Thank you, Park Bench. That is useful info.

I'd be very interested in what Mr. Atwell has to see re: the magical mystery funds for turf. Keep at it, Ack.

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:
IT IS EXACTLY YOUR JOB TO MICROMANAGE THE PARK DISTRICT!

The Board's job IS NOT to micromanage the day to day operations of the PD. Why have a Director and Staff if you are going to run all decisions from the Board room? I am not critiquing MC's request. I am sure a space usage study could be useful, but if there is information towards that end already available, why spend more money to get a new one? This is where the majority of the money gets lost under the radar....unnecessary and repetitive studies...

I agree that the PD board should not be micromanaging, but I don't think asking for a facilities usage report constitutes micromanaging. If Commissioner Dallman is correct in saying that the PD already has that information, then the staff should produce it for Commissioner Creech and post it on the PD web site for all of us to see. My take is that the staff's claim that an outside consultant is needed to meet her request is just an attempt by Atwell to hold Creech at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if the bids for a Field Usage Study come back nice and high as a way to get her to drop it.

I'm all for oversight and I'm fine with Creech asking for a facility usage study. I'm not in favor of micromanaging by the board. So far, it doesn't seem to me like Creech is micromanaging.

The board's job is oversight, not day-to-day management of the Park District. But, as I said, asking for data on facility usage falls within the scope of oversight, in my opinion. As another example, going through the financials of the PD falls within the scope of oversight.

quote:

...in your opinion, what is the board's job?

This is not an opinion, but a fact of Illinois and Federal law:

A publicly elected board of a tax-supported non-profit organization has only a few basic responsibilities.

• To create (and update as needed) the institution's bylaws and, if applicable, mission statement (both ideally short, simple and generic... just enough to satisfy the tax-exempt requirements for the category it is in).
• Hire the Manager (Executive Director, or whatever he or she may be called) and get out their way.
• Review, question, adjust if necessary and approve the proposed annual budget.
• Most important: Review expenditures periodically like a hawk. Keep the Manager and staff honest. Review and approve proposed changes to the budget that may be required throughout the year.
• Take the point on fund-raising efforts that fall outside of normal operations, i.e. a ten-year capital improvement plan.

Approving expenditures on a line-item basis that are within the budgeted amount is generally not a board's responsibility. If, for example, there is an approved category for “Communications Equipment” in the amount of $30,000, the actual under-budget purchase is the Manager's call, after usually considering staff (but rarely board) input. The board, of course, may impose an overall per-item limit, e.g. “Any individual expenditure exceeding $10,000 must have prior board approval.”

If a majority of the board has a problem with the way the Manager is spending money and/or otherwise running things, they can always discuss it with the Manager and take whatever action they deem necessary. A wise Manager will tell the board ahead of time about plans that might cause a philosophical problem even if they're on-budget. (Although strong Managers tend to operate on the, “It is better to seek forgiveness than permission” principle).

Most new amateur board members believe that their job will be to “run” the organization. Not really. Their primary responsibility — as representatives of the taxpaying public — is to watch the dollars. If the dollars are being spent as defined by the budget they approved, the board has little, if any. “managing” to do.

A board can always vote itself more day-to-day responsibilities, of course... but the more it does that, the harder it becomes to attract and retain good professionals.

Don't argue with me regarding the above; I'm just the messenger. And don't bother pointing out that's not the way it's done in Chicago, Cook County or Springfield. I know. This is simply the way it's supposed to work.

We can all have a good laugh now and return to reality. —Ted E.

quote:

...any of them considered to have the slightest bit of hawk in them?

I won't go there, thank you, but I will say that one of the problems with many volunteer board members everywhere is that they bring too much interest in the field, and not enough experience in reading and understanding spreadsheets. —Ted E.

Being on a park board (for example) isn't as much about having a background in tennis and soccer as it is about demonstrating ROI and other bean-counting experience. —Ted E.

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:

He told me they have a need for soccer fields-due to essentially that monstrosity at Ackerman Park.

That, and the saving of the trees in lieu of soccer fields...

quote:

Originally posted by Paul:
I'm all for oversight and I'm fine with Creech asking for a facility usage study. I'm not in favor of micromanaging by the board. So far, it doesn't seem to me like Creech is micromanaging.

I suspect her motivations are not merely to view this report, but rather, to look at how well the facilities being utilized in preparation for a PD request to acquire more facilities.

There are more subtle ways to acquire this information. I suspect the PD will cough it up after much foot dragging. It seems like they already have the info, they just don't want to share it.

quote:

Originally posted by DTM:
It seems like they already have the info, they just don't want to share it.

That is my impression as well.

From the August 4 Workshop Meeting:

The Glen Ellyn Park Bench

Happy Friday

From the August 18 Regular Board Meeting:

The Glen Ellyn Park Bench

Enjoy

The anonymous reporter of The Park Bench closes the report on the 18 August Regular Meeting by mentioning the next Workshop Meeting on 1 September. The Special Meeting on 29 August at the Hilton in Lisle will be before that, but it's not listed on the Park Distric list of meetings yet. The legal requirement for the Board to post the agenda, 48 hours, will be 8:00 am tomorrow. For last year's Special Meeting for the "Board Retreat," the only item on the agenda was "Comprehensive Plan Update." The board then went to a closed Executive Session.

Hi Edna,

Since you are SO excited about this meeting I think you'll be even more excited that the Agenda is now on the GEPD website:

Park Board "Retreat" Meeting

Thank you Edna for giving this meeting the utmost attention that it deserves

"utmost"?

From the August 29 "Retreat" Meeting:

The Glen Ellyn Park Bench

Enjoy...

Thank you P B for the information you provide. I recall up until about 2 years ago the Daily Herald was covering the Park District meetings but I don't recall quite so much detail.

It seems as though the meeting started off a little "touchy-feely", but perhaps that was a nice opportinity for the new board and old board to interact? In any event, it will be interesting to observe the Capital Expenditure process...thank you!

um, shouldn't all those Ackerman expenditures have been a part of the original proposal? You don't just rip down a playground and then say, "Oh, you wanted that? It will cost you $125k..."

----

Seal coating and asphalt repair at Ackerman 75,000
Re-installing Volleyball courts at Ackerman 20,000
Replacing the playground at Ackerman 125,000

From the September 1 Workshop Meeting.

The Glen Ellyn Park Bench

Enjoy

What needs to be done at the MSRC? I remember the brouhaha a couple years ago when there was a proposal to tear it down and start from scratch, but instead they did a renovation. What did they miss?