthy of the National Enquirer. A shame, when there is so much real need where they could have a positive impact on the community’s housebound, less affluent seniors who don’t have the luxury of fighting chimeras for fun and profit. But watch for the next step in this Rocky (or is it Rook-y) Horror Show — the club gives Teresa a job and takes over the Kalo Institute building. Good-bye, Kalo!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If Kalo lets these connivers in, it deserves whatever it gets.
“Great! How soon can they leave?”
As I’ve followed this fiasco, this has been my exact sentiment. I pay for a community center family membership, plus extra fees for classes, plus a summer pool pass. Every year. That adds up to a heck of a lot more than 17 cents a day.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And for those who are sitting on a mortgage-free house worth a few hundred grand, they can afford a lot more than 17 cents a day.
We are told we need a new police facility. We are told that this is because the existing facility is too small and has serious deficiencies of other sorts. (Do I believe this? No. But it is repeated frequently.)
But rather than build new (millions and millions)why not convert another appropriate structure. You know… like the Senior Center building on Western. It is new and modern in construction… is much larger than the old space… has generous parking… and could be converted for a fraction of the cost of a new police facility. Plus, conversion could be staged over enough time to lessen the impact of the conversion on the city budget.
As for the seniors? Let ’em use the old police space at city hall. For a fee. A very large fee.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not get carried away here.
The Senior Center building has features that would be wasted on a cop shop – a lineup on the Senior Center stage, for example, makes no sense unless you’re going to let the participants do a little song and dance.
We think the best solution would be to send the malcontents packing and let whomever else wants to belong to the “new” Senior Center do so, but at fees and rate structures that cover the operating costs. And the same goes for the sports affiliates and other programs.
Hello Bob,
I’d like to thank you for this clarifying post. And I’d like to thank the two commenters; Anon: 06/11/12 11:40 AM and 06/11/12 11:50AM.
One, can always count on you and your commenting-readers to represent Park Ridge’s best thinking on any subject; Senior Center fiasco included.
As a senior and one-time Senior Center member, I can only praise you for bringing to light the continued stupidity of the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan lead Board in pursuing the Kemnitz Trust money. Although, your reasons are different reasons than your own.
Stupidity does transcend politics.
Finally, “Squalid Buttinski?”
Please! Your readers need to learn how to spell.
That’s B U T T E R L Y!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hello, Ken.
Actually, Ken, the post pretty clearly points out that the only thing stupid about how the PRRPD has treated this Senior Center fiasco is letting these greedy geezers run the Senior Center this long and costing the taxpayers approx. $1 million in subsidies (over the past 6-7 years) while they’ve paid almost bupkus for their “memberships.”
But just to show there’s no hard feelings, pick your favorite senior-discount eatery and I’ll spring for the discount coffee – so long as they take a driver’s license instead of an AARP card as proof of “geezer” status.
PW, you miss the point, perhaps. We ARE going to be getting a new police facility. There is simply too much envy of the Skokie and Niles facilities to allow the power brokers in this town to sleep at night. Thus, the first question is, what sort of new police station will we be paying for, and how much.
The second question is whether or not a seniors facility is needed, at all. I say they are plenty of non-governmental facilities where seniors can enjoy themselves.
Thus, re-purposing the existing Senior Center saves us a bundle, and in two specific ways.
And you are right: the stage is not useful to the cops. Nor are some other features of the building, I am certain. That’s why you CONVERT those negatives into things the police will need.
What’s so hard about that concept?
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s basic premise: that a new cop shop is inevitable.
In 2009, not only did the voters destroy the straightforward “Joe Egan” cop shop referendum by 5,500 votes (83%-17%0), but they also soundly defeated the confusing “Frank Wsol” cop shop referendum by over 500 votes (53%-47%). And now that the City is committing approx. $1.3 million to renovations and additions to the current cop shop which would be totally wasted if a new one was built, it’s a dead issue for the foreseeable future.
Man that is a versitile building!!! First it was a senior center, then someone suggested we make it a PADS shelter and now a police station!!
Why don’t we make it a Whole Foods!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Too small.
It’s disappointing to me that this small group of seniors (and I’m a senior) want money and control that belongs to the Park District and its representatives we elected.
It shouldn’t take a judge to figure out that a bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” meant the Senior Center run by the Park District, not some private group like SSI or a bunch of people who belong to the Senior Center. If Ms. Grodsky gave $250,000 to SSI under these circumstances, shame on her.
“Greedy geezers” is a horrible term that disrespects all senior citizens in Park Ridge. You will be a senior some day and not like being referred to in such a harsh and demeaning tone. Start writing about issues.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unfortunately, “greedy geezers” is an accurate term and is only intended to describe what we believe to be a couple/few handfuls of seniors who want to control the Senior Center and stay on taxpayer welfare.
The editor/publisher of this blog IS a “senior,” and he’s offended by the selfishness and arrogance that’s been displayed by these “greedy geezers” in dealing with what is a public asset, not their own semi-private clubhouse.
4:39:
This is a very tricky issue and a very emotional one. You said the following….”It shouldn’t take a judge to figure out that a bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” meant the Senior Center run by the Park District, not some private group like SSI or a bunch of people who belong to the Senior Center”.
I am sorry but your statement baffles me. Did you know the women and what her thoughts, feelings and intentions were around this issue?? Did you have a conversation with her about this?? I never met her let alone had a conversation with her so please inlighten me.
I understand people on differents sides love to use extreme retoric and the blog world only encourages this but it seems to me a judge is the only final way to decide. You seem to pretend that the answer is obvious when it is anything but!!!
Or we could simply rely on good ole’ 4:39 AM because he or she knows what she meant.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a “tricky” and “emotional” issue only to those who use such terms to hide and justify their greed and selfishness. And the answer should be “obvious” to anybody with an ounce of common sense whose vision isn’t blurred by personal gain.
Unless Ms. Kemnitz drafted her own trust, she presumably told a lawyer what she wanted; and, in turn, that lawyer turned those wishes into a legal trust document. She apparently told her lawyer she wanted it to go to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” and that is, and always has been, the building at 100 S. Western owned by the Park District, not Seniors Inc. or a bunch of people suddenly calling themselves the “Senior Center.”
But since these greedy geezers want to act like bratty children, we’re fine with the Park District settling the whole stinking mess and telling Seniors Inc., the Senior Senate, and anybody claiming to be a “member” of this bogus “Senior Center” association to take the money and get out. With a half-million dollars, let them run their private club on their own dime rather than on the taxpayers’ dime.
Was Park Board President Rick Biagi part of the 4 person committee formed by the mayor to interview the candidates for the 6th ward aldermanic vacancy?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We published that fact in our June 4 post, Zippy, but what relevance does it have to the subject matter of this post?
Interesting….rumor has it Biagi didn’t even take part in the interview process……should be easy for you to confirm since you were there.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No nee for a rumor, because it’s actual fact: he was not there. But the interviews were recorded so that he could listen to them before casting his “vote.”
Once again, what’s the relevance to this post?
Funny Mr. Butterly is incensed at his name being spelled wrong. It took him months to learn how to spell Mr. Biagi’s name correctly.
Please point out to your readers that the Park Ridge Senior Center is owned and operated by the Park Ridge Park District so is not available to conversion by fiat into a police station or anything else. Although I did love your image of a police lineup being conducted on the Senior Center stage.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Okay, now add the image of Cmdr. Lou Jogman barking out “Five, six, seven, eight” and a bunch of perps/mopes breaking into “ONE! Singular sensation….”
“That adds up to a heck of a lot more than 17 cents a day.”
I’m the one who posted at 11:50 and I realized my full reply didn’t post. I think I was too quick on the “submit” button.
Anyway, all I wanted to point out was the dramatic inequity between what seniors pay for programming compared to everyone else. It hadn’t occurred to me that perhaps the costs for the “regular” programs have had to be jacked up a bit to make up for the little bit that senior center dues contribute. It would be nice to see that gap closed a bit.
EDITOR’S NOTE: ALL “amenities” should be pay-as-you-go, with the fee being the fully-loaded cost of the amenity. We don’t believe taxpayers should be subsidizing the senior club house, just like they shouldn’t be subsidizing youth football programs, community center memberships, etc. All fee structures should be looked at.
What gives with the chumminess with Butterly, PW? He supports everything you oppose. And one of his recent commentators ripped you a new one for your “denigration of others,” your “name calling,” and your “tripe.”
BTW, I agree 100% with your “tripe” on this issue.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe we can learn something from each other.
As for denigrating and name calling, we’re guilty as charged. We believe anybody who selfishly and greedily feeds at the public trough deserves to be called out for it. Which means calling a spade a spade, much like Harry S Truman did when he told the truth and the subjects thought it was hell.
We also assume that Butterly’s commentator meant “tripe” in only the nicest way.
First to straighten out one thing, the seniors have paid the Park District, through SSI, it’s financial arm, approximately $2,000,000 over the years. Also, over the years many bequests were left to the Park Ridge Senior Center, and all funds were delivered to Senior Services Inc. Therefore, in the eyes of the court, the seniors have a long list of precedents. Not looking good for the Park District. The Park District’s present offer to relinquish their claim to the Kemnitz bequest (your white flag surrender) comes with a HUGE HOOK. They want GENERAL release of all claims. Almost all such offers ask for release only from the matter at hand. Since the seniors have spent almost $1,000,000 expanding and refurbishing the park district building, a provision was entered into the 30 agreement. If at any time, the Park District refused to sign that agreement, the amount spent on that building would be depreciated at 3% per year and the Park District would then repay the seniors for their investment. They refused to sign that agreement in 2010. That is why the Park District wants a general release, not one specific to the Kemnitz matter. They’re afraid the seniors are going to sue them for reimbursement. So it’s not the white flag surrender that they have sent out in a press relase. They want something for walking away. Very misleading.
EDITORS’S NOTE: What’s “very misleading” is your comment, starting with Seniors Inc.’s paying “approximately $2,000,000 over the years. Just the paltry membership dues over 23 years would have accounted for almost $900,000, effectively for services rendered. The greedy geezers pulled more than that out of the taxpayers in subsidies to cover the Senior Center’s operating deficits in just 6 years, from 2005-2010, as we pointed out in our post “Time For A Senior Center Reality Check” (01.27.11).
And “bequests” are found money for which Seniors Inc. deserves no credit whatsoever.
Nobody in their right mind would settle this goat rodeo lawsuit without a full and complete release of every claim from Day 1 to the present; and if the Park District were to agree to anything less, the Director should be fired and every Commissioner who votes to do so should be thrown out of office, so irresponsible would suce a decision be.
But if Seniors Inc. or this bogus “Senior Center” association want to insist on some sort of limited release, then let the litigation go forward. Meanwhile, let the ingrates leave and set up their private clubhouse somewhere else, on their own dime.
Editor: Whether you want to admit it or not, the Park Distict should have made an honest statement to the papers and disclsosed that they wanted something in return for their releasse. Their purpose was to look good to the citizens of Park Ridge. They are very aware that their case is weak at best, so they’re trying to come out of this debacle looking good.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What the Park District wanted in return for their release is the same that any releasing party wants: a full and total release for all claims that the parties have against each other that could have been litigated.
What the geezers’ greed seems to have obscured is their judgment. With a settlement, Seniors Inc. would get the entire Kemnitz trust – much more than we believe they would receive if they went all the way to trial – and stop running up legal bills that will reduce any amount they ultimately get. In return, they would give up approx. $250K they might still be entitled to under the terms of their “deal” with the Park District, which is the “risk” premium for the cost of continuing the litigation and possibly losing.
In a perverse way, we hope the Seniors Inc. and association folks reject the settlement and that they lose the litigation. Then we would get a legal resolution that would take away the propagandizing by both sides.
Frist, you have again failed to address the fact that the Park District did not state in their press release that there was a quid pro quo. They wanted a “general” release in turn for relinquishing their claim to the Kemnitz bequest. We disagree that settlement agreements contain language stating full release of all claims. Generally, the agreements contain a provision asking for a release of all claims relative to the subject being litigated.
Bottom line, the Park District failed to make clear in their press release that there were strings attached to their release. This, of course, made them look like they had the white hats, rather than someone negotiating for something.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There are always “quid pro quo”s in litigation settlements, and one of them usually is a general mutual release.
As for the Park District having “the white hats,” we think all parties involved should be wearing brown helmets for how this whole Kemnitz Trust bequest was botched, starting with Ms. Grodsky’s giving $250K of the $330K bequest to Seniors Inc. even though nobody with an ounce of common sense would view “Park Ridge Senior Center” as synonymous with “Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc.”
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>