If Mr. Roman isn't going to decline to serve, I'd like to also see a censure of him by the Board.

The mere fact that the PD board never considered or put into the reno budget for this park, a stand alone restroom is very discouraging. Look at Whitlock or McCullum. Both have baseball fields with bleachers. Shame on you PD for not even considering this and to have a "porta potty" really? Sort of makes our PD look tacky and cheap if you ask me. Doesnt make what Mr Roman did OK, it makes the PD look like there wasnt much though put into this issue. The estimated 300K to build a brick an dmorot facility with plumbing looks like folks on the plannng commitee didnt do enough due diligence to provide a better solution other than a "porta potty" Can't wait for the hot summer months when that thing will really stink!

Right on Mr. Fisher. They have the plumbing for a big fancy fountain, but no plumbing for restrooms. How dumb is that? The other major parks in town have running water restrooms. Why not this one?

Someone comment earlier on this issue a couple of weeks abo about the worry of a homeless person utalizing the bathroom if it existed. I know that bathrooms are locked at night at the other parks, PLUS who is going to stop a homeless person from using the very large and expensive looking fountain at Washington Park for their own personal bath, toilet, washing station at night? Can't wait to hear about that. Way to Go PD!

I love todays Patch email notice - subject line said "Park Board OK's new vandalism"
should we all run out for spraypaint?

The PD boards needs some serious oversight!

What most don't get is that the cost to put in a washroom is costs $$. By law the Park Dist has to pay prevail wage which drives up the cost of projects. So to spend 3ooK vs. a portapotty is not fiscally responsible to the community. Then people would complain that we wasted their tax $ on a bathroom and that we were wrong for that.
The parks are not san dist as Peter states. The Park Dist and Village entered into an agreement for storm water management in an effort to better serve DG as a whole. Construction has gone longer than planned but once done, homes that used to flood will now have some relief. If the village had to buy the land for detention it would cost additional millions and much longer to get it done. (I am sure no one would complain about spending a few more million right?) This is an agreement that we should be proud of that two governments worked together for the betterment of DG.
The Park Dist can always improve, anyone can. We care about the residents, we hold open houses, we ask for input, we conduct surveys….However if people do not attend and do not make their opinions known until after the fact, mqakes it harder. How many people were at the Dist 99 tax Levy and Budget meeting this week a 66 million dollar impact to the community? How aware that your taxes will be going up by nearly …6+% the max allowed… Not too many… I know during my 2 yrs, I lowered taxes in 10 and were flat in 11 with fiscal responsibility and restraint.

"So to spend 3ooK vs. a portapotty is not fiscally responsible to the community."
Fred's words are insightfull and he has served our community well in many aspects. I just dont buy the $300,000 prioce tag for a bathroom in a park. You tell the GC, The Village has X amount in our budget to build X,Y,Z then they either comply and build that keeping in line with the budget or the PD then can find another GC who can build it under a certain budget amount. The commercial contrating business is very competitive these days and has been for many years prior even when this job when out to bid. So, my concern is why didnt the PD do more homework or work with a GC that could build more "chuck for the buck" instead of skipping over this amenity in a facility as the new Washington park.

The Park District did not oversee this project throught the inter govenmental agreement. The Village oversaw this as a part of their master storm water management project at both McCullom and Washington Parks. Both of which were in full construction when I came to the board.

Also to note there were design meetings and open houses for residents to attend for input with initial drawing concepts presented. There has always been a portapotty near the ball field in the south and was added to the north...who was there several years ago to say "hey I was a permenant washroom here"?

hind sight as they say is alwas 20/20

I think the big question is how are we supposed to take Mr. Roman seriously as an elected official on this Park Board when he has committed vandalism on the very property he has been elected to govern?? It's outrageous that he has gotten elected. I personally did not support his candidacy based on what little I knew about his motivations for entering the race in the first place.

Further, I attended last night's meeting and listened to Commissioner Barr's statements defending Mr. Roman's actions, and her statements begged many questions. Among them, if she was such good friends with Mr. Roman, where was her involvement in both helping him elevate his concerns properly, AND protecting the very property she was elected to govern? If, in his mind, he was getting nowhere, he had to have tapped into his friendship with her to help him out.

Thank you Mr. Gusel for not only your service to the community over the last year or so, but also your comments posted here. They are insightful. The only way to address the porta-pottie issue is to look at solutions going forward. I will agree that few people want a porta-pottie too close to their home. I cannot agree that the smell was bad (conflicting arguments here), but they are an eyesore. Can wooden sheds or shells be constructed that porta-potties can be inserted into? Or does the vendor have ones that blend better with the surroundings instead of appearing like neon signs?

Vandalism is wrong.
Park District officials ignoring complaints of the community is wrong.
Mark Roman was elected dispite the accusations.
It hasn't been proven that the portable was "smelly."
Park District can only spend money based on prevail wages taxpayers can't afford!
What's up with all the fountains? Can taxpayers afford these?
Memorial is still waiting for permanent toilets.
Most likely will never see them dispite the number of persons using the park.

The vandalism was pouring water into the portapotty tank. That's a far cry from what most people think of vandalism. Everyone knows he did it. Keep up the indignation? please, pay the fine and move on.

I look forward to the homeless discovering Washington Park. Nice fountain to wash up, pavilion to keep out of the rain, plenty of soccer and baseball games to panhandle at. A true multiuse facility.

I understand Mr. Roman's dislike for the portable toliets. as I gaze upon the park, it is the last thing I want to see or to smell if nearby. On the other hand Vandalism is vandalism be it spray paint or water or breaking the lights in the fountain or ripping up plants. If we tolerate a little then we have to tolerate all of it. Not every neighborhood park needs a restroom facility either, portible toliets are okay for festivals, ball games and the like but they are not a permanent solution. In my opinoin Washington Park's next challange will be a fence around the fountain. By day little kids walk around edge and climb on it and by evening teenagers walk around the edge and climb up lean in to reach the top and stand in the basin on top of the lights. It will either be continued damage or an injury that leads to a lawsuit and then the expense of a fence.

I would reccomend to express your opinions in person to Mr. Roman. He is scheduled to take his seat as commissioner on the Park District Board on Thurday May 5th at 7 pm at the Lincoln Center

Seems a bit more leadership on this from the Park Board would have been good also.

Some of the Park Board members might want to look at the word NEIGHBORLINESS and ACCOUNTABILITY of what they say/do. I have often thought that when one points a finger out in reprimanding...there are three others pointing back to the reprimander. Tsk.Tsk.

When the reconfiguring of Whitlock Park's Baseball Field had been decided by the Board a few years ago. A neighbor expressed concerns. A board member stated what was said wasa real threat at/to the meeting/newspaper. Her concerns/statements were misjudged.

2. After construction was completed, whether due to a huge mound of dirt being left in the Park path from Fall to Spring and/or reconfiguartion of the field, our backyard flooded to our foundation. Never before did we incur such a situation. Park meeting attended. Two members perused our backyard. One said to me," I should have brought guppies." The matter went to the Mayor. After much ado, some things were fixed, yet not completely solved.

After completion of the ballfield at the cost of close to $500,000, the field held water too....so it had to be torn out, new piping, more dirt, resodded again. OUR TAX DOLLARS used for needed correction..

MC CULLOM PARK WASHINGTON PARK'S Outhouse..OTHER PARKS TOO Have concerns. Mr. Roman tried talking with the Board ,to no avail.

If you ever have a need to be corrected, you might want those fingers folded into the palms of your hands. Kelly your remarks were excellent..

I think many citizens would question that just fining Mr. Roman for damage costs is the proper resolution to this matter...