Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. JillM
   Member

   Trustee Sussman wrote a letter to the Landmark last month, explaining her decision to vote against the 2010 Village budget. She noted several objections to the budget, repeating points she raised at many board meetings, well in advance of the vote.

   http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=17&ArticleID=5678&TM=53427.18

   In response, Trustee Shevitz wrote a letter accusing Trustees Sussman and Sells of blindsiding the Board with their 'last minute' objections to the budget. Ironic, given that Trustee Shevitz is 'in charge' of open and transparent government and has access to all of the board meeting records! Even I remember the points they and other Trustees raised, starting at the budget input meetings, and I'm not a board member.

   http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=17&ArticleID=5697&TM=63336.09

   Currently there are four pages of comments in response to Mr. Shevitz's letter. Given the level of interest on that site, I wanted to post the links here, in case anyone on this blog has not had a chance to read them. There are some clear running themes in the comments....

   Posted Sunday Jan 10, 2010 16:47 #

2. Kelly
   Member

   It was one thing for the RCA to attack me and the other candidates in the last election.

   It is altogether another thing to attack a sitting trustee - Jean Sussman - simply because she might run in the next election. This is really dangerous territory. The RCA claims they will run two women in this next election. I can not imagine any two women willing to attack Jean Sussman for personal or politcal gain.

   Posted Sunday Jan 10, 2010 21:20 #

3. JohnM
   Member

   The RCA (or, perhaps more correctly, Mark Shevitz, who seems to be running their show) have a horror of dissent. Shevitz's diatribe in the Landmark was not only unreasonable and factually incorrect, it was completely unnecessary. The RCA has a majority on the Board. Since they all vote in lockstep on any major issue, anything they want passed will get passed. The fact that this is not enough for them, the fact that a dissenting opinion from another trustee puts them into attack mode, the fact that they seem to believe that the Board should serve as a rubber stamp for whatever Mark Shevitz wants, all point to a group who seem more interested in the exercise of power than in the administration of government. It will be very interesting to see what happens in this years election--who will the RCA trot out to try to get a supermajority on the Board and efectively quell any independent or dissenting thought?

   Posted Sunday Jan 10, 2010 22:01 #

4. mrt
   Member

   My take on the Shevitz letter was that he was *responding* to the comments seen in the Landmark from those trustees who opposed the budget - more of a reaction than an attack. And, his letter to me suggests that he wanted to keep the dialog out in the open vs in the 'back room' (not to simply attempt to exercise the RCA's majority that they enjoy).

   So the letter is anything but a power exercise. By responding to them in the media he was showing that he did care about those opinions and it seemed to me an entreaty to talk together as leaders of the community about our community problems - in the correct spot, the Village board room.

   what happens in this years election

   I must sheepishly ( :) ) ask: what election - for what spot(s) and when ? I know about the cook county election.

   Posted Monday Jan 11, 2010 12:12 #

5. JohnM
   Member

   MRT, your loyalty to Shevitz is touching. Just remember, in any revolution, it's the true believers who will be the most disappointed.

   If Shevitz "cares about" Sussman's and Sells' opinions, and wants to encourage dialogue, it seems to me that calling them hypocrites might not be the best way to go about this.

   Posted Monday Jan 11, 2010 12:33 #

6. ChrisHajer
   Member

   mrt, I think the election we're talking about is April 2011 for village board. There will be 3 positions on the ballot, Trustees Sells and Sussman have indicated they will run for re-election and I believe Trustee Scully will not. From what I've heard anyway.

   I don't think this is related at all the the Cook County election coming up February 2 2010.

   Posted Monday Jan 11, 2010 13:01 #

7. TomJacobs
   Member

   I'm confused.

   In Mark Shevitz' January 6 letter to the editor, the first paragraph ends with "...village board passed a budget for 2010 to maintain services - including police, fire and the Parks and Recreation Department - without increasing spending"

   In Ben Sells January 13 letter to the editor, he states that "Riverside's 2010 budget increases expenditures 6.5 percent over 2009".

   Which one is it, and why? Anybody?

   Can we at least agree on the facts?

   Posted Thursday Jan 14, 2010 12:55 #

8. bensells
   Member

   Tom,
   I got all of the figures I cite in my response to Trustee Shevitz's letter directly from our Village Finance Director, Kevin Wachtel. I also make it a habit to reconfirm any figures I cite in public with Director Wachtel before doing so.

   Posted Thursday Jan 14, 2010 15:01 #

9. TomJacobs
   Member

   Thanks, Ben.

   Since my post earlier today I found a pdf document showing a General Fund Summary that was prepared for the meeting on Dec 7, 2009.

   It appears that the 6.5% increase figure you use compares the 2010 budgeted expenditures versus the 2009 projected expenses.

   The 2009 General Fund Expenditures budget (w/o transfers) was $8,102,874, while the 2010 General Fund Expenditures budget (w/o transfers) is $8,202,177.

   Will the Village be able to come in significantly below budget for expenses in 2010 as it did in 2009, or are you saying something is different now and 2010 actual expenses will be much closer to the budget number?

   Posted Thursday Jan 14, 2010 16:35 #

10. bensells
    Member

    You're welcome Tom.

    I certainly hope that we can bring 2010 expenditures in at less than budgeted, but to be honest I don't see how we can do that to any significant degree unless we either reduce staff/services or continue to defer capital improvements.

    As you know, I am very limited in what I can say in these posts because of the Open Meetings Act, but I am always glad to talk more about this in person or you can e-mail me directly at bsells@riverside.il.us.

    Posted Thursday Jan 14, 2010 20:59 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.