Professional Perspective...

As a resident of Cook County, I shudder at the thought of my neighbors finding it necessary to call the County Building in Chicago's Loop to determine why a local pool isn't open or why a neighborhood ice rink isn't plowed.

I become visibly angered by individuals who, with the stroke of a very broad brush, suggest that too many special districts create a few problems and leap to a hasty proposal to abolish all special districts.

Should I be in a position to evaluate the need for a recreation facility in a community with significantly different socio-economic characteristics than the community in which I live? More importantly, should I be able to influence the result of a bond issue referendum in a community fifty miles away? Of course not!

These and other arguments are really quite easy to articulate. We can identify many reasons to vehemently oppose the abolition of park districts. However, I've heard no discussion regarding the rationale which has led to the introduction of proposed legislation which would strip our boards of their authority. The objective of this paper is to address what I perceive to be among our administrative shortcomings.

POINT — I can't help but think that many of us are delegating ourselves out of work. The plethora of business managers, assistant directors, administrative assistants, assistants to department and division heads, planners, community relations specialists and other staff positions has, in my opinion, resulted in a diminished understanding of what our districts are really doing. We chief administrators need to personally demonstrate to the general public that a well managed park district is the most efficient method of distributing local public leisure services.

POINT — We must recognize that we are still political neophytes, particularly at the state level. By excluding school districts, townships and municipalities, the author of 2336 not only suggests that park and other special districts are inefficient and/or unnecessary — he also is telling us that we can't hurt him politically. We need to overcome our tendency to avoid disagreeing with our state legislators. Just as capable park directors respect individuals who can rationally and logically disagree with them, most legislators do not automatically develop voting records which oppose groups with whom they have disagreed.

POINT — We need to more effectively relate to our public. Good public relations, I suppose, consists of three general, inter-related and measurable actions. Do you involve the public in your planning? Is your public aware of the value of your park district to the community? Do representatives of the public profess your district's value — does your public "toot your horn"? Legislators who know that their constituents recognize the value of our services are unlikely to vote for the abolition of park districts.

POINT — We need to more effectively combine our resources. The use of joint purchasing programs, the formation of cooperatives to extend our services to special populations, and the shared use of equipment demonstrate our desire to stretch some of the dollars made available to us. But reluctant implementation of other techniques, such as sharing personnel and the consolidation of park districts, combined with the provincial attitude which guides many administrators and boards, severely limits the total service provided by our collective resources.

We need to realize that, collectively, we aren't doing as well as we can do. We need to be willing to criticize each other, even as we help each other. We need to forcefully expound our philosophies, especially to those with whom we disagree. We need to enlist the vocal support of our "silent majorities."

Together, we can do far more than we can do individually.

Fred P. Hall has been the Director of Parks and Recreation for the Palatine Park District since 1971. Prior to his return to Palatine, he was employed in the industrial and commercial recreation fields and as a non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. He is completing his fourth consecutive year on the Illinois Park and Recreation Association's Board of Directors and is IPRA 's immediate past president.

The recipient of a Master's Degree from the University of Illinois in 1965, Fred earned his undergraduate degree at Springfield College in Massachusetts. In addition to his involvement in professional associations, he is a past officer of the Palatine Jaycees and is active in the Rotary club of Palatine. He was honored in 1977 with the Distinguished Service Award, emblematic of Palatine's "Man of the Year. " He and his wife. Bunny, have two children.

Fred is a regular bowler, jogger and golfer, is a canoe camping enthusiast and enjoys the camaraderie and fellowship found in small taverns.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 16 November/December, 1979

Waldon O. Degner has been a commissioner of the Palatine Park District since 1969. Currently in his second presidential term, he has also served as treasurer for six years and as vice-president for two years. He has served the Illinois Association of Park Districts on the Honors and Resolutions Committee, is this year's IAPD Conference Committee Chairman, and is a vice-president of the IAPD Board of Directors.

A graduate of the University of Wisconsin, Wally has been employed by the Internal Revenue Service for eighteen years. Locally, he is the president of the Palatine Township Historical Museum Board of Managers, is a past president of the North Central Homeowners Association, and is a member of his church's governing board. He and his wife, Janet, have three children; two in Palatine schools and one attending the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.

In addition to the enjoyment he experiences through his civic involvement, Wally enjoys his participation as a percussionist in the Palatine Concert Band, and is a bicyclist.

It is most unfortunate that the status of all special districts in Illinois is again being jeopardized by an intramural fight between the City of Chicago and the Chicago Park District. One would presume that there must be a simpler way to solve a local problem, if there is one, than to distrupt about 2500 units of local government that, in our opinion, work so well.

The typical real estate tax bill in Cook County contains a listing of tax rates and dollar amounts for about fifteen different public purposes. About five of these line items represent the taxes levied by what are known as "special districts," the largest among them, in terms of the area they cover and the size of their annual budgets, being the sanitary and forest preserve districts.

Special districts are generally single-purpose units which cover a certain geographic area. They have all the powers and prerogatives that other governmental units have. They are governed by officials who are elected separately or appointed by other elected bodies, such as county boards. By custom, school districts are usually excluded from this class, although they also meet the above criteria.

Why do we have special districts in Illinois; wouldn't it be less complicated and cheaper to have one large county or metropolitan government that would be responsible for all of the governmental purposes covered by your tax bill?

To answer that common question, your tax bill would then be simpler, but a large multi-purpose government is more complicated; and studies suggest that there are no additional savings after the population served by a unit of government exceeds about 75,000. As governments grow larger, they add levels of review and supervision, with the attendant higher salary levels. More justifications and approvals are required and to do even minor things takes longer from suggestion to execution.

A good example of this is the about to be implemented Consolidated Election Law. It is becoming evident that to have the County Clerk conduct about 300 elections in Cook County will be more complicated and costly than the previous system. It is a real possibility that a new Elections Tax will have to be passed for this purpose.

Small local governments usually are the beneficiaries of many hours of donated services and expertise. In Illinois, park board members are not compensated and park districts frequently receive donations and have volunteer assistance with many of their programs.

Then there is the natural tendency of municipal boards to assign priorities to their budget categories. When competing for funds with the fire, police, and utility departments, the libraries, parks and recreation usually lose.

Another reason for special districts is that special interests or needs seldom coincide with the boundaries of an established political subdivision. The people who need a hospital, library, park, mosquito abatement program or a sewer may live in an area either greater or smaller than established municipalities. Over one-third of the special districts in Illinois are drainage and soil conservation districts. Mother Nature did not have county boundaries in mind when she constructed the land geography. The special district system must work since over a dozen new ones are created annually in Illinois and we frequently hear about proposals for more.

In other states, special needs are frequently overlooked; in Illinois we draw the boundary lines, hold an election, and start doing the job at the lowest possible cost. Please advise your state representatives and senators to retain special districts.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 17 November/December, 1979