Looks like we are approaching end game. It is interesting that those contributors to this discussion who have chosen to remain anonymous have been thoroughly castigated. In hindsight, one of the best decisions I've ever made. I must commend Eric for using his real name and am disgusted, but not surprised, with Catherine's reference to his business. It seems that this election has reached a scorched earth level. "If you can't win, threaten the opponents' livelihood," has arrived. There is life after the election. We all do have to live in the friendly confines of Riverside. The failure of the RCA to elect a full slate is a pretty sure bet, it would show some class if the discourse shifted to coalition building rather than suing for libel, slander, and putting people out of business. James, if it is any consolation, Catherine was disgusted with me long before she was disgusted with you. GLTA.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Gorman's ????? to Play
(58 posts)-
Posted Saturday Apr 4, 2009 14:08 #
-
Fred and James, commonsense, et. al.: I beg to differ with you. I have always signed my real name to whatever I post here, or to any of my letters to the Landmark, or anywhere else: For example, I responded thus to the Landmark's candidates endorsements with this, I thought, thoughtful response:
"Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009
Article comment by: Donald SpatnyRegarding the RCA promise to do a line-by-line analysis of the Riverside budget:
What is the objection to looking closely at the budget - line by line? There will be economies or there will not. If there are, the cuts will be discussed by the entire Board through the same budget process that we have now - slowly, carefully, contentiously - and then they will be voted on and made or not. Why wouldn't any/every Trustee want to do that? Why wouldn't every taxpayer want them to do that?
At the end of that process there will be - if nothing else - a greater clarification of how we spend our money and what we get for it. Then if there is still a shortfall all other options will have to be looked at and considered. Whoever is there.
Any group of trustees that take office will have to spend some of the "reserves" - they don't have any choice. Walmart or Rizza is not coming to Harlem and Ogden to save us. Whoever is elected will have to deal with the same set of numbers and sources of revenue. So why does looking at the budget line-by-line disturb anyone. I'll tell you - because this Board started making threats about what they would cut - like Rec - if they didn't get their tax referendum. Then they waffled and didn't do it, and want credit for that. In the meantime, that scrutiny resulted in the Rec department addressing their own budget and making an adjustment. Again threats were made that if they didn't become self-funding within a year there funding from the village would cease. Now no one has a clue what the Board will really do. I think the RCA will do what it campaigns on. And I think they will work out a way to keep Rec functioning in some way, perhaps at a lower salary structure. I applaud Mr. Gallegos's idea to seek outside sponsor funding and maybe that will work. Why is the establishment afraid to try different ways to help us operate within a budget we can afford? Why the hostility to a new approach?"
Do you see any name-calling there? Did I not applaud Mr. Gallego's suggestion? Well here is what one of your legion of anonymous supporters replied:
"Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Article comment by: Spatny Again?Yo Spatny - put it to rest squabbler.
Why didnt YOU run for office you windbag?
You supposedly have all the answers and have puh-lenty of free time on your hands.
Or are you just another RCA town crier when things just aren't going your way? Your lopsided opinions are just that - lopsided opinions. To think people believe your opinions are factual is just absolutely hideous.
And to the woman above you, probably your RCA partner in crime...
When was the last time ANY of the RCA members attended a village board meeting? Ive seen them all lady.
Both of you go take a hike. Maybe go form your own village somewhere and live in it by yourselves.
My god - do we want squabblers in our village offices??
I'd write more, but I have to throw a Perdue Roaster in the oven for dinner."
Anonymous name-callers - they seem to be on your side of the net. In response I might say that I have seen one or more of the RCA candidates at almost every Board meeting, and at many commission meetings for years. I have never been afraid to confront my opponents, quote facts, or speak up at meetings. I have filed FOIAs to obtain information and was perhaps the first person to approach the Board about posting the Village checkbook online. I have looked at all the candidates, spoken with and questioned many of them, made up my mind based on my perception of their program and priorities, and have publicly stated who I support. The Caucus will not even divulge the names of those who slated the RP candidates. You and many others that post here and elsewhere expect to have us believe what you say, but who are you? Why has no one on the RP ticket posted an answer as to how they intend to deal with the budget? I think my questions are reasonable. Why all the hostility? Why are these illiterates afraid to come out and use their real names? What else have they been cooking?
Posted Saturday Apr 4, 2009 15:09 # -
I agree with Fred to a point. Coalition building is an admirable goal. The problem remains that the RCA spent years perfecting the art of fighting against things, this time it the RP and the current board. The RCA has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at the RP and the current board. They made the strategic choice to run the campaign in a negative manner. We now learn they tried to clear Alex off the slate to boot. The RCA has consistently told us to vote for all (which I suppose also means or none of them).
I suppose I am glad that Riverside had a contested election it got people talking and involved. Issues have been brought to the forefront, there has been some healthy dialog. There sure is life for me, you, Catherine, Spatny, after this election. Life will sure be different for those elected. I guess I resent the RCA for the tactics they employed. How many of my tax dollars will be spent in wasted time building trust between the newly elected members of the board should a member of the RCA be voted in.
As to this most current report about Gorman, Gorman put himself into this situation by calling the meeting with Alex. Eric reported the conversation, Catherine confirmed that there was in fact a meeting. Hard to un-ring that bell.
Posted Saturday Apr 4, 2009 15:13 # -
They made the strategic choice to run the campaign in a negative manner.
In their campaign, I have only seen that the RCA has referenced facts that were corroborated. If the facts seem negative, then maybe you might have to re-think your vote for the RP candidates.
We now learn they tried to clear Alex off the slate to boot.
We have learned no such thing. Please cease declaring this as if it were true.
Posted Saturday Apr 4, 2009 16:55 # -
IDIC5: We have only one source who has talked to a candidate involved in the Gallegos/Gorman conversation. That is what we have to go on.
Did you see the mailer sent to village senior citizens that was paid for the RCA? Pure negativity - nothing given to voter that says vote for the RCA because we will do this. Just bad mouthing the RP.
I am also sick hearing how the RCA said they will cut the budget. Show me in their platform where the RCA says they will cut the budget.
The RCA also touts the fact that they have an accountant on the ballot. I checked Illinois Division of Professional Regulation found only one Michael Gorman of Riverside with a title of "Accountant Public, Licensed." His license EXPIRED in SEPT of 1986 Tough to tout if your license expired 22 YEARS AGO
Posted Saturday Apr 4, 2009 17:27 # -
james, hearsay - see the definition you posted previously; on the sr mailer, I have not seen it. On the budget, my understanding is that the RCA promises a thorough top-down examination of the budget, looking at it with fresh eyes that might not be wedded to certain costs, or ways of handling costs, that the current group is bound to.
This is from their website...
1. Fiscal Responsibility
Between 2001 and 2007, village spending has increased 47%, from $6.95MM to $10.23MM. RCA believes that this skyrocketing spending over such a short period necessitates a top-down, line-by-line budget audit to identify areas of cost savings and better efficiency. If elected, the RCA slate will:
• Undertake a top-down budget analysis to identify cost savings – without service cuts.
• Hold the line on property taxes. The RCA slate does not foresee a need to increase property taxes, does not want to raise property taxes, and has no intention of doing so if the slate is elected.An example of cost inefficiencies: car washes - and car - for the VM - these are some cost inefficiencies that one of their mailers pointed out.
Another possible cost ineffiency that I only just discovered today: making extra sure that we get the Plan commission document correct the first time. I discovered today that on 4-21, we will be doing the third iteration of the Plan commission document. According to what I was told, each time we run this drill it costs the Village $5,000.
I was also surprised when I heard that we utilize consultants for this exercise, too. I did not think that we still were using consultants. Are consultants necessary for the generation of this document? Are there cheaper ways to get this done? Could we do it with volunteers or with the paid staff? But, even if this is the only way to produce this document per State guidelines, we should try our best to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed to get it right for $5k.
These are a couple of quick examples of looking at costs differently and possibly saving some money. If we can do a lot more of belt tightening like this, we might realize savings. A dollar saved is a dollar earned. Earning dollars are hard right now in this economy.
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 02:21 # -
It would be nice to sign off and wait until the election and see the results. Allowing a mis-statement to go unchallenged is tantamount to swearing to its accuracy. The figure of 47% increase in spending includes capital spending on the water system and the road system (both called for by voters, either in public meetings or referenda). The expenditures cited here are cherry picked from the budget. There may be a case for including drive home priviledges for the VM. It might be a cheaper way of putting total compensation in an appropriate range. If the range is too high, maybe the VM should have some say in structuring it at a lower level. The VM might want to forego medical insurance or travel reimbursement or professional society dues, who knows? Similarly, the zoning ordinances have been being written in a coherent form for the last 9 years. There was no single zoning ordinance before then, just a collection of disjointed regulations passed over the years. Similar to the heavy infusion of money into neglected infrastructure, there was a concerted effort to standardize zoning. The B2, residential, and B1 zoning ordinances were handled separately. Much of the consultant expense was due to redrafting, revision, and supplemental study requested by those giving input during the process. It was a very tangible cost of "transparency" and resident input. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want services, you have to pay for people and equipment. If you want to review and comment on proposed ordinances, you have to pay for consultants and attorneys. I find it ironic that the "loyal opposition" which so loudly called for further study of zoning, dismantling of water towers, and repair of roads are now lamenting the cost. See you Tuesday!
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 08:17 # -
IDIC5 - So you are saying that the RCA can do everything perfectly the first time without the use of consultants?
IDIC5, what is your definition of a consultant?
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 08:25 # -
I am saying that, in my view, the RCA will begin the conversation of examining budget items in a good faith but demanding manner. My post above was intended to give a hint, a suggestion, of the kind of work that the RCA promises to do. My post is in no wise an attempt to be the FINAL statement of how the conversation will turn out. In the Board chamber there will be debate on the nuances.
The RCA promises to begin in earnest, and carry on going forward, a rigorous examination of the whole Village budget on behalf of the citizens first, consultants and others not related to the citizens second.
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 11:13 # -
My aunt received the scare tactic mailer from the RCA. Her comment was "I may be a senior, but I'm not senile". Riverside is thankfully different than the greater Cook County, but the RCA doesn't seem to have grasped that. Intimidating and bullying candidates to get them out of the race. Scare tactics aimed at Seniors. What's next?
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 11:34 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.