OP_081519

OPPrairie.com sound off
the orland park prairie | August 15, 2019 | 13
Social snapshot
Top Web Stories
From opprairie.com as of Friday, Aug. 9
From the Editor
1. Raymond Homolka convicted of murdering
his wife in Orland Park
2. Lip Sync Showdown returns on Day 1 of
Taste of Orland Park
3. Orland Park senior living facility cares for
one of World War II’s ‘Frogmen’
4. New D135 committee looks to residency
investigator to curb non-resident enrollment
5. Mokena: Fourth of July remains hot topic
Become a Prairie Plus member: opprairie.com/plus
The Orland Park Public posted the accompanying
image on Aug. 6, along with the
note, “Want to know what everyone else is
reading? See our recently checked out cart
at the Patron Services desk.”
Like The Orland Park Prairie: facebook.com/opprairie
“I am so pumped for this year @
SandburgHS! Our shared commitment
toward striving for #EliteDaily is so
special! Can’t wait for the next two days
with our New Teachers!”
@ jltyrrell8 — Sandburg Principal
Jennifer Tyrrell, on Aug. 7
Like The Orland Park Prairie: facebook.com/opprairie
Sound Off Policy
Editorials and columns are the opinions of the author. Pieces from
22nd Century Media are the thoughts of the company as a whole.
The Orland Park Prairie encourages readers to write letters to
Sound Off. All letters must be signed, and names and hometowns
will be published. We also ask that writers include their address
and phone number for verification, not publication. Letters should
be limited to 400 words. The Orland Park Prairie reserves the right
to edit letters. Letters become property of The Orland Park Prairie.
Letters that are published do not reflect the thoughts and views of
The Orland Park Prairie. Letters can be mailed to: The Orland Park
Prairie, 11516 West 183rd Street, Unit SW Office Condo #3, Orland
Park, Illinois, 60467. Fax letters to (708) 326-9179 or e-mail
to bill@opprairie.com.
BILL JONES
bill@opprairie.com
When I first
peeked at last
Monday’s Village
Board agenda, the
“Professional Public Relations
Services - Proposal”
item under the interim
Village manager’s report
caught my attention. I
thought maybe someone
read our in-depth cover
story on the recently retired
deputy public information
officer and decided
to give her some kind of
consulting contract.
Instead, I opened the
text of the measure online
to find the Village was
considering adjusting its
budget to hire a firm called
Reputation Partners at
a cost of up to $20,000
through the end of the
year, to “generate positive
visibility for the Village”
and its leadership. Some
of our Facebook followers
had a visceral reaction to
our story of its approval.
I did, too.
To be fair to the 5 board
members (of the 5-2 who
approved it), this is not
the first incarnation of the
Village Board to approve a
contract for outside public
relations services. And
the Village has reduced
expenditures in the public
information department recently
by much more than
the cost of the contract
through the end of the year.
(The firm would still be
Zoom and enhance
cheaper in a full calendar
year, were the agreement
to be extended at the same
rate.)
Reputation also is important.
If you want people
to move to the village,
if you want business to
invest in it, they need to
know more about Orland
Park than its mall was the
site of a recent shooting,
and its public officials argue
incessantly. The Taste
saw good numbers, they
say, and it is important for
people to know that. (We
gave the event four pages
of coverage last week, for
the record.)
But the budget cuts were
made to shore up a budget.
So, to use them to justify
an extra (read: previously
unplanned) expenditure
that requires a budget adjustment
is self-defeating
logic.
My biggest issue,
though, is how the measure
was presented in Village
text.
“In recent years, some
of the media coverage for
the Village of Orland Park
hasn’t reflected well on
the Village. Reputation
Partners was solicited to
provide the Village with a
proposal for professional
public relations counsel
and support.”
It was followed at the
meeting by comments
from Trustee Bill Healy
that referred to “fake
news,” “misrepresentations”
and “goofy websites.”
Trustee Michael
Milani tacked on a nod
to “news sites that aren’t
necessarily news sites.”
My issue with the proposal
is that rather than just
saying, “We need some PR
help,” its proponents have
used vague rhetoric about
correcting an image that’s
been perpetuated by the
media, rather than owning
the problems that lead to
that coverage. It comes on
the heels of talk of further
transparency in meeting
streams and recordings,
which I 100 percent favor,
as it benefits an informed
electorate, but not when
the rhetoric hints that it’s
a great way to circumvent
media coverage.
I reached out to several
people who voted in favor
of the measure and asked
for some clarity on their
comments. To their credit,
they all responded, and all
have assured us The Prairie
was not the intended
target of their barbs. Again,
to be fair, there have been
some sketchy websites
that tend to be most active
around election time. It
also would be false of me
to say that all media coverage
of the Village has been
equal across outlets.
But, if I’m a general
member of the public, if
I just went to that meeting,
or listened to the
board audio online, I
don’t know exactly what
those comments mean. I
didn’t know for certain
until I asked, which is
why it’s important to have
journalists reporting on
boards — accurately and
fairly, sometimes even if
that means “bad press.”
Because the image they’re
presenting isn’t necessarily
the whole picture, and the
raw data doesn’t always
add up when you have
some missing pieces.
Which is why it worries
me that, in presenting
the PR proposal, interim
Village manager Tom
Dubebeis said the firm
could help to “create an
enhanced positive image
of the Village.” Maybe I’m
just getting caught up in
semantics the way Trustee
Jim Dodge gets caught up
in “process.” But it reads a
lot like an alternative image
of the Village — not a
completely factual one.
And I don’t presume it’s
anything less than the job
of a firm like that to accentuate
the positives and
gloss over the negatives,
but when hired to do so in
conjunction with rhetoric
that undermines independent
news coverage, I have
a problem with it.
The stated goal is to
engage “local and elected
regional media on an ongoing
basis to secure more
positive placements around
the Village of Orland Park
and its leaders on a number
of subjects.”
I’d argue this was a bad
way to cultivate a positive
relationship and image.
Reputation Partners might
have a track record of
effectively enhancing the
visibility of clients in need.
And they might remind us
about some of the positives
Orland Park has to offer.
But it does not solve the
underlying issues of how
residents are being served,
it just makes them more
palatable. And the taste of
bad politics lingers.
I think Milani actually
said it best at the meeting.
“Sometimes I think it’s a
little self-inflicted,” he said
of the image issues. “We
tend to make things political
that might not be.”
Right. And changing
that behavior isn’t easy. It
requires a 7-0 “vote” that
seems unlikely from this
board. But it would be a lot
cheaper and more effective
than a PR firm.