Anybody who learned Government 101 – i.e., basic grade school Civics, at least before it got sliced and diced to accommodate more “contemporary” subjects like sociology, psychology, and Inuit studies – knows that there are divisions and levels of government.
Here in terminally-inept-when-not-outright-corrupt Illinois, we have more units of government than any other state: 6,994 separate “local” taxing bodies, or 2,100-plus more than runner-up Pennsylvania. And of those 6,994 separate taxing bodies, 3,249 are single-purpose “special districts” such as library districts, park districts, fire protection districts, mosquito-abatement districts, etc.
All these taxing bodies are petri dishes for the breeding of fiefdoms loaded with taxpayer-funded jobs and opportunities for well-connected insiders to make deals and do favors for their families and friends.
Not only are all these layers of government expensive to maintain, but their overlapping boundaries also make it difficult to hold any finite, identifiable group of public officials strictly accountable for every dollar taken from the taxpayers, and every dollar spent. That lack of accountability is another reason why all these units of government are favored by Illinois’ political class.
Which brings us to an item on tonight’s Park Ridge City Council Committee of the Whole agenda that merits a lot more attention than its relatively modest cost – $3,000 – would otherwise invite.
It’s described as “Vehicle donation to Maine Township Emergency Management Program” and it involves the proposed giveaway of a used Park Ridge SUV, worth an estimated $3,000, to a sub-unit of the Maine Township government our residents also support through our property taxes.
According to the materials accompanying Park Ridge Police Chief Frank Kaminski’s “Agenda Cover Memorandum”, something called the “Maine Township Emergency Management Program” (the “MTEMP”).was created by those folks who run the Maine Township fiefdom, and then given the “overall mission” to “provide emergency disaster services” to unincorporated Maine Twp. – areas which are also governed (and neglected?) by a Cook County government that wants to dump them on neighboring municipalities like Des Plaines, Glenview, Niles and…Park Ridge.
Maine Twp. government created MTEMP without getting the approval of, or even consulting with, the Park Ridge City Council. Maine Twp. government set MTEMP’s “mission” without getting the approval of, or even consulting with, our City Council. And, appropriately enough, until now MTEMP has been funded solely by Maine Twp. government. That’s the way it should be: if you create it and control it, you pay for it.
But in another example of governmental “mission creep,” MTEMP apparently decided to expand its “volunteer” efforts beyond “emergency disaster services” for unincorporated Maine Twp. to provide non-emergency amenity services to privately-run events like Taste of Park Ridge, the Chamber of Commerce’s “Winterfest” – along with amenity services to such non-City public events as Maine South football games and the Maine East Carnival – all without the request or formal authorization of the Park Ridge City Council.
Also apparently without being asked or authorized by our City Council, MTEMP reportedly “outfitted our [CERT] team at not cost to the City” – according to Kaminski’s unsigned and undated (Unsigned? Undated? C’mon, Chief, you’re better than that!) memo accompanying his Agenda Cover Memorandum.
So now, having provided all those hours of amenity services on a “volunteer” basis as an arm of Maine Twp. government, without being asked or authorized by our City Council, and without any sort of formal intergovernmental cooperation agreement, MTEMP wants $3,000 – in the form of a used SUV. And Kaminski, without a second thought and with the support of Fire Chief Mike Zywanski, wants to give it to them as a gesture of “support [of] their program and [to] say thank you for their years of service.”
Why?
Why should Park Ridge taxpayers pay for amenities provided by “volunteers” – especially when our elected representatives apparently never asked for those amenities or those volunteers, and never authorized them? And why should Park Ridge give MTEMP, an entity which Maine Twp. government created without asking Park Ridge, a $3,000 used vehicle when MTEMP’s own Maine Twp. government is admittedly sitting on a fund balance of $1 million but won’t spring for the three grand?
This situation reminds us of those guys who used to swarm cars stopped at traffic lights, wash the windshields, and then expect money for a service neither requested nor authorized by the drivers of those cars.
There’s an old adage that, whenever somebody says that “it’s not the money but the principle,” it’s really the money. But in this case, $3,000 is effectivley chump change for a City government with an annual budget of over $60 million. So our objecting to its being “donated” to MTEMP/Maine Twp. government really is based on principle – a principle so basic and fundamental to government that it should be recognized by EVERYBODY in City government entrusted with the money it seizes involuntarily from residents through property taxes.
If MTEMP’s “volunteer” services really were so important to the City, Chief K and/or Chief Z should have asked the City Council, in advance, for authority to use those services and the authority to pay MTEMP for them. Instead of seeking permission, however, the Chiefs apparently ignored the Council, went ahead and used those “volunteer” services as they pleased, and now want to guilt the Council into donating a $3,000 SUV – a/k/a, taxpayer funds – as some kind of gratuity.
Not surprisingly, that’s a win/win for Chief K and Chief Z, whose departments don’t have to rely on that $3,000 trade-in/re-sale value to get the new vehicles they want. So spitting away $3,000 of Park Ridge taxpayer funds to help out their Maine Twp. public-safety fraternity brothers is of no consequence to them. We suspect they’d be a little less cavalier with that $3,000 if they had to cut that amount out of their respective departments’ 2013-13 expenditures, however.
Giving away taxpayer funds to non-governmental entities was a bad idea when the money was being donated to private corporation community groups. It’s an even worse idea when the money is going to help out the the bucks-up Maine Twp. political fiefdom…whose officials (Carol Teschky, Bob Provenzano, et al.) constantly brag about how well they are managing that fiefdom.
But if Chiefs K and Z really are so appreciative of those volunteer MTEMP services, we encourage them to propose $1,500 of cuts to their departments’ budgets for the current fiscal year. Or else they can reach into their own pockets and either write personal checks to MTEMP, or agree to reimburse the City for the estimated $3,000 value of the SUV they want the City to “donate.”
How about it, gentlemen: Care to put your money – instead of the taxpayers’ – where your mouths are.
UPDATED 08.13.13. Last night the City Council’s Committee of the Whole (“COW”) rejected Chief K’s recommendation to make a “donation” – on behalf of Park Ridge taxpayers – to Maine Twp. government, in the form of a used City SUV with an estimated value of $3,000.
Alds. Nick Milissis (2nd) and Dan Knight (5th) made the arguments against this wrong-headed idea, and they were joined in their “no” votes by Ald. Marty Maloney (7th). Alds. Jim Smith (3rd), Roger Shubert (4th) and Mark Mazzuca voted “yes” without explanation; and, in the absence of Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st), the 3-3 tie prevented the proposal from moving out of the COW.
Whether the three aldermen voting “yes” had any good reason(s) or were mindlessly rubber-stamping Chief K’s recommendation remains unknown, as none of them reportedly spoke to the issue. Hopefully, they’ll wake up and realize that giving away Park Ridge taxpayer money to any other governmental entity – especially one which most Park Ridge taxpayers already are being forced to support with their property tax dollars – is bad public policy; and they’ll do so before the next such boondoggle comes before them, as it inevitably will.
But for the time being, a big Watchdog bark-out to Alds. Milissis, Knight and Maloney for understanding Civics 101. Now if only they can teach it to the other folks around The Horseshoe.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
I never saw how previous mayors and councils did not see what was wrong with giving tax dollars to private community groups, and I don’t see how this current council can vote to give this old SUV to Maine Twp. for MTEMP.
What troubles me is that for years various city managers and finance directors recommended giving away those donations to community groups, and today Chief Kaminski recommends giving away the SUV to MTEMP. Why don’t these people understand what you correctly describe as basic Civics?
EDITOR’S NOTE: OPM (“Other People’s Money”) seems to scramble a lot of public officials’ – elected and appointed – brains. We also have to wonder whether Staff’s nice paychecks and guarantied pensions at early retirement ages (relative to the private sector and Social Security) subconciously makes them think of the public purse as a bottomless gold mine for them to pick from.
Park Ridge got free emergency service labor/staffing and Maine Township got access to a high-traffic event that put serious revenues into the local Repuglican coffers. You got a problem with that?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Need you ask? Really?
I don’t think sociology and psychology — both of which you could stand to know a bit more about — are modern vices. I believe both started gaining credence at the turn of the last century. How did you manage to shoehorn your academic opinions into your message about sneaky — excuse me, low-profile — giveaways?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Applied Psychology 101.
That whole Maine Twp. fiefdom (as you call it) is kinky and has been for years. How long have Teschky, Provenzano, Kazmiriczak, Morask, Warner, Reuckert been in office, and didn’t Morask run for something as a Democrat?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We intentionally try not to pay attention to Maine Twp. government/politics because: (a) its so bizarre; and (b) it consumes a smaller part of Park Ridge tax dollars than School District 64 and 207, the City of Park Ridge, or the Park District. A decade ago you couldn’t tell the players without a scorecard, with shifting alliances and political manuvering dominating actual governance; and some of that still persists today.
As we recall it, Morask was elected as a Democrat in 2001 but has subsequently run as a Republican ever since. Beyond that, Google it and let us know.
While on the subject of giveaways. Where did the old playground equipment in CentennialPark go. I thought it was going to be used in the relocated playground ? Then I heard it was donated to some organization.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There seems to be a lot of misinformation and bait-and-switch going on at the Park District, including an additional $600,000 of expense for the new Centennial Pool that the H-A is reporting.
We can’t tell as of yet whether the Director is bamboozling the Board or the Board is complicit in bamboozling the taxpayers, but we’re looking into it.
Thanks to the publisher for shedding light — and common sense — on the latest symbol of local government dysfunction.
Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 describe perfectly how it all works against the taxpayer.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The deck is so heavily stacked against the taxpayers, it’s a miracle they don’t get ripped off even more than they already do – which is why it’s so important that elected officials always bring their “A games” to every aspect of their public service.
But even then, the bureaucrats’ career-long training in irresponsibility, unaccountability, anti-transparency, profligacy and what the late Mike Royko called “aggravated mopery with intent to gawk” often proves too formidable for those “volunteers” who seem to think that simply “wanting to give back to the community” is the only qualification they need to get the job done.
Based on what I’ve personally observed at meetings of the three largest local taxing bodies (city, schools, parks), the above two Editor’s Notes make an important point: Getting elected to one of these bodies means one has the responsibility to watch out for the residents. Instead it seems the elected reps just do what “staff” tells them. If there are shenanigans going on at the park district (or anywhere else) no one can say “it happened under the radar.” You ARE the radar.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly! Just because these units of local government have “professional” staffs doesn’t mean the elected officials can check their brains at the door.
Historically, however, they have done just that, with the worst violators being those school board members who seemed to fear even the appearance of challenging our professional “educators” on anything.
Thank you FTP for pointing out the PRPD’s shameful donation without taxpayer permission of perfectly good playground equipment that could easily be reused by the PRPD-either at another spot in the park or at the new Youth Campus facility. Wonder how many PR folks are aware of this action by the PRPD? Not only has the PRPD board given away a very useful asset-they have taken down a playground that is heavily used for most of the year. Where have all of the kids and families gone that relied on the park and playground equipment?
So now the waterpark is going to cost $7,700,000? Where is the extra $600,000 coming from and what is it for? How could the waterpark construction cost have gone up so much less than 8 months after approval and before groundbreaking? If the PRPD was going to issue $6,300,000 in non-referendum bonds for the waterpark and then take $800,000 out of reserves to make up the difference-will the extra $600,000 put them over the non-referendum bonding amount? Not sure the PRPD has that much more in reserve. And even if it did those funds should not be used to pay for a waterpark when so many other assets of the PRPD are in need a repair.
This PRPD board with leader, lobbyist and TOPR liar Mel Thillens appear to abusing their authority and making questionable financial decisions. What a shock.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There’s a stench emanating from Park District headquarters to be sure, but let’s not issue the indictment until we know all the facts – starting with whether the Centennial playground HAD to be removed to permit construction of the new water park.
And while we’ve been critical of Mr. Thillens in the past, we don’t think it’s fair to blanketly call him a “liar” without first identifying the particular “lies” being attributed to him.
The H-A article quotes Gayle Mountcastle from the PRPD that $1.46 million will come from excess money in the capital projects fund. How did the PRPD accumulate that amount in excess money? Have they been overcharging for other PRPD services and programs to create this reserve specifically to use to keep the waterpark bonding under the referendum amount?
It is highly unlikely that these additional $600,000 of costs just magically appeared. How sad it is that the PRPD staff under leader Mountcastle along with the outside consultants so grossly underestimated the cost of the waterpark-likely to make the cost of the waterpark more palatable at $7,100,000 than $7,700,000. It makes one wonder how grossly mismanaged and under budgeted the Youth Campus facility will be. Time for a new leader at the PRPD.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Now you’re getting closer to the mark.
The “professional” park and recreation staff, along with the “professional” consultants, seem to have baited-and-switched this project quite “well” – assuming that term can be used when describing the bamboozling of taxpayers by well-paid public officials. Unfortunately, it looks like the current Board was asleep at the wheel, or at the “radar” screen (to borrow a previous commentator’s metaphor), while it was happening.
Given the layout of the water park displayed in the Community Center lobby, the playground is in the way of the water park layout. It is likely many of the mature trees in that area of the park will also be taken down. However, instead of donating the equipment, why wasn’t it just relocated to wherever the PRPD will be placing it in the reconfigured park? Or used at the Youth Campus? Why get rid of a still usable expensive asset?
In addition, the neighbors of the water park have been told that no screening trees are being planted to block their view and diminish the noise of the slide. They were told there was no money for the trees they were promised by the PRPD board. But there is a $6000,000 overrun on costs already? The PRPD board and staff ought to sit down and get their stories lined up.
As far as Mel Thillens-he should not be a PRPD board member when he abused his position when he headed the “Our Parks Legacy” group. He was elected to the PRPD board to represent all of PR not just those who wanted to spend millions for unnecessary park land. He also is part of TOPR is he not. The same group that lied for years as PWD reported extensively about being a charity when it never was. Mel Thillens has not earned nor does he deserve to have the authority to make decisions that affect the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of PR.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Park Board members have, in the past, advocated for (and against) major referendum projects. We are unaware, however, of Board members doing so as part of an independent advocacy group (like Our Parks Legacy) rather than in their role as Park Board members. We also are unaware of anything that would legally preclude or call into question such conduct.
We recall Thillens’ involvement in TOPR commencing AFTER Taste Inc. reorganized itself from a for-profit corporation masquerading as a 501(c)(3) into a lawful 501(c)(6) entity, which would not make him accountable for the formerly for-profit Taste Inc.
Do we know for a fact they donated the equipment?? If so to who did they donate it??
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t.
Just because PRPD board members have advocated for and against referenda in the past does not make it right. In addition, could care less about the legalities of it. From a perception perspective-it is WRONG. PRPD board members are elected to represent all the residents of PR and to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to protect and maintain the assets of the PRPD-which all the taxpayers pay for through taxes and fees.
There was a charity truck at the park loading up the perfectly good playground equipment as it was taken out of the park. Don’t know who was the beneficiary of the PRPD’s perceived largesse.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And because a majority of voters cast ballots FOR the Youth Campus Park, it would appear that the PRPD board members, including Mr. Thillens, did in fact properly discharge their representational duties in this instance.
A “charity truck”? How could you tell?
Charity truck?!?!?! If you do not know who it went to how do you know it was a charity truck????? Did it just say “Charity” on the side if the truck???
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly.
Forgive me if this question sound unwise but how come Oakton Pool wasn’t made into a water park?
Perhaps if that was done we wouldn’t have to worry about losing green space and a playground that has existed there from the beginning.
Of course there’s Washington School just to the south so at least not all is lost.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakton Pool wasn’t made into a water park because it was structurally unsound. Additionally, its location in the far northwest section of Park Ridge was deemed less attractive and accessible than Centennial’s.
The name of the charity that took the PRPD perfectly usable equipment is listed in the HA article. YES A CHARITY TRUCK-Kids around the world. Did not know you needed a name to believe it to be true. There are pictures in the HA article online if you need more proof.
The PRPD is wasting our tax dollars with a flippant disregard for fiscal responsibility. You can blame Gayle Mountcastle but the PRPD board is ultimately responsible as they hired her and sign off on her actions so they are as much to blame for making fiscally irresponsible decisions.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Now that we have seen the article, we see similarities between what the PRRPD has done with the playground equipment and what the City just refused to do with the old SUV.
However, one possible difference is that we know the old SUV still had residual value – estimated at $3,000 – that the City could realize for the benefit of taxpayers; but we have no idea whether the old playground equipment had any similar residual value that the Park District could realize if it didn’t give the equipment away. Unfortunately, we could find nothing in the Park Board’s meeting minutes or meeting packet that addressed that issue, a lack of transparency which is not all that surprising.
I guess by now I should of figured about the structure part which I think the PRPD intentionally let slide though I don’t see why the location would of been less attractive just because it’s on the outskirts of town.
Somebody back in the late 60’s could of said building the Oakton Pool and sports complex in the location it is now (just The sports complex now) was silly for the same reason.
But they did anyhow.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakton Pool was built at that location because the space was AVAILABLE at that time. It would have been stupid to have ripped out a relatively new Centennial or Hinkley pool to accommodate an Olympic-sized one with diving well.
The Park District let Oakton Pool “slide” only AFTER it was determined that it could not be effectively and economically renovated, and that demand for Olympic-sized “swimming” pools was rapidly declining in favor of “fun water.”
1 thing I wonder about and it’s for those residents who have voted for this new water park. considering the problems with the Uptown TIF, The sewer and flooding problems, how come they’re so willing to vote for such an expensive project?
Are these the rich and upper class folk of PR who can afford this stuff?
If any of those folks are members of the local Country Club then they don’t need the public pools.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mikey…dude!…no residents “voted for this new water park” because the Park Board refused to put the water park to even a non-binding, advisory referendum…for the reasons that we have noted in our 08.16.13 post.
What is troubling is that I have not seen it reported in the paper that the city council had a chance to refinance the TIF loan when I was calling for it back in the beginning of the year. The reason they gave the herald when we had our “meeting” was that they were waiting for a lower rate since we can only do it once. Even though it was the lowest rate ever. Since the city council dragged its feet on this, they cost US THE TAXPAYERS roughly 2 million dollars a year. That would go a long way into paying for our underfunded infrastructure improvements. Don’t believe me, here is the quote from our City Treasurer Kent:
” director:As the City’s Treasurer, I (Kent) monitor and manage the City’s debt on a frequent basis, utilizing data and knowledge provided by William Blair’s John Peterson. In late May, Shawn, John, and I analyzed the savings of refunding the TIF bonds when called, versus the additional negative arbitrage costs of advance refunding the bonds. At that time, advance refunding the 2005 & 2006 Uptown TIF bonds on 12/1/13 would have yielded a present value savings of $2,091,740 – after negative arbitrage payments. At the same time, waiting to refund at the call dates, which ranged from 12/1/13 to 12/1/16, would have yielded a present value of $3,371,899v, if interest rates remained constant. Unfortunately, the economy started heating up and the Fed indicated an eventual end to its huge bond buying program. That has caused a dramatic drop in bond prices, raising yields as I write this to a 52 week high.
I called Mr. Peterson after the markets closed today (Thursday, June 20, 2013). Over the prior month rates had moved so dramatically that it was possible that most of the savings shown above had evaporated. Mr. Peterson said that he will get an up to date assessment Monday morning for distribution at Monday’s meeting. However, he warned that the assessment’s numbers are likely to fluctuate wildly in the short-term based upon current market conditions. ”
I do not want to see anything donated that was paid by taxpayers, but 3K compared to 2 million dollars EVERY YEAR of savings is something that should be printed in BOLD lettering.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We heartily agree that saving $3,000 is a big leap from saving $2 million, but we don’t believe you are correct when you say that the savings would be $2 million per year.
As we understand and recall the discussions back then and the advice of the City’s bond advisors, had the City called the bonds early it might have saved as much as $2 million (but with no absolute certainty) over the total indebtedness of those bonds; but the same bond advisors projected that if the City waited until the bonds became callable it might save as much as $3.4 million on those bonds (again, with no absolute certainty).
At that time, those bond advisors were not warning of any imminent jump in interest rates, so the Council – with no dissent from those bond advisors – chose to wait until the bonds became callable in the hopes of picking up an additional $1.4 million of savings, given that they can only re-fi once for each bond issue.
With 20/20 hindsight, that might have been wrong. Or not, because we won’t know until the bonds are callable. But we believe our recollection is accurate that none of the City’s bond advisors or City staff were giving the Council a now-or-never warning; or telling the Council that it was being irresponsible for waiting.
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>