Riverside Info » About Riverside

  1. spatny
    Member

    I thought you backed your leaders when things worked well, and questioned their policies when they didn't, and they cam looking for more money. As long as you are pontificating, Chris, tell me what ever happened to the idea of fightin like hell in the election, but when the voters have made their choice and the new guys are still blameless, you get behind them 100%? You were at the meeting last night - did you hear some of those people? Have you read the crap produced on the media sites by anonymous people?

    These guys - the ones on the way out, ran this place. They made the decisions - like this one. Now we are upside down.So they have to take the heat and answer to the taxpayers. What do you think would have been the effect of this information if it had been disclosed prior to the election? Would the voters have said "we can't vote for those new guys because then she'll quit and we'll have to pay the extra $65K? I think not. And it won't be $65K, by the way - It'll be around a hundred with the other benefits that have no cutoff date earlier than six months. If you're such an expert on governmental affairs tell us what you think of the way that particular contract is written. I mean we pay a lot of money for legal, don't we? Then ask why they had to amend it after the fact.

    Posted Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 18:30 #
  2. JohnM
    Member

    So speaks the man who received a letter from the Board chastising him for his rudeness and inappropriate behavior at past meetings. I've also read some of the comments on the Landmark web site--I see just as much venom hurled from anonymous RCA supporters as I do from the other side. And frankly Don, you're in no position to accuse others of "pontificating." You spout your wisdom at every outlet, at every opportunity. Not an issue arises that you don't feel compelled to opine upon. That's your right, but you look foolish criticizing other for doing the same.

    And, the Board did not need to amend the contract. Sells and Smith understood it. Gorman understood it. The Board (regrettably in my view) amended it to avoid--as much as possible--the outcry that would have arisen from the usual collection of cranks and whiners who oppose every single thing the Board does. And again--wait until the new VM is hired. Provided that they are remotely experienced, there is going to be a similar clause in their contract.

    I'm looking forward to the new administration, though. I can't wait to see how long these meetings are going to last with the unrestricted public comment that they've promised--better make sure you don't have any early morning appointments the next day, cause you're not going to get much sleep. I can't wait to watch Gorman and Shevitz twitching in their seats as one resident after another gets up to offer their views and opinions and their hopes and dreams. Poor guys--I don't think they have any idea what they are in for. Just wait until they do something that you or Nick Cariello disagree with. It's going to be great--you guys can talk at them for hours.

    (I'll do some prognosticating here. I will bet that this unrestricted comments policy is going to be significantly revised within 6 months. I think the RCA guys are pretty bright--they have a government to run, and they'll figure out pretty quick that won't be able to run it effectively if they let the inmates run the asylum).

    Posted Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 22:02 #
  3. spatny
    Member

    Did you witness the events at last night's meeting? Did you note where the shouting and rudeness came from? I have a bad cold, but I still made the effort to personally go to that meeting just so I could thank the retiring trustees and Ms. Rush for their service. I also emailed them my questions prior, but was able to get my answers elsewhere. Chris and I argue about things upon occasion, face-to-face. He probably thinks I'm a whacko and I think he is a political gadfly. He's a Repub and I'm a Dem. And a million other differences. I question authority and he seems to think these are all swell guys and gals. He has his ideas and I have mine. We chide each other - but we sign our names. If you read my opinions then you probably know that, unless somebody snipes at me, I don't ridicule them. When people take public office, when they spend the public's money, when they initiate programs that don't work and spend a lot of money doing it, you are not required to remain silent.

    Is there something that requires you to read what I write? I clearly put my name on it, so if you don't like it, if my arguments irritae you, you are forewarned, and just don't read it. I earned that letter through reacting to rudeness and abuse aimed at Nick and others by people sitting on that Board, thank you. I don't know who you are, so few of you on that side of the coin seem to want to want to put your names on what you write, but I read, and sometimes respond, to your statements.

    If you have five or six lawyers you usually have at least a dozen opinions, but not always a complete solution. Grace, Sells, Shields, Smith are all lawyers. Gorman is a lawyer. They did not agree, (What else is new?) Now we have the absolute last word from JohnM, whoever he or she is, that informs us that Sells, Smith and Gorman are right and the others are wrong. Thank you for that. Are you a lawyer? Are you qualified to tell us that? Obviously the contract is not very well or explicitly drawn, so they amended it. They did it, not me. There was no stop on the health insurance payments in case she is immediately snapped up by some other municipality, so there may be some question about that later on. I don't know if they put one in - I hope so.

    I thought we just had an election and some guys won and some guys (and a lady) didn't. Presumably those who wanted to campaigned or donated or made phone calls or endorsements for their guys. I did. Those that wanted to voted. It wasn't a squeaker. I wish it would have been a bigger turnout, but it was, for this election, one of the highest in the county. So now that is all over. I hope we won't find any more costly little details like this.

    Maybe Ms. Rush took that vote as a judgement on the policies that this administration has pursued. The TIf was beaten 4-1. The tax referendum and the laundry list of goodies was similarly defeated. Did you ever think that you might be reading the results of all these elections backwards? That it's not a bunch of bad people seizing control, but rather the majority finding a list of candidates and planks they want to try in a place of what they have had and obviously didn't work? Maybe people who live here now don't care how far back Caucus goes? Maybe they don't want to live in a place where there have been far too many uncontested elections.

    Just think about it for a minute. Is the budget in better shape than it was eight years ago? Is the CBD more "vibrant"? IIs the VC making your days sunnier as you realize what it really cost the village? Was it better to have the Arcade occupied or not? Did our costly zoning code which is supposed to protect the the general well-being of the many from the predations of the few work? Is the TOD really the "official vision" for Riverside that most people here want? (You know, the multi-level parking garage andthe 100 condos "as soon as you can build them." Did they come to Riverside, or remain her, for its verdant beauty and comparative tranquility or because they thought it had great shopping? Do you understand that when those 3200 plus voters entered the boothat the time of the tax referendum, less than 30% of them bothered to vote for a trustee that ran unopposed? Can't you see what this means? Shoot at the messenger if you want to, but it doesn't change the writing on the wall.

    I guess you won't be able to wholeheartedly support the new administration, which is your choice. I shall bear in mind that people have to get up and go to work and so try not to ask too many questions so you don't have to stay up too late. And thanks anyway for mentioning me in the same breath with Nick Cariello.

    Posted Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 23:02 #
  4. Catherine
    Member

    Robling, address your remarks to Kevin Smith, who in today's Landmark strangely attributed his slate's loss to Katy Rush, whose name was scarcely mentioned in the campaign.

    Few if any here are interested in your opinion of this forum, which opinion you have now relieved yourself of twice. The people who have been here from the beginning and regularly are people who helped defeat the TIF and helped elect the new government, and are also here when nothing is covered in the newspapers. I note you made your rare appearances at the successful conclusion of the especially newsworthy events.

    Read the model contract terms of ICMA before lecturing: they do not ask for severance and health benefits for employees who are not asked for their resignation. Others do not share your view of Rush, and have been gracious enough not to enumerate the reasons. It is pointless to argue it.

    John, you are no one to lecture anyone on rudeness. I also wrote to the president complaining of Kevin Smith's rudeness to residents and use of their speaking time, and that the president repeatedly failed to call him to order. The trustees are there to serve the residents. Their rudeness, condescension, and arrogance toward some of our senior residents in particular was absolutely galling to behold. Where I come from, respect is shown to elders, whether you like it or not, and particularly if you are a public servant.

    Finally, Gorman averred that was what the contract said, not that it was a sound provision. I would conclude by saying there are also whiners who agree with everything the current board does.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 22, 2009 06:59 #
  5. JohnM
    Member

    Touched a nerve here, Don? For someone who dishes out heaps of criticism, you don't much like receiving it.

    For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with much of what you write. I think its interesting, and I think you raise many valid points. I am in full agreement with you, in particular, on the necessity to implement a village driven reforestation program, and not simply rely on the good offices of people like yourself who plant trees and donate money voluntarily. My problem is when you work yourself into a state of outrage over conduct that you have engaged in yourself. And I admit, I agree with Chris Robling that the attacks on Katy Rush for exercising her contractual rights are completely inappropriate.

    I also understand that the RCA won the election. I offer them my full support. Even if I did have the ability to stymie their efforts (which I manifestly do not) I would certainly not stand in the way of them implementing their agenda, even if I disagree with it. They got the votes, they are in charge. I actually think the biggest problem they are going to face is not going to come from their opponents, but from their supporters, who will expect too much, too soon. As I've said before, I hope we give them the opportunity to get familiar with the mechanics of governing before we start looking for miracles.

    And, once again, my name is John Mathews. I've stated this before, and I have no intention of changing my log in name, but now maybe you can stop with the complaining about anonymous posting, at least insofar as it relates to me. And really, Don, we're posting on a blog about issues in a very small village, not publicly denouncing Joe Stalin in late 1930s Russia. Signing you name to your posts is perhaps not the definitive example of moral courage that you make it out to be.

    Catherine, your point about respect to our elders is well-taken. I'll endeavor to be nicer to you. (Before you rip my head off, that's a joke).

    Posted Wednesday Apr 22, 2009 10:49 #
  6. spatny
    Member

    I don't remember seeing your name before. Anyway, I applaud you for carrying on the advocacy of your viewpoint. I didn't vote for any of the winning 208 candidates, but I absolutely give them my full support and hope they are so successful that we are convinced by their results we got the right people. I hope you will do the same for the RCA folks.

    My argument about posting anonymously is just that I don't care to address comments to people I don't know. I have my disagreements with members of the Board, but that's right out in the open. I don't bushwhack them. Why when Ms. Rush's office was ruined by water leakage and she was moved over to the little room in the old Youth Center, I even brought her a flowering plant to brighten her environs. I don't have any grudge against her, I just don't like being given a check with items I didn't order or even know about being on the bill.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 22, 2009 11:31 #
  7. commonsense
    Member

    Riverside paid Katy $130,000 – Woodridge is paying her $160,000.

    Make no mistake – the RCA drove Katy out.

    Go back and read the flyer the RCA put out about Katy. The RCA used a slick ad campaign and sold the concept that Katy Rush was soaking Riverside dry with her outrageous salary of $130,000. The RCA had some cute sound bites - “Stop the flow of wasteful spending,” and, “She got car washes and we got soaked.”

    It turns out the RCA was dead wrong. Katy was worth much more than we were paying her - 23% more.

    Was it really worth it to the RCA to drive Katy out at and have to suck up the $60,000 in severance?

    It turns out Katy Rush was a good bargain for Riverside after all.

    Posted Wednesday Jul 8, 2009 19:27 #
  8. JHR
    Member

    Kelly, it is you who is dead wrong – again.

    1. Katy Rush applied for Woodridge position – in early February. (FOIA the documentation and you'll see) The RCA mailer to which you refer came out in late March.

    2. This was not the first time she applied for positions outside Riverside during her tenure as village manager of Riverside – she had been looking for several years.

    3. Regarding her pay, managers of larger municipalities tend to be paid more than managers of smaller ones. Woodridge is much larger than Riverside in land mass and the population of Woodridge is approximately 36,000 and the population of Riverside is under 10,000.

    You are quick to lie about events and other people and are doing it here as you did during the campaign.

    Posted Wednesday Jul 8, 2009 21:55 #
  9. commonsense
    Member

    Well Jim, what was the point of the mailer?

    The RCA announced they were running in NOVEMBER, my calendar shows November 08 is BEFORE March 09.

    Posted Wednesday Jul 8, 2009 22:22 #
  10. JHR
    Member

    You're dead wrong yet again - I'm not Jim!

    The issue is when Katy applied - early February. That and the fact that she had been applying in other places for years is what makes your post - just another lie.

    Posted Wednesday Jul 8, 2009 22:58 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.