Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

51. dismayed
    Member

    Tom: I find your concern with code 2-16-1 and 2-16-2 fascinating. Are you planning to Run?

    I have not spoken to anyone (not a single sole) who thinks that the RCA Trustees are being truthful. The fact is they have given a myriad of flimsy explanations as to why they want to dissolve the P & R Board and each and every reason seems to be flawed. The closest reason to the truth is that they want to control the money.

    The RCA was created, ran an election on the promise of and voted in, to Serve the people of this Village. Are these the actions of elected officials who are dedicated to represent the people? Seems to me that they have self-interest and lack the qualities of what a good public servant is suppose represent.

    Let me outline just a few of the concerns and why the lack of trust the RCA has garnered in this Village on ONLY THE TOPIC of Dissolving the Park & Rec Board and making it a commission.

    1. Trustee Ben Selles, the Park & Rec Liaison for the VBOT was not privy to the preliminary discussions and not asked his opinion on the subject. Gorman and Sacchi acted deliberately on this matter and it is of grave concern and really should be questioned with a FOIA.

    2. At the June VBM Gorman presented the dissolution of P& R Board as a cost savings to the Village. It became evident that the only cost savings came from the departure of Ms. Cosy and was a realized gain regardless of dissolving the Park and Rec Board.

    3. Gorman has repeatedly said that dissolving P & R was was the Village Manager's idea. However, the Village Manager wrote a letter to the editor of the Landmark saying that it was not his idea.

    4. The RCA Block has two past Presidents of FLOS, Sacchi and Reynolds. They have been very vocal about their views on recreation in the parks! These men should excuse themselves from the vote immediately for conflict of interest.

    5. RCA campaigned on fiscal responsibility and yet they have hired the Village Attorney write an ordinance that was overwhelming opposed at the past two Village Board meeting.

    Posted Monday Jul 26, 2010 17:31 #

52. TomJacobs
    Member

    JohnM and PAR4, you make some valid points. I have a number of concerns about how this issue was brought forward myself.

    On the other hand, JohnM’s statement I least agree with is “I don't believe that the Parks and Rec Board is the place for politics.”

    Does anybody really believe Village Presidents, current or past, appointing members to boards or commissions isn’t political? I wish we all lived in that world. Especially when taxpayer money is involved, it’s political.

    Accountability to the neighbor, as suggested by PAR4, does not exist. There is none. Only elected persons can be held to account, at the ballot box, if we don’t agree with their actions that they take in the name of the collective.

    Here is a hypothetical scenario of what could happen if nothing is changed (i.e. P+R board remains a board):
    The Village president, backed by the RCA majority, could replace the P+R board members, one person a year at a time based on the staggered term limits. All it would take is 3 years, which happens to be the length of time the RCA is guaranteed to be in the majority, to have an RCA friendly majority on the P+R board. Then, due to the lack of clear, detailed, and comprehensive definition of what Parks and Rec really all ought to entail, that board could start spending money on stuff that people like dismayed would not like (Dismayed: God is in the details, as Mies van der Rohe used to say).

    Anyway, do I think this is going to happen? No.

    Is the fact that this COULD happen, right now, a problem? With the exact rules we have in place? The same rules a large number of outspoken people are passionately defending? I think that is worth examining.

    Let’s make it as democratic as possible, and elect the P+R board members. Nothing else would change, not the sacrosanct position of P+R among all other Village services, not the P+R department, nothing. Just a chance for the people who foot the bill to be in control.

    Posted Tuesday Jul 27, 2010 00:03 #

53. stephaniem
    Member

    Tom,

    While democracy is great, commissioners were chosen on qualifications not politics. Now that politics has come into play so strongly, we see the trouble we have when the most qualified people are not elected. The four we have now are obvioulsy in way over their head on the VBOT. It's rather clear they don't know what they're doing. They got in on politics, not on qualifications.

    Accountablity has always been there. Just look at the past annual reports and other supporting documents. The Parks and Rec Board has always been accountable, not just to the board, the auditors, but also to their neighbors.

    Just talk to any commissioner and they tell how things work. They are more than willing to explain their functions, how they arrived at certain decisons, and let's not forget, this is done out of volunteer work.

    It's the passion they have that makes the village so great.

    Posted Friday Jul 30, 2010 08:01 #

54. bensells
    Member

    This morning, Joe Ballerine filed the petitions to place the Parks and Recreation Board question on the November ballot. The petitions contained 1019 names that were collected in a little less than six days. Assuming there is no challenge to the petitions, the referendum question will be "Shall the Village of Riverside retain its Parks and Recreation Board."

    Thank you to the many, many people who worked so hard in such a small amount of time to get the petitions circulated.

    Posted Friday Jul 30, 2010 15:18 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.