The Riverside Community Caucus Nominating Committee invites you to submit nominations for possible candidates interested in serving as Riverside Village Trustees. The nominee must be a registered voter and a Riverside resident for a minimum of one year. All submissions must be received by September 30th 2010.  Please use our form below to send your nomination.

You can also mail nominations to:

Riverside Caucus Committee Attn: Jenny White P.O. Box 61 Riverside, IL 60546.

Or call Jenny White at 708 447-4663.

Trustee Sussman and I have voted on two budgets prior to 2010. The 2008 and 2009 budgets included structural, sustainable cuts of approximately $350,000 and $420,000 respectively. Between 2007 and 2009, village expenditures increased an average of 2.75 percent per year. By contrast, and contrary to Trustee Shevitz’s assertion that it “maintains services without increasing spending,” Riverside’s 2010 budget increases expenditures 6.5 percent over 2009, eliminates funding for a police officer and a public works employee, substantially raises vehicle sticker fees, and defers over $350,000 in known obligations such as vehicle replacements and pension contributions. Hardly a cause for celebration.

During discussions on the 2008 and 2009 budgets, I repeatedly said that spending reserves and capital funds on daily operations was unsustainable, and I said the same thing about the 2010 budget. Trustee Sussman has been similarly consistent in her own views, and we both clearly voiced our concerns throughout the 2010 budget process. The notion that we waited until the last minute to make our objections known is nonsense.

As for his comment that the 2008 and 2009 budgets “left numerous capital improvement fund projects unfunded,” Trustee Shevitz either does not understand the budget process or he is intentionally attempting to mislead. The Capital Improvement Plan always includes unfunded projects (e.g., renovating the Youth Center) for which everyone knows funding does not currently exist. What the board majority did for 2010 was include funded projects in the CIP only to then refuse to fund them in the actual budget. This is the shell game to which I object. If we are not going to fund a capital project, and are instead going to spend that money on daily operations, why not just say so?

It is also untrue that Trustee Sussman and I are not working with the rest of the village board, although the RCA’s preoccupation with partisan politics does make it difficult at times. Trustee Sussman and I both have long records of working with numerous individuals and groups for the betterment of Riverside, and that will continue. If, however, by “working together” Trustee Shevitz means “taking orders” then he will be disappointed. Riverside deserves a truly deliberative board, not a rubber stamp.

Trustee Shevitz scoffs that Trustee Sussman “perceives” a structural issue with the Village’s deficits, as if that is open to question. Everyone, including his own RCA party, now agrees that Riverside’s deficits result from a structural disconnect between expenditures beyond the village’s control and revenues. Indeed, Trustee Shevitz himself finally acknowledged recently that the challenge facing our village is a lack of revenue.

Lastly, on a personal note, I find Trustee Shevitz’s characterization of Trustee Sussman shameful. Trustee Sussman has served Riverside in countless ways over many years through her volunteerism and public service. She is incapable of hypocrisy or grandstanding, and, having been in more than a few debates with her, I can attest that she is hardly “sheepish.” She has a brilliant, honest, and independent mind and would never hew to a “party line.” The simple fact is that Riverside is a better place because of her.

It is one thing to disagree over policy, quite another to personally attack good people because they refuse to quietly follow a bad course. Such attacks muddy us all and accomplish nothing.
Ben Sells
Riverside
Riverside Landmark 1/12/10

Trustees Sussman and Sells have served arduously on behalf of the residents with honesty, integrity and openness. Their message is not a political message, but one of true concern for the well-being of the future of Riverside.

Trustees Sussman and Sells are being accused of “grandstanding” during the 2010 budget debate. If you call the questioning of not addressing the village budget’s structural problem as “grandstanding,” I will side with integrity. If you call the questioning of $360,000 of deferred obligations as savings, I will side with honesty. If you call the questioning of not even having a short-term plan in place, I will side with openness.

The 2010 budget is the first budget in the last three years where no sustainable, structural expense reductions have occurred. The 2008 and 2009 budgets that trustees Sussman and Sells participated in contained over $750,000 in sustainable, year-over-year expense reductions.

The real “grandstanding” is the failure of the RCA board majority to address the severity of the financial issues that the village faces. After all, this issue will require tough actions and may not fit into their party message.

Mark Shevitz’s editorial was nothing more than a politically motivated attack on trustees Sussman and Sells, two potential candidates in the 2011 election who stand in the RCA’s way to a super majority.

When Mark Shevitz and the RCA say the election is over, that means the election is in full swing. The RCA board majority has taken every step possible to marginalize trustees Sussman and Sells and the worst is probably yet to come.

I encourage everyone to participate and ask for accountability. There will be a strategic planning workshop in the coming weeks that will shape Riverside’s future economic fate. Be an active participant in your community’s future.

The village’s future should not be part of a political game or experiment. Chicago-style political thuggery and intimidation does not belong in Riverside. I hope that Mark Shevitz and the rest of the board majority will realize that Riverside’s future will be decided by their actions during the remainder of their tenure in office.

The message is obviously clear to everyone but the Board majority. Stop marketing the product. The residents of Riverside know that these are difficult times and we need our elected officials to level and be honest with us. We need you to take the difficult but necessary steps to right the ship. Everyone knows there will be pain. Everyone knows that it will come at a cost. Please stop trying to sell the empty campaign message – everyone knows the election is over but you.

Tony Miezio
Riverside
Riverside Landmark 1/12/2010

The forum will be rebroadcast prior to the election on Riverside Channel 6 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8 a.m. and 1 p.m., and on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. RCA’s candidates took the first swings of the day, first with presidential candidate Michael Gorman attempting to blame his opponent Kevin Smith for bringing the downtown TIF and failed property tax referendum to Riverside, saying Smith had “proposed the TIF” and had threatened to cut police and fire staffing if voters didn’t go along with the proposed tax increase. Within minutes, RCA trustee candidate Mark Shevitz dusted off records he obtained in February from the Cook County Clerk showing that the Riverside Party’s Kelly Navarro and Tony Miezio and independent Alex Gallegos had missed voting in several elections, including local races, in recent years.

“We’ve had one group of people running this town,” said Shevitz, referring to the Riverside Community Caucus, which slates candidates for office, “and it’s clear they’ve run out of touch.”

Smith responded to Shevitz immediately, commenting that the RCA candidates had decided “to go negative” and stated that RCA’s candidates had less to do with the demise of the TIF than he did. The village board voted unanimously to cut off funding for the TIF prior to an advisory referendum that spring.

“What we need are people who define themselves by what they’re for, not what they’re against,” said Smith, who also disputed the RCA’s notion that their group was responsible for the overwhelming defeat of the tax referendum, likening it to “taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning.” After RCA trustee candidate James Reynolds stated that the village board had increased spending 47 percent since 2001, both Miezio and Smith blasted the statement as misinformed and a half-truth.

“Either the RCA doesn’t understand how to read a balance sheet or they’re misinforming voters,” Miezio said. Smith said that the increase in spending was directly attributable to infrastructure improvements to roads, the historic water tower and water and sewer systems. The road improvement funds were approved by voters in 2004.

“How would you have fixed the roads, the sewer system and the water tower?” Smith asked. “Would you have renovated them or let them crumble?”RCA’s candidates repeated their message of taking apart the village budget line by line to find economies to prevent the loss of services to residents.

Gorman called the plan “working harder with less,” while trustee candidate Lonnie Sacchi said while there’s no “holy grail” for saving money, he asked that the village make sure “we’re getting the right amount of payback on what we’re spending.”

Reynolds came closest to a specific recommendation in response to a question regarding replacing veteran village staff with more junior employees.”Our current village manager came to us as an assistant village manager,” Reynolds said. “In this economy you can find second-level or aspiring top-level people who will work for equal or lesser amounts.”

Smith criticized that point of view later in the forum calling the RCA philosophy one in which “they’re interested in bringing us a cheaper product.”"This is a quality community,” Smith said, “and we need quality services.” The two sides also sparred over use of the village’s general operating reserve, with Riverside Party candidates insisting that the money be set aside for impending emergencies like the arrival of the emerald ash borer. ”What is important is that we are stewards,” Smith said. “We’re not here just to make sure green spaces are kept up or that trees are in the right alignment, but to make sure we have any trees at all.”

Shevitz, meanwhile, while admitting he thought the emerald ash borer was a “dire threat” said he would encourage looking at outside grant funding for that battle and not focus so much on the general fund reserves. ”We shouldn’t worry about spending down that money,” Shevitz said.

Regarding the central business district, Riverside Party trustee candidate David Lesniak said Riverside needed to reach out more to the businesses community to attract business to Riverside. He disputed the RCA notion that businesses in downtown Riverside should serve Riverside first. ”If businesses thought they could make it here, they’d already be here,” Lesniak said.

Navarro, meanwhile, said she would support hiring someone to manage economic development in Riverside, but hat revenue the village realized from such a position would have to pay for that salary. ”We just can’t sit and hope people will come here,” Navarro said.

Reynolds used Olmsted as his guide regarding downtown business development. ”Olmsted did have a plan for a downtown, one meeting the immediate needs of residents,” he said. “That’s what we need now – nothing more, nothing less. Those are the kinds of businesses we can support.”

Gallegos made his pitch to revitalize the downtown and help stabilize the recreation department by turning Guthrie Park into a mini-Ravinia, with concerts and other live entertainment.

“No other candidate has come up with a plan to revitalize the downtown,” Gallegos said.

By BOB UPHUES
Riverside Landmark 3/17/2009

As a current trustee, I am compelled to respond with the facts. I also want to state that I reject the implication that I or any member of the Riverside Board of Trustees have done anything improper.

The largest current contract the village has is for our paramedic services. This contract, with PSSI, is for $500,000. Paramedic assistance is the most personal, sensitive and potentially lifesaving service provided to our community.

The board evaluated all similar providers in the area. Data from surrounding communities on services and costs were analyzed. Performance of our current provider and past experience with a different provider were evaluated. The decision to hire PSSI was based on the total value of the services provided to the village – a combination of cost, service offerings, and quality of services. All of this was done transparently – across several televised and recorded meetings.

In addition, the village of Riverside is an active member of state and regional purchasing organizations. These organizations operate on our behalf by aggregating bids across a number of municipalities. Potential suppliers bid on the items, offering our village significant savings that might not otherwise be available to us due to our small size.

This is obviously a competitive bidding process, with the results transparent to all. These decisions and the cost analyses for Riverside occur at televised and recorded village board meetings.

And lastly, sometimes there is only one supplier available to us. This is the case with our unique gas lamps and with some of our sophisticated public safety equipment. Here, as well, the board publicly evaluates the before making a decision.

I request that the RCA stop the deliberate misrepresentation of what has occurred and the backdoor accusations of improprieties by me and other trustees. Residents of the village should not tolerate such behavior from any candidate for the board.

Riverside Landmark 3/11
Jean Sussman
Riverside
Jean Sussman is a Riverside village trustee.