"Shall the village of Riverside retain its parks and recreation board"
http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=6371
The idea was also mentioned here by corbi296:
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/sacchi-dream-riverside-nightmare-about-to-come-true/page/3#post-13197
I received this email from David Kodama earlier today. Reproduced with his permission:
Please pardon this 2nd intrusion. I forward this on for your information.
"There are 73 years of good reason for tradition in Riverside -- Don't Politicize Recreation."
"Stop the Takeover"Save the Riverside Parks and Recreation Board!
Riverside's recreational system is under critical attack. A majority of the Village Board wants to eliminate the Parks and Recreation Board, which has been in existence since being established by popular referendum in 1937. The Village Board majority has claimed it is doing so as a result of the "will of the people," although at the last two Board of Trustee meetings where this subject was discussed not a single person came forth to support this misguided plan.
The Village Board's intent is to divert money that has been used for recreation for over seventy years so they can spend it on other uses and over time eliminate our playgrounds and recreational facilities. This is the culmination of a decade's long desire by Trustee Sacchi to remove permanent recreational structures from our parks. In fact, President Gorman admitted at the last Village Board meeting their willingness to close tennis courts and remove recreational equipment under the pretense of saving money.
We need your help and we need it now! There is no time for apathy or delay. If we want to stop this misguided plan we must act immediately!
A group of concerned residents has prepared a Petition to put this question to a Village-wide referendum on the November ballot. This will prove once and for all whether there is a public desire to do away with our Parks and Recreation Board.
If you care about Parks and Recreation, be in front of Grumpy's this Saturday, July 24, at 9:30 a.m. We will be distributing Petitions and obtaining signatures. Time is of the absolute essence as the Petitions must be filed by July 30!
You must be there if we are to save Riverside's Parks and Recreation Board! Let's have a line down the street to show unequivocally that the public is opposed to this power grab by the Village Board. The press will be in attendance and we need not just a strong showing but an overwhelming and dramatic showing. Whatever else you are doing that day, please give us an hour of your time on Saturday morning.
The future of parks and recreation for Riverside is on the line.
Please distribute this e-mail to everyone you can think of that cares about Riverside's future.
David mentioned that this was his 2nd intrusion. Here is the first:
Friends -
The message is clear. If the RCA gets its way, Riverside will be making a statement about how we value recreation and community. For 73 years, our town's public policy placed special value on our "recreation system." This proposal to strip the authority of the P&R Board turns its back on that well-established vision. It says that recreation is nothing more than an expense item.Look at the trend. To continue our long-standing tradition of a 4th of July celebration in town, or to achieve a well-groomed CBD w/ nice planters and flowers, we could not look to this Village. It was left to be done with the sweat equity of "volunteerism." A similar sentiment can be said about crossing guards for our children - that, fortunately, involved a failed attempt to push that responsibility onto our education system.
Now, our community, recreation and playgrounds are at risk, minimally, of being de-valued. This is why a Parks & Recreation Board, not a Commission, was established. Up until their funds were severely cut, our Parks & Recreation Program was thriving and, along with our education systems, was a marketable reason for families to move and stay in Riverside.
With its full-funding remanded, P&R should be be excited about its future. Instead, this RCA proposal offers only uncertainty.
I trust (hope) that my opposition is shared with some of you. Please actively participate in this debate as it transpires over the next 2 months by emailing or writing the Landmark, (talking to) your fellow Riversiders, and, especially, the Trustees.
Michael C. Gorman mgorman@riverside.il.us
James D. Reynolds jreynolds@riverside.il.us
Lonnie R. Sacchi lsacchi@riverside.il.us
John E. Scully jscully@riverside.il.us
Benjamin Sells bsells@riverside.il.us
Mark D. Shevitz mdshevitz@riverside.il.us
Jean Sussman jsussman@riverside.il.usThank you for your time.
David Kodama
There's alot of people who have children to watch on Saturday morning and may not have someone else to watch their kids. Here's a suggestion - drop them off at Sacchis place and let them play on his yard.
Suggestion: Why not make your question something like this:
"Should Riverside create a Park District that would have its own separate taxing authority and elected, not appointed, board members." It seems like that is what you want and would be more responsive than what you have now.
Just a suggestion.
To clarify - thinking about this in bed: Maybe it would be good to be like the Library. You have your own levy, elect your own Board, hire your own staff, do your own programming, maintain your own fields in return for using them, perhaps attract your own donations... the Village might contract to do certain things for you, or??? This would be a meaningful referendum, not a loaded question subject to "he said, she said." You could doit in an orderly and not antagonistic way from both sides, sparation of church and state, so to speak. I think that is what many towns have... a separate Parks and Rec DISTRICT.
Don,
While the idea of a separate Park district is interesting, it seems to me that Riverside is simply too small to support such an entity. Additionally, the issues raised by Riverside's NHL status would make this quite complex.
Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy with the system that has served us well for over 75 years--an appointed Board that retains control over a designated levy. This system works for Riverside and I see no reason to change it. The referendun will, if nothing else, indicate whether other residents feel the same way.
If the levy (all in round numbers) is $200K, and, as Mr. Gangware told me at a Rec meeting fees and other income are about $150K - or they need to be, I'm not sure which, then it's a $350K enterprise. So why not have the people that spend that independent but elected, as the Library Board is. Then, they may feel it is worthwhile to look for ways to operate smarter and for less cost, and the BoT won't have to be involved. What you have now seems to have the problem of one spending and another paying - to some extent, and that is a conflict.
The ref question that I read, and many of the arguments, seemed calculated more for propaganda than for streamlined management and independence. The argument about "since 1937" is spurious - traffic laws from '37 or tax laws or anything else would not work well today. If the Rec people really want to be independent than create their own district, let them be elected like the Trustees are, and operate as they decide, with their own levy (which they seem to have now) and whatever else they get. Maybe someone will leave them something, and then they'll be sitting pretty. I really don't care what you do, or they do, these are just my personal thoughts and not discussed with anyone.
Mark Shevitz's spouse sent out the following email today, with a response from Mark.
I have received a number of questions about recreation in Riverside including receiving this email about this topic. Here is a response from Mark. Please feel free to contact him directly at mdshevitz@riverside.il.us.
I know there's been a lot of discussion online about the Parks and Rec Board this week. I know residents are concerned, so I wanted to point out a few things. You know that I would not do anything that would negatively impact the recreation opportunities in Riverside - I want those things to continue for Jake, Jake's friends, and Riverside families. Right now, the plan on the table is to leave the Parks and Recreation Department exactly the same as it is, except to give them more money. The only change in anything to do with Rec is to have the department overseen by elected officials instead of appointed ones. By law, the money that the Parks and Rec Department gets must be spent on Parks and Rec - contrary to what has been said and written, it cannot be diverted.If Lonnie (and/or Mike and/or RCA) really wanted to "do away with Rec," they had the chance: the last board, including Ben Sells, voted in 2008 to give Rec no budget for 2010. Not a single dollar. This past year, when it came time to do the 2010 budget, every single village board member - including Lonnie and Mike, voted to restore the Parks and Rec Department budget. I don't know how you can say that someone who put money back into Rec after a previous board took it out is trying to "divert money from" or "kill off" the department.Has Lonnie made some statements years ago that expressed opposition to building a playground in a park? Yes, but he also admitted in February, 2009 that he was wrong about that. But the other side is trying to paint Lonnie as some sort of child-hater. Anyone who knows him knows this is not true. It's also a pretty ugly thing to say about someone, but that's also been the pattern from the other side - they will say anything to try and get their way.Bottom line: if the village board votes to change the Parks and Rec Board (different from the Rec department) to a Parks and Rec Commission here is what will happen: the Parks and Rec Department will stay exactly the same, they will have more money than before, and they be overseen by elected officials instead of appointed ones. Parks and Rec is not going away. What's driving all of this is politics.
Trustee Shevitz's letter deserves an honest response. Let's take a closer look at his claims in light of the actual facts:
"I know there's been a lot of discussion online about the Parks and Rec Board this week. I know residents are concerned, so I wanted to point out a few things. You know that I would not do anything that would negatively impact the recreation opportunities in Riverside - I want those things to continue for Jake, Jake's friends, and Riverside families. Right now, the plan on the table is to leave the Parks and Recreation Department exactly the same as it is, except to give them more money."
Response: Nonsense. The Village Board is not "giving" the Parks and Recreation Department anything. The voters of Riverside in 1937 set a tax levy to be administered by an independent Parks and Recreation Board for the purpose of maintaining an active recreation system in Riverside. That is exactly what the Village Board majority now wants to reverse by a vote of four men. And, by the way, how about we don't use our kids as political shills.
"The only change in anything to do with Rec is to have the department overseen by elected officials instead of appointed ones. By law, the money that the Parks and Rec Department gets must be spent on Parks and Rec - contrary to what has been said and written, it cannot be diverted."
Response: More misinformation. The Parks and Recreation Board is already overseen by elected officials -- the Village Board. The 1937 ordinance specifically provides for fiscal review and oversight by the Village Board. As to diversion of funds, the RCA has already gotten an opinion from their Village Attorney that the funds may be used for parks maintenance, a departure from over 73 years of funding practice in the Village that creates potential legal and accounting problems. The RCA and its attorney have also threatened to use the Illinois tax cap law as a way to gut the Parks and Recreation Department's funding so they can divert more revenue to other things they want to spend money on -- including the legal fees being wasted on this entire issue.
"If Lonnie (and/or Mike and/or RCA) really wanted to "do away with Rec," they had the chance: the last board, including Ben Sells, voted in 2008 to give Rec no budget for 2010. Not a single dollar. This past year, when it came time to do the 2010 budget, every single village board member - including Lonnie and Mike, voted to restore the Parks and Rec Department budget. I don't know how you can say that someone who put money back into Rec after a previous board took it out is trying to "divert money from" or "kill off" the department."
Response: Once again Mark is either uninformed or simply incapable of talking straight. Several members of the prior Village Board, including Ben Sells (and why, exactly, did Mark decide to single him out?), have acknowledged they made a mistake because at the time they were unaware of the mandated tax levy for Parks and Recreation. The current Village Board is aware of that tax levy and yet Mark repeats the false information that it "restored" the Parks and Recreation Departments budget or "put money back in." If the RCA's intentions are so pure, then why all the subterfuge and distortions? The RCA has trotted out over a half dozen excuses for this plan and then dropped each of them when they were shown to be false. And, please, can the RCA stop the finger pointing and try actually taking responsibility for its own actions like adults?
"Has Lonnie made some statements years ago that expressed opposition to building a playground in a park? Yes, but he also admitted in February, 2009 that he was wrong about that. But the other side is trying to paint Lonnie as some sort of child-hater. Anyone who knows him knows this is not true. It's also a pretty ugly thing to say about someone, but that's also been the pattern from the other side - they will say anything to try and get their way."
Response: Who is this "other side" -- the Village residents? Apparently all discussions with the RCA come down to "us versus them," which is bad for our Village. As for the future of our playgrounds, President Gorman publicly stated the RCA's willingness to close tennis courts and remove playground equipment under the pretense of finances. And as for “saying anything to get its way,” the RCA on this and numerous other issues has shown it could care less about what people think and that it will vote as a bloc to enact its extremist agenda.
"Bottom line: if the village board votes to change the Parks and Rec Board (different from the Rec department) to a Parks and Rec Commission here is what will happen: the Parks and Rec Department will stay exactly the same, they will have more money than before, and they be overseen by elected officials instead of appointed ones. Parks and Rec is not going away. What's driving all of this is politics."
Response: Bottom line is that Mark's diatribe is totally false and the usual RCA spin. Under the RCA plan the Parks and Recreation Board is abolished and the independent protectorate of recreation established by the voters is destroyed. The Parks and Recreation Department is getting the money it is supposed to get -- not a handout from the RCA. As to "What's driving all of this is politics," apparently when the RCA says something it is public policy but if somebody disagrees with their position it is politics. And the greatest irony is that Mark Shevitz, who single handedly brought partisan, divisive, scorched-earth politics to Riverside -- to his shame -- now is whining about making things political.
You must log in to post.