John Booth's Observations at June COW Meeting
June/15/2010 06:22
Nobody has a clearer insight in to what is wrong with city finances than Shores resident John L. Booth. I thank John for sharing his observations and comments on the last finance committee of the whole meeting before the June budget hearing.
From John's report, it looks like the Cooper regime is going to foist yet another tax increase on the backs of Shores homeowners! And Shores residents will have to take John's word as to what happened, as for some reason only 15 minutes of the 6 hour meeting happened to get recorded on audio tape. Yet another breach of the transparency that Shores residents are promised!
------------------------------------------
Brian Geraghty interrupted Ted Kedzierski continually throughout Ted's three-hour presentation of his proposed additional expense cuts, which totaled $495,000 for the next fiscal year 2010/2011. Every time Ted suggested a cut, Brian would immediately demand that Ted give him an answer as to what would replace the cut, task or position, and the exact dollar cost of making the proposed change. Brian never accepted as valid any of Ted's answers. Mayor Cooper offered no suggestions for cuts and was only interested in getting as close to a unanimous vote in support of a millage increase as possible. Councilman Graziani said very little.
Ted proposed a major change for the non-union pension benefits - a freeze effective immediately, plus a one-year hiatus in lieu of pay cuts, to be followed with an employee defined contribution pension plan, with a skimpy at first match by the Village. Brian Geraghty said that council could not even consider such a change for non- union salary employees with out checking with their lawyers. Ted replied quickly, "Oh but I did and Bob Buydens (pension committee) said it was OK."
So Brian Geraghty asked City Attorney McInerney (who was paid to attend the lengthy meeting) if the Council was free in fact to do this. To Geraghty’s shock and dismay, Mr. McInerney said yes, that it was OK to alter the benefits for non-union employees. Ted obviously did his homework on this issue.
Speaking of legal costs, despite the promise to do something after the recall was over about the current costly legal arrangement with the Clark Hill firm ($160,000 last year), the city has yet to put the legal services out for bidding.
Another point was that after every single expense cut he proposed, Ted Kedzierski waited to allow other council members to propose cuts of their own. He even baited them, demanding to hear suggestions from the other counsel members. Nobody spoke up other than Dan Schulte, who proposed his own separate $200,000 package of cuts. The other council members and Mr. Vick offered no suggestions, hardly a surprise.
The other council members had the gall to state that because Ted was the Chairman of the Finance Committee and Chairman of this meeting that Ted, and Ted alone had the responsibility to not only lay out his proposals with dollars attached but defend them under harsh and relentless cross examination. This cross-examination by other council members was often tag teamed. Ted was required to state not only the off setting cost to implement the changes/staffing cuts but also explain how the extra work load on the staff would be taken up!!! Mr. Vick never offered any real assistance; in fact he was adversarial to Ted.
Mr. Galbenski tried to play moderator, to steer the discussion to consensus, using wallboard taped up with discussion topic sheets. It was somewhat transparent that this was a role that Cooper asked him to play in order to steer the discussion to consent to a tax increase. Dan Schulte had to leave the meeting for a while. He returned at 11:00PM and he said that it was surreal; because the conversation had advanced very little in the intervening two hours during which he left the meeting. Harry Kurtz attended the entire meeting from 7:00PM until 1:35AM. At one point seeing he was the only member of the public still in attendance, Ted asked Harry to respond to a question. Harry had been dozing and could not believe he was being called upon to answer and was startled. I am told that after one of Ted's proposed cuts, Brian Vick lost his temper, got very red in the face, and pounded the table so hard that his lap top computer bounced up off the table and slammed shut! The council members other than Ted paid no attention to Vick’s behavior. Ted was surprised and agog.
Ted's whole position was that since the Plante Moran report of last fall; the Village knows we are facing a structural deficit which will become increasingly more difficult to deal with over the next three years. Therefore the Village needs to cut approximately $500,000 in additional expense cuts over and above those already reflected in the current draft of the 2010/2011 operating budget (a copy of which is available to the public on the Village website now). Next year it must cut another $500,000 from the operating budget.
The extra $500,000 in expense cuts in the upcoming fiscal year has to come from non-personnel expenses and salaried employees. The cuts in the 2011/2012 budget need to come from contract re-negotiations regarding the DPW and Public Safety unions, and possibly a change in garbage collection by privatization. In addition, Ted wanted to start to immediately reduce long term liabilities of all legacy costs and revisit the shelved changes he requested in the Village banked sick leave policy, previously voted down by the majority of the Council.
Things hit the fan when Ted proposed terminating both Julie, the Village court clerk, and Laurie in the upstairs Administrative office, the swing assignment expensive clerical person in the office, for a combined savings of $180,000. After Dan returned he proposed saving the identical sum by consolidating the positions of Chief Financial Officer and Manager.
The outcome was mixed and not at all what Mayor Cooper wanted. Ted made a motion to accept $495,000 in his proposed expense cuts from the draft budget for 10/11, and Dan seconded the motion. After discussion, the vote was 2 YES & 5 NO, so the motion failed. Then someone else made a motion to accept some very minor dollars cuts plus a 0.7 mill increase in the millage. The motion was seconded and after discussion the vote was 2 NO & 5 YES, so this motion passed.
Had Ted's motion passed, there have been no need for the millage increase, and there was a better than even opportunity to end the upcoming fiscal year with a surplus of at least $250,000 to add to the general fund. This would have provided a reserve for budget stabilization next year should there be unforeseen problems such as weather related overtime, an error in forecasting property tax revenues, or the costs associated with operational reorganization and severance to former employees due to job elimination.
Unbelievably Brian Vick admitted in his new draft budget that the Village would underestimate budget revenue estimates from property tax receipts for the fiscal year ending this June by $128,000. Vick had those numbers available in February and disclosed nothing!!!
One fact that came out: the Shores has been subsidizing the swim team to the tune of approximately $20,000 per year, mostly for two paid swim coaches @ $7,500 each. Were the Shores to charge the parents of the swimmers for this service, it would cost the parents of each swimmer $350 per season.
John Booth
From John's report, it looks like the Cooper regime is going to foist yet another tax increase on the backs of Shores homeowners! And Shores residents will have to take John's word as to what happened, as for some reason only 15 minutes of the 6 hour meeting happened to get recorded on audio tape. Yet another breach of the transparency that Shores residents are promised!
------------------------------------------
Brian Geraghty interrupted Ted Kedzierski continually throughout Ted's three-hour presentation of his proposed additional expense cuts, which totaled $495,000 for the next fiscal year 2010/2011. Every time Ted suggested a cut, Brian would immediately demand that Ted give him an answer as to what would replace the cut, task or position, and the exact dollar cost of making the proposed change. Brian never accepted as valid any of Ted's answers. Mayor Cooper offered no suggestions for cuts and was only interested in getting as close to a unanimous vote in support of a millage increase as possible. Councilman Graziani said very little.
Ted proposed a major change for the non-union pension benefits - a freeze effective immediately, plus a one-year hiatus in lieu of pay cuts, to be followed with an employee defined contribution pension plan, with a skimpy at first match by the Village. Brian Geraghty said that council could not even consider such a change for non- union salary employees with out checking with their lawyers. Ted replied quickly, "Oh but I did and Bob Buydens (pension committee) said it was OK."
So Brian Geraghty asked City Attorney McInerney (who was paid to attend the lengthy meeting) if the Council was free in fact to do this. To Geraghty’s shock and dismay, Mr. McInerney said yes, that it was OK to alter the benefits for non-union employees. Ted obviously did his homework on this issue.
Speaking of legal costs, despite the promise to do something after the recall was over about the current costly legal arrangement with the Clark Hill firm ($160,000 last year), the city has yet to put the legal services out for bidding.
Another point was that after every single expense cut he proposed, Ted Kedzierski waited to allow other council members to propose cuts of their own. He even baited them, demanding to hear suggestions from the other counsel members. Nobody spoke up other than Dan Schulte, who proposed his own separate $200,000 package of cuts. The other council members and Mr. Vick offered no suggestions, hardly a surprise.
The other council members had the gall to state that because Ted was the Chairman of the Finance Committee and Chairman of this meeting that Ted, and Ted alone had the responsibility to not only lay out his proposals with dollars attached but defend them under harsh and relentless cross examination. This cross-examination by other council members was often tag teamed. Ted was required to state not only the off setting cost to implement the changes/staffing cuts but also explain how the extra work load on the staff would be taken up!!! Mr. Vick never offered any real assistance; in fact he was adversarial to Ted.
Mr. Galbenski tried to play moderator, to steer the discussion to consensus, using wallboard taped up with discussion topic sheets. It was somewhat transparent that this was a role that Cooper asked him to play in order to steer the discussion to consent to a tax increase. Dan Schulte had to leave the meeting for a while. He returned at 11:00PM and he said that it was surreal; because the conversation had advanced very little in the intervening two hours during which he left the meeting. Harry Kurtz attended the entire meeting from 7:00PM until 1:35AM. At one point seeing he was the only member of the public still in attendance, Ted asked Harry to respond to a question. Harry had been dozing and could not believe he was being called upon to answer and was startled. I am told that after one of Ted's proposed cuts, Brian Vick lost his temper, got very red in the face, and pounded the table so hard that his lap top computer bounced up off the table and slammed shut! The council members other than Ted paid no attention to Vick’s behavior. Ted was surprised and agog.
Ted's whole position was that since the Plante Moran report of last fall; the Village knows we are facing a structural deficit which will become increasingly more difficult to deal with over the next three years. Therefore the Village needs to cut approximately $500,000 in additional expense cuts over and above those already reflected in the current draft of the 2010/2011 operating budget (a copy of which is available to the public on the Village website now). Next year it must cut another $500,000 from the operating budget.
The extra $500,000 in expense cuts in the upcoming fiscal year has to come from non-personnel expenses and salaried employees. The cuts in the 2011/2012 budget need to come from contract re-negotiations regarding the DPW and Public Safety unions, and possibly a change in garbage collection by privatization. In addition, Ted wanted to start to immediately reduce long term liabilities of all legacy costs and revisit the shelved changes he requested in the Village banked sick leave policy, previously voted down by the majority of the Council.
Things hit the fan when Ted proposed terminating both Julie, the Village court clerk, and Laurie in the upstairs Administrative office, the swing assignment expensive clerical person in the office, for a combined savings of $180,000. After Dan returned he proposed saving the identical sum by consolidating the positions of Chief Financial Officer and Manager.
The outcome was mixed and not at all what Mayor Cooper wanted. Ted made a motion to accept $495,000 in his proposed expense cuts from the draft budget for 10/11, and Dan seconded the motion. After discussion, the vote was 2 YES & 5 NO, so the motion failed. Then someone else made a motion to accept some very minor dollars cuts plus a 0.7 mill increase in the millage. The motion was seconded and after discussion the vote was 2 NO & 5 YES, so this motion passed.
Had Ted's motion passed, there have been no need for the millage increase, and there was a better than even opportunity to end the upcoming fiscal year with a surplus of at least $250,000 to add to the general fund. This would have provided a reserve for budget stabilization next year should there be unforeseen problems such as weather related overtime, an error in forecasting property tax revenues, or the costs associated with operational reorganization and severance to former employees due to job elimination.
Unbelievably Brian Vick admitted in his new draft budget that the Village would underestimate budget revenue estimates from property tax receipts for the fiscal year ending this June by $128,000. Vick had those numbers available in February and disclosed nothing!!!
One fact that came out: the Shores has been subsidizing the swim team to the tune of approximately $20,000 per year, mostly for two paid swim coaches @ $7,500 each. Were the Shores to charge the parents of the swimmers for this service, it would cost the parents of each swimmer $350 per season.
John Booth
Jan Pemberton's Post Election Thoughts
May/07/2010 09:03
This is yet another outstanding blog penned by Jan Pemberton. Her periodic emails to city residents about what occurred at key Shores meetings are a major reason why Shores voters are more educated on what is occurring at city hall.
Her observations about the impact of the recall and the future of our city are right on target. Thanks, Jan for your efforts to keep the Shores citizenry informed!
------------------------------------------
Neighbors,
As you well know, the council membership remains the same...the recall was unsuccessful... but not by much. Everyone is now aware that there are hundreds of residents who expect more transparency, who expect more fiscal responsibility with their tax dollars and who expect responsible decisions by a respectful council.
There will be hundreds of eyes and ears now watching every move of this council - watching and listening to not only what decisions are made but the manner in which this council conducts its' business. A higher standard of behavior by this council is expected. While the membership of the council was not affected by the recall, hopefully the attitudes of those targeted and their way of doing business will!
Grosse Pointe Shores' residents now know the facts. They have been made aware of the seriousness of our financial condition through this recall process.
This council has a "second chance" to prove they have the maturity, the intelligence and the ability to get this city off the State's Fiscal Watch list, to stop authorizing costly contracts and encumbering taxpayers with excessive legacy and un-sustainable health care costs. These are just a few of the troubling financial aspects of the city's budget.
The council's work will not be easy. But they must make the hard decisions - the decisions that show the taxpayers that their tax dollars are being wisely invested in their city for their benefit. This will require a different approach and true leadership - much different from what has been exhibited in the past. And, as you have seen, the Shores’ residents are not afraid to speak out or to speak up when the business of governing this city and its funds are at not being handled properly.
I truly hope the recall election marks the beginning of a city on the path of recovery that will lead to strong financial roots and a healthy and robust environment for its present and future residents.
We will see...
And finally, I would like to thank all the recall supporters, the residents who bravely signed the recall petitions, those who posted a lawn sign and all the voters who voted "Yes." They are the ones who have sent these strong and clear messages to this council. Let's hope they're listening this time!
Jan
Fran Bachmann's letter
April/22/2010 22:58
Fran Bachmann is a seven year resident of Grosse Pointe Shores whose astute analysis of the issues facing city voters was printed as a letter to the editor in the April 22nd edition of the Grosse Pointe News.
I am grateful for Fran’s permission to print the unedited version of the letter that she submitted to the paper as the most recent Guest Posting. You can’t state things any clearer than Fran has done!
------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Editor:
I have lived in Grosse Pointe Shores for seven years. During that time, Mayor Cooper and the other two remaining recall council members have been a part of the council. I am ashamed to admit that during that time, I assumed that the council was taking care of the business of our City and running it with fiduciary responsibility.
I was shocked to learn that last year Grosse Pointe Shores had been placed on the Michigan State Watch list. And,now, again this year, it is on this same list for having a negative fund balance as of June 30, 2009. This is unacceptable according to Michigan State Law.
Last year, I believed the Mayor and sitting council members, when they told us that we should vote for the City Charter because it would be cost effective for the community and even lower our property taxes. Subsequently, I voted for the City Charter. Had I done my own research, I would not have voted for the City Charter.
Once we voted to become a city they promptly voted for a tax increase. I have also “discovered” that there is a clause in the City Charter where they can raise taxes up to 20 mils without a vote by the residents. Before this Charter was passed, Grosse Pointe Shores was at 14 mils. Since we are now at 15 mils, it can be raised an additional 5 mils without a taxpayer vote. I am not comfortable with these same people making those decisions. They have lost my trust.
Opponents of the recall fail to understand why the recall has been initiated. They constantly reference that the Council is volunteer, that the recall is disruptive to Council business and community cohesiveness, cost to the community and talk about some “ten year clean slate” issue that I know nothing about since I have only lived here for seven years.
The recall happened because three council members and two former council members, targeted for recall, did not, and have not, to date, (April 19, 2010) recognized that Grosse Pointe Shores has severe financial problems which if not remedied, will continue to grow and eventually become insurmountable.
To date, mid April, 2010 there has been: a.) NO preliminary 2010-2011 budget b.) NO 2-5 year rolling financial forecast c.) NO collective bargaining unit concessions or new contracts.
Without a current budget to review showing how this Mayor and council plan to remedy this situation, I must in good conscience vote YES three times on the upcoming recall vote.
As for this being a “volunteer” position, I have been on quite a few volunteer boards. I would expect that if I was not managing monies in a responsible way or holding back pertinent information or not completing and presenting budgets in a timely manner, I would be asked to step down or, as in this case, be recalled.
If I chose to run for an office - like the Council or agreed to do a ”volunteer” job, I would expect to be held accountable to the organization or “City.” Being fiscally responsible and competent is required for all jobs ... be they paid or volunteer.
As far as community cohesiveness is concerned, the nearly 600 residents who signed the recall petitions for each council member did so with a great deal of thought and concern for our city. No one wants to see our city divided. We all want a solvent city, off the Michigan State Watch List - with costs contained, and taxes kept as low as possible. We should not be taking surveys about cutting services or raising taxes, until all possible cost cutting measures have been taken.
Some people have been very upset at the salaries of the previous City Manager ($207,000 plus benefits in 2008) and his wife the Office Manager ($149,000 plus benefits in 2008) who have since retired. Some have said that it is in the past and we should move on.
But the problem continues as we now, for example, have a current City Manager, given 12 years seniority, and eligible for full retirement in only 13 years of service, whose salary is over $100,000, whose car allowance is $6,600, who has a $3,000 club membership, who has health and pension benefits which add up to nearly $180,000 a year!
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR. For a city of only 1,000 homes, with an annual budget of less than six million dollars, with less than 100 employees and with no commercial property! This is very high when the Lt. Governor of Michigan has a salary of $120,000. I cannot understand why Grosse Pointe Shores needs to pay higher salaries to all its employees than other larger municipalities. We are such a small town with limited revenues.
Another point, including the cost factor, is the fact that in order to find out things like employees’ salaries, Grosse Pointe Shores’ residents have to go through a F.O.I.A. (Freedom of Information Act) review by our city attorney, who is paid by the taxpayers, who charges per hour rates which are much higher than other municipalities.
In Grosse Pointe Farms if a resident requests information it is simply provided. Why is it permissible to spend tax payer dollars blocking information residents request; but NOT for a democratic process - a recall election, that nearly 600 residents signed petitions for?
Looking at our neighboring communities who have long recognized the perilous financial landscape, it is clear that they have instituted appropriate steps to preserve their future with current fiscal budgets, with significant community input, with long term financial forecasting and with comprehensive wage and benefit reviews. Grosse Pointe Shores has done none of these things!
Reflections on the “idyllic” community and disruption of the recall election are irrelevant. The issues are very clear - immediate and prudent financial management is needed. The recall opponents fail to recognize this.
I now understand the issues that Grosse Pointe Shores is facing and will be voting YES, three times on May 4, 2010.
Fran Bachmann,
Grosse Pointe Shores Resident
I am grateful for Fran’s permission to print the unedited version of the letter that she submitted to the paper as the most recent Guest Posting. You can’t state things any clearer than Fran has done!
------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Editor:
I have lived in Grosse Pointe Shores for seven years. During that time, Mayor Cooper and the other two remaining recall council members have been a part of the council. I am ashamed to admit that during that time, I assumed that the council was taking care of the business of our City and running it with fiduciary responsibility.
I was shocked to learn that last year Grosse Pointe Shores had been placed on the Michigan State Watch list. And,now, again this year, it is on this same list for having a negative fund balance as of June 30, 2009. This is unacceptable according to Michigan State Law.
Last year, I believed the Mayor and sitting council members, when they told us that we should vote for the City Charter because it would be cost effective for the community and even lower our property taxes. Subsequently, I voted for the City Charter. Had I done my own research, I would not have voted for the City Charter.
Once we voted to become a city they promptly voted for a tax increase. I have also “discovered” that there is a clause in the City Charter where they can raise taxes up to 20 mils without a vote by the residents. Before this Charter was passed, Grosse Pointe Shores was at 14 mils. Since we are now at 15 mils, it can be raised an additional 5 mils without a taxpayer vote. I am not comfortable with these same people making those decisions. They have lost my trust.
Opponents of the recall fail to understand why the recall has been initiated. They constantly reference that the Council is volunteer, that the recall is disruptive to Council business and community cohesiveness, cost to the community and talk about some “ten year clean slate” issue that I know nothing about since I have only lived here for seven years.
The recall happened because three council members and two former council members, targeted for recall, did not, and have not, to date, (April 19, 2010) recognized that Grosse Pointe Shores has severe financial problems which if not remedied, will continue to grow and eventually become insurmountable.
To date, mid April, 2010 there has been: a.) NO preliminary 2010-2011 budget b.) NO 2-5 year rolling financial forecast c.) NO collective bargaining unit concessions or new contracts.
Without a current budget to review showing how this Mayor and council plan to remedy this situation, I must in good conscience vote YES three times on the upcoming recall vote.
As for this being a “volunteer” position, I have been on quite a few volunteer boards. I would expect that if I was not managing monies in a responsible way or holding back pertinent information or not completing and presenting budgets in a timely manner, I would be asked to step down or, as in this case, be recalled.
If I chose to run for an office - like the Council or agreed to do a ”volunteer” job, I would expect to be held accountable to the organization or “City.” Being fiscally responsible and competent is required for all jobs ... be they paid or volunteer.
As far as community cohesiveness is concerned, the nearly 600 residents who signed the recall petitions for each council member did so with a great deal of thought and concern for our city. No one wants to see our city divided. We all want a solvent city, off the Michigan State Watch List - with costs contained, and taxes kept as low as possible. We should not be taking surveys about cutting services or raising taxes, until all possible cost cutting measures have been taken.
Some people have been very upset at the salaries of the previous City Manager ($207,000 plus benefits in 2008) and his wife the Office Manager ($149,000 plus benefits in 2008) who have since retired. Some have said that it is in the past and we should move on.
But the problem continues as we now, for example, have a current City Manager, given 12 years seniority, and eligible for full retirement in only 13 years of service, whose salary is over $100,000, whose car allowance is $6,600, who has a $3,000 club membership, who has health and pension benefits which add up to nearly $180,000 a year!
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR. For a city of only 1,000 homes, with an annual budget of less than six million dollars, with less than 100 employees and with no commercial property! This is very high when the Lt. Governor of Michigan has a salary of $120,000. I cannot understand why Grosse Pointe Shores needs to pay higher salaries to all its employees than other larger municipalities. We are such a small town with limited revenues.
Another point, including the cost factor, is the fact that in order to find out things like employees’ salaries, Grosse Pointe Shores’ residents have to go through a F.O.I.A. (Freedom of Information Act) review by our city attorney, who is paid by the taxpayers, who charges per hour rates which are much higher than other municipalities.
In Grosse Pointe Farms if a resident requests information it is simply provided. Why is it permissible to spend tax payer dollars blocking information residents request; but NOT for a democratic process - a recall election, that nearly 600 residents signed petitions for?
Looking at our neighboring communities who have long recognized the perilous financial landscape, it is clear that they have instituted appropriate steps to preserve their future with current fiscal budgets, with significant community input, with long term financial forecasting and with comprehensive wage and benefit reviews. Grosse Pointe Shores has done none of these things!
Reflections on the “idyllic” community and disruption of the recall election are irrelevant. The issues are very clear - immediate and prudent financial management is needed. The recall opponents fail to recognize this.
I now understand the issues that Grosse Pointe Shores is facing and will be voting YES, three times on May 4, 2010.
Fran Bachmann,
Grosse Pointe Shores Resident
Alan Broad's Comments on Shores Council Replacement Process
March/26/2010 07:53
Alan Broad is a highly respected attorney and resident of Grosse Pointe Shores. Alan had placed his name into consideration for one of the replacement council member slots. At the March 22nd council meeting, Alan withdrew his application, eloquently stating his concerns about how the process of private interviews and back room dealings being conducted by the mayor appear to violate the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
What puzzled me is why, after a knowledgeable attorney like Alan raised these issues in public forum, and cited the specific Michigan statue and relevant case law, not a single question came forth from Mayor Cooper and the three other council members in attendance, two of whom are attorneys themselves. The Shores attorney, Mr. McInerney, and city manager Brian Vick also remained silent and did not address Alan’s concerns.
Thank you, Alan, for having the courage to publicly call out the questionable and potentially illegal behavior of Mayor Cooper that became evident during the council replacement process. The way the council overlooked your concerns and sped right in to making a “unanimous” decision about two candidates certainly appears to confirms the suspicions you raised about back room deal making.
Click on this link to view Alan Broad’s comments
________________________________________________
Brian Hunt's email to the Shores Residents
March/14/2010 00:01
Many of you may have received an email from Brian Hunt, proffering an explanation of why he resigned from the Shores Council in the face of the successful petition drive. Personally, I found his letter flawed and his excuse unsatisfactory. Here is Brian’s letter to the community, with his original comments in black type, followed by my annotations in blue type.
----------------------------------------
BRIAN HUNT’S EMAIL TO SHORES RESIDENTS: ANNOTATED WITH COMMENTS BY DR. ROBERT LEE
Please read the attached letter about issues in our community and forward it to any interested parties. Thank you, Brian Hunt.
I was elected to the Grosse Pointe Shores Council five times, the last of which was less than 1 year ago. I had decided prior to the February 2009 election that it would be the last time I would seek re-election. I ran at that time for the purpose of assisting the transition to a new organizational structure as a city and to a new administration under the leadership of Manager Brian Vick. I have now chosen not to participate in another election in May. (It was the voters signing the recall petitions who selected you for participation, Brian. It is too bad you put your own sense of pride ahead of the democratic rights of the electorate. What would have been so hard about staying the course and fulfilling your commitment? Were you afraid to let the chips fall where they may when the voters make their decision in May? Or perhaps you quit in order to give your cronies the opportunity to continue the long Shores tradition of denying the voters the opportunity to choose the replacement council members?)
Looking back, I am proud of the work we have done over the past 10 years. We kept taxes in check in spite of rising employee health care and pension obligations. In fact, we even returned monies to the residents via a tax decrease in 2002. (Taxes in check? Returned money?? You mean the Shores took a tiny bit less out of the taxpayers’ pockets 8 years ago. Homeowners need to do the math based on their own home, as you can see I did for mine. Click on this link showing the 25% rise in Shores taxes on my home during that last 5 years of the Cooper regime.) The only time we raised the millage (1 mill) was in response to a common challenge (Common challenge? Common to whom? Did the City and the Farms raise their taxes?) faced by all Michigan communities following the steep fall in the stock market and the real estate market collapse. (And if there is no intent to raise taxes further why did you and your fellow incumbents INSIST on a clause in the new charter that raised the property tax limit from 12 to 20 mils?) This resulted in decreased home values and corresponding drops in revenue. A casual glance at local newspapers confirms that these circumstances were not caused by local governments but by regional conditions largely beyond their control. (The incumbents would have you believe this, but if you take more than Brian’s “casual glance”, it is clear that not all local governments are in the same boat. Why is the Shores the only Grosse Pointe community under fiscal watch by the state?) The 1 mill tax increase, dedicated to road improvements and to increase our fund balance, was, in my view, a reasonable response to this challenge. (The 1-mil tax increase was needed to cover the deficit spending from last year, when we ended up with a negative balance in the unrestricted general fund. In 2008 the Kenyon’s “golden parachute” total pay out of $356,000 alone cost about 1 mil of your tax revenue! And what roadwork has been done? Our roads are terrible and getting worse.) While some might have addressed the problem differently, it was by no means irresponsible or rash action that merits the recall of the remaining officials who voted in support of the increase. (When you have been a council member for ten years and are chairman of the Finance Committee but have never developed long-range fiscal plan, THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE. When you fail to address the crushing employee legacy costs that have clearly been a mounting issue for years, and which are now in the range of $6.5 million for the pension plan, and $8 to 10 million for the unfunded health care liabilities, based on the city’s own documents THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE.)
There is a group of residents that wants to take Grosse Pointe Shores in a direction that I, with good conscience, cannot endorse. (Brian, The fact that you do not endorse transparency and fiscal responsibility is readily apparent). I want Grosse Pointe Shores to remain a premier and independent community with the excellent amenities we have long enjoyed. Being a premier community has a price. Beyond the economic issues, this group’s complaints about “transparency” and “accountability” have been repeatedly addressed during the last year. Council meetings are now broadcast on cable TV. Extensive information is posted on the Village website. (Compare Grosse Pointe Shores website with www.shoresrecall.com. Which site has a better, in-depth presentation of the key source documents? The key data on the recall website comes directly from Grosse Pointe Shores. So if you claim the data is inaccurate, then it is the CITY that is not telling the truth. Since our key finance deliberations were moved to the Committee of the Whole, why are the Committee of the Whole meetings neither recorded nor televised? Is it transparent when Mayor Cooper and the incumbents vote to spend tax dollars to investigate the effects of a recall at a special meeting called for the specific purpose of revising boat well deposits?) Recall supporters have repeatedly indicated that two council members speak for their interests (Recall supporters have never said anybody on the council speaks for us, but do appreciate that Council members Kedzierski and Schulte have been steadfast in keeping their campaign promises about working for more fiscal responsibility and greater transparency.) and one of those individuals has now been appointed as Mayor Pro Tem and chair of the Finance Committee. (Ted should have been Mayor pro-tem from the start, Brian. Shores voters were promised a fresh start with our new city government, but you and the other incumbents failed to respect both the mandate of the voters and the spirit of the charter by engineering your own appointment to the position when Ted was the top vote getter. You could have spoken up then, but instead you chose to remain silent and accept the office you are now walking away from.) It is disingenuous to suggest that no one has responded to their suggestions or that their voices are not heard and listened to. (You missed the last city council meeting, Brian. But I hope you watch the reruns on cable channel 12 and see how rude and disparaging your incumbent colleagues were when Dan Schulte offered some thoughts on an equitable way to name your replacement.)
On behalf of our employees, I would like to remind residents of their dedication and devotion. Most deserve accolades, not public condemnation from a small group of individuals who are largely unfamiliar with their job performance or contribution to our community. (Another line of phony rhetoric, Brian. Nobody has been condemning the performance of our current civic employees. What is being questioned is how our city can survive without successfully dealing with the inflated salaries, unsustainable benefits, and the burden of enormous legacy costs: the flawed heritage of your tenure as finance chair that you now leave for the taxpayers to reckon with.) My best wishes go to them and to all of the individuals with whom I served throughout the years.
Finally, I urge all residents to get the facts and to vote against the upcoming recall. (I urge all voters to research the facts, and vote as their conscience dictates on the recall of each of the remaining incumbents.) The entire council and administration need our support as they deal with current economic realities. The recall campaign is particularly destructive insofar as the negative publicity it generates conveys the impression that we are a dysfunctional community. (It is the Cooper government and not the community that is dysfunctional. We have lived too long with lackadaisical oversight of what has been going on at city hall. Based on the positive changes already accomplished, the recall is one of the best things to ever happen in Grosse Pointe Shores politics. And from what side are the negative comments and publicity coming? Nothing can be more negative than a government that degrades its citizens for exercising their democratic rights.) It can only serve as an impediment to home sales, thereby further depressing real estate values in our community. (Thanks for providing a great example of the negativity you just mentioned, Brian! Yet another baseless threat designed to scare intimidate the voters. In reality, won’t achieving a higher level of fiscal accountability and working to lower our taxes make our community more desirable? BUT EXPECT MORE NEGATIVE TACTICS FROM THE INCUMBENTS IN THE WEEKS TO COME.)
Thank you for placing your confidence in me, and for allowing me the privilege of serving this community for the past 10 years. I wish you all the best and may God bless you and your families.
Sincerely,
Dr. Brian J. Hunt
Brian Hunt’s comments in BLACK
Dr. Robert Lee’s response in BLUE
Jan Pemberton's Observations on the March C.O.W. Meeting
March/05/2010 17:51
I always look forward to receiving Jan Pemberton’s synopsis of the key Shores meetings. I find her observations on the March Finance “Committee of the Whole” particularly insightful. As you can see from Jan’s recap, the current strategy of Mayor Cooper and his incumbent slate is to try to forestall taking any real action on our fiscal crisis, in hopes that the recall will go away. Not at this stage, Mayor! Over 500 Shores citizens have spoken.
Rather than empower Ted Kedzierski to grab the bull by the horns as the new finance chair, the incumbents’ game was to block the public town hall meeting Ted wanted to have for Shores residents. Why? The same reason that Mayor Cooper and former finance chair Brian Hunt did not want to have a blue ribbon advisory committee.They want to keep the grim fiscal facts away from both the public, and especially from those educated enough to render an honest opinion about where the Shores really stands.
Thanks, Jan for the great service you do for the Shores by sending out these meeting recaps!
------------------------------------------
Neighbors,
The C.O.W. meeting was disappointing. The only "budget" that was presented was the General Fund. Of course, this is the fund which receives all incoming revenue until it's dispersed to the other budget areas. The marina budget was not presented...meaning the Bond was not taken into account at all...and this is going to be a real problem since 2011 is the year when not only the interest must be paid but the principle must be addressed as well.
Ted asked when the streets that were designated for repair would be worked on. Vick said that there was $200,000 still earmarked for roads but it wouldn't be spent until more revenues were collected. He spoke about the need to hold onto those funds - remember that's what part of that 1 mill increase was for - because the State was providing funds for Vernier/Lake Shore and we had to have money in reserve to collect that "windfall."
This is why there is no trust with this manager and the incumbents....there's a lot of money shifting around and touting of "temporary" surpluses between disbursements - kind of like "smoke and mirrors." Then Cooper, Boyce and Graziani spoke about having a separate mill increase just for roads...gee whiz, they said it was done in the past...maybe it should be done again. DO I HEAR TAX INCREASE? I felt that this entire meeting was a preparation for more taxes. I did not hear anything of substance with regard to any more cuts in the budget or reductions in non-union contracts/salaries, benefits, health plan, and fringe benefits.
Ted brought up his plan for a Town Hall Meeting on March 10th. Boyce jumped all over Ted saying she did not hear about it in advance, (guess over one week isn't long enough for her to "prepare" for such an event...and, quite frankly, there will never be enough time for her to do this - since Ted is the ONLY one with the ability, the knowledge and the expertise to provide the residents with the REAL facts and figures on this City - that is if Cooper and Vick will give Ted access to all financial records and data). Graziani and Vick said that this Town Hall meeting should be delayed until after the surveys are in and tabulated. Again, I think the incumbents are afraid of losing control of the information that is presented to the residents. And THEY do not have the ability to present the REAL facts, so, at such a Town Hall meeting, Ted would be the only recognized authority and source of facts and THIS just can't be allowed by any of the incumbents nor the city manager.
I'm sorry I was not prepared to respond to this during the Public Comment session. It was obvious that Graziani and Boyce were "prepared" to attack Ted and his idea to inform the public and present financial data - Cooper was quite controlled and silent during much of the discourse. Ted had informed all council members of his intent to hold this Town Hall in advance, so they had plenty of time to rehearse their "strategy" to make sure such an event DID NOT TAKE PLACE.
There was even a representative from Conyers office in attendance "discussing" OUR survey and this proposed Town Hall meeting. Tell me, HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS WOMAN GET SUCH INFORMATION? She is NOT a City resident. Did Cooper call Conyer's and or Bledsoe's offices and plead for an intervention - to influence the coming recall election? One has to suspect something, as this woman droned on and on....and, by the way, I'm so pleased that the 3-minute limit is no longer an issue...because this woman certainly wasted all of our time with her lengthy presentation, and as I said, she wasn't a taxpayer - I hear she is planning to run for Martha Scott's position...look out GP....this is an audacious woman who thinks a lot of herself to intervene in a FINANCE meeting of this community....not a "normal" council meeting where this kind of presentation is sometimes at least "expected" - and hardly ever welcomed.
Again, I apologize to the residents of this community for not being "prepared" to speak out FOR Ted's Town Hall meeting - where all residents could come and ask any finance/budget question they wished and Ted would have all the facts, data for each and every resident to review and see for themselves. FINALLY, the residents could have had a chance to really confirm what a sorry financial state we have. Residents could even had asked which areas of the "total" budget could be reduced to have the most impact at city solvency and the least impact on resident services.
Dr. Rahi also spoke about keeping our present level of resident services foremost in mind...it's what a premium community is about! THEN, if the council (incumbents) wanted to hold a Town Hall meeting on the survey - to hear what residents think of it, and what the real dollar amounts would be pertaining to areas of the survey, they could have another Town Hall meeting. I saw this "put down" of Ted's Town Hall meeting by the manager and incumbents as a desperate attempt to make sure they retained control of all the facts and information...NOT Ted, our council's financial expert. I should have pointed out that these were two separate issues:
1) the finance facts of our city and
2) the survey
I do not run my life from deception, innuendoes, untruths...so, when I am bombarded by this kind of rhetoric, I am, quite frankly, stunned and slow "on the come back." AND I apologize for this, as members at that C.O.W. table had been well rehearsed and versed on exactly what to say in advance, and gang up on him to STOP his Town Hall meeting. Ted did say that he had informed the newspapers about such a meeting. It was to take place on March 10th at 7:00 at city hall - so, if it's still in the papers, I'm sure Ted will be there, in case some residents already placed it on their calendar and planned to come. That's just the way, Ted is...and what we want in members of our council - ACTION and ANSWERS with the residents....not dances with figures.
Another truly disappointing and disrespectful action by a resident was that of Alex DePetro. He used this Finance meeting to attack the recall website, Dr. Lee, and the facts and figures on the website. I spoke to DePetro after the meeting and told him that I was also a "stats" person and know that numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say....and if he had found some discrepancies on the recall website, why didn't he just call Dr. Lee, go for a coffee and "discuss" like a good neighbor the differences. Because when everything is done, WE ARE ALL NEIGHBORS, and should NEVER use a public meeting to criticize or speak poorly of a resident without that person in attendance - to at least give that neighbor a chance to rebut that attack. (You might recall that DePetro did this to John Booth, and fortunately, John was still at the council meeting to counter that attack.) DePetro needs to work at learning how to be a good neighbor - as I see a pattern in his behavior at a public forum. Cooper was heard to thank DePetro at the end of the meeting for coming...was this another "planned" oratory? I could not help but think so, since any discussion of the recall was not only out of line but inappropriate at THIS FINANCE MEETING!
Also, I would like to say a few things about the "Minturn Mailing." I didn't directly receive one, guess I'm neither a "Grosse Pointe Shores Friend" nor "Neighbor". When Minturn speaks of "net assets," he is talking about the property of the city...buildings, grounds, etc. These are not "cashable" assets...the property was given for city use by private residents...they are not disposable...and, quite frankly, to find out they are only worth $11 million is horrific...tells you how deep the property values of this area, this State have fallen....SHOCKING! Again, Minturn throws that figure out like that's cash in hand....and that's pure deception. And, he states that none of the city funds have a negative balance...of course they don't they are FUNDS.... until these funds are applied to our DEBTS/EXPENDITURES.... then the real fun begins.... for the "moment" taxes and revenue are collected.... and they are FUNDS until they go out - in 24 hours, in 3 days, in however long it takes to try and meet our debts....which we cannot do with the revenues that are collected....AGAIN, these are just a few examples of more "smoke and mirrors by Minturn."
Oh, by the way, you'll probably hear a lot of "positive" budget words in the newspapers....as Boyce told Ted to "admit" that the council has been financially responsible - with this "stand alone for the minute" General Fund surplus....(which would be projected to disappear to the tune of over $100,000-$600,000 in arrears by 2012, according to Vick's data and would place the city in arrears by over $500,000-$1 million by 2013 - in various "scenarios")...Ted did say that "we are headed in the right direction." To which we should remember is only because of the 2 new council members on the council - of which one is a financial EXPERT!
The next C.O.W. meeting will be on Tuesday, April 6th at 7:30 p.m. (a half hour later than usual) and Vick has stated that the entire budget would be ready for review then! I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait!
Dr. Jan Pemberton
Recall equals no confidence
January/24/2010 13:15
The January 14th issue of the Grosse Pointe News contains a thought-provoking letter by Shores resident John L. Booth II, entitled “Recall equals no confidence vote.” Now that the petition drive has ended with more than enough signatures to get the recall on the ballot, Shores voters need to anticipate that a recall election will be held the first week of May.
Anyone who viewed the videotape of the January 2010 Shores city council meeting can see that Mr. Booth’s observation that the council has done very little the way of undertaking serious measures to address the city budget crisis was born out yet again. When John asked Mayor Cooper when the citizens might expect to see a new budget, and learn whether or not our taxes would be raised again, he was told that the new budget is due in June!
As Shores voters consider how to vote in the recall election that appears to be in the offing for this May, I highly recommend they carefully review this letter enumerating why a vote of no confidence is warranted for Mayor Cooper and his slate of incumbent council members.
Grim News at the Finance Committee Meeting
November/11/2009 21:45
This following guest blog was written by Dr. Jan Pemberton. Her opinions on the extremely bleak fiscal picture painted by Grosse Pointe Shores own auditors, Plante Moran, at the November 10, 2009 finance committee meeting are most enlightening.
After reading what Jan has to say, how could anyone question the legitimate need for a recall of Mayor Cooper and his slate of the four incumbent council members? They are the ones who failed to recognize and react to the issues which have led to our current fiscal crisis. Don’t Mayor Cooper and finance committee chair Brian Hunt and finance committee member Fred Minturn bear the highest level of culpability for this mess? Consider these issues when a petition volunteer asks for you signature!
---------------------------------------
Grosse Pointe Shores Neighbors:
The news is dire and extremely serious. And potentially very, very costly for each and every taxpayer in Grosse Pointe Shores.
There were about 20 residents in attendance at the November 10th Finance Committee Meeting. This committee includes chairman Brian Hunt and council members Ted Kedzierski and Fred Minturn. Mayor Cooper was in the "audience" as was Dan Schulte. Rhonda Ricketts and Brian Vick were at the table with the 3 Committee Council members. Plante Moran had 2 representatives to explain the huge financial problems of this city. We are, as you know, under State Fiscal watch. The status of our financial affairs is of enormous concern and far, far more serious than previously stated by Brian Vick. We are literally bankrupt, people.
There was an opportunity for residents to speak up at the end of the meeting. John Booth was present and with his usual sharp analysis of the city's facts and figures, he clearly told the members of this meeting that we are now facing a financial future of impossible debts.
Some facts:
(from the figures of John Booth)
The Shores General Fund Balance on June 30, 2009 was $75,000. The village was supposed to reserve, by State mandate, $285,000 for future liabilities. Now, Plante Moran said they must report to the State of Michigan that the Village General Fund Balance as of June 30, 2009 was actually a NEGATIVE $210,000.
Because the Village ran short of operating funds with full knowledge of its finances and obligations, the former Village Council, PRIOR to the February Election, voted knowingly to overdraft - by wire transfer - funds out of their reserve account to meet the spring quarter cash shortfalls, thereby overdrawing the General Fund.
So, we have a general fund deficit AND an unfunded retiree health care deficit (in the range of 700K) for starters. The city's revenue is not increasing, but decreasing at a rapid rate with our property values plummeting each and every year. The city's expenditures are rapidly increasing with unsustainable pensions, health care, benefits, union contracts, and salaries. In fact, revenues can be expected to be permanently reduced from now on. Since this city has not built up any "cushion" (or fund equity) to meet this decrease in revenues, we must increase revenues and decrease expenditures IMMEDIATELY.
By the way, the real reason for the recent one mil tax increase was to restore last year's account overdraft before the Village auditors were required to disclose the problem to the State authorities. (The incumbents weren't honest with us here, folks.) Oh, and this year's portion of the unfunded post retirement medical benefits is NOT in the budget. There's also this "little bit of bad news" - the pension fund market performance (and of course, you know the "projected" returns are way below the actual returns) has not yet been factored into the required annual pension funding. This bad news will continue to hit us next year and the following two years!
Attention Lochmoor residents...forget about the repaving project...we have no money for ANYTHING....it's all getting sucked up by our HUGE deficits!
The Council cannot pass a deficit budget by law, but this is exactly where we are right now - WITH A DEFICIT BUDGET. Accuracy of internal accounting is now critical. Fortunately Councilman Ted Kedzierski has already initiated a clean up of a faulty "wire transfer" record process in the city. There are more checks and balances now. (This is your one ray of sunshine I brought you from this meeting!)
One resident said that he saw the only potential relief as bankruptcy for this city. In fact, bankruptcy was mentioned several times by different residents in attendance. It's the only way to get out from under these union contracts and salary and pension benefit packages.
HOWEVER, it must be mentioned that our new Charter allows Grosse Pointe Shores to raise the city portion of your property taxes to 20 mils. We must fully burden this 20 mils upon the taxpayer before we can declare bankruptcy. And, guess what, folks? Rhonda Ricketts just revealed at the meeting that we really are not really at 15 mils right now - but really at only 12 MILS...you see 3 mills are put aside for general expenditures. So we, THE TAXPAYER, CAN BE TAXED AT NOT JUST 5 MORE MILLS, BUT AT 8 MILS! This is a HUGE revelation! 8 mils more on a hypothetical $600,000 home with a taxable value of $300,000 means $2400 more of your hard earned money going to the Shores!
Because, with the enormous and mounting deficits we are facing, you can count on the incumbent council members voting to levy higher taxes as soon as possible. You see, the budget must be presented to the State by the end of December. AND, since the majority of taxes for the city are received in the summer, the city cannot collect this winter's taxes and then have a deficit mounting in April thru June. Remember, THE CITY CANNOT PASS A DEFICIT BUDGET - BY LAW!
Residents said that we should have a "blue ribbon" committee of key residents with this finance committee to immediately tackle this very serious and devastating problem. John Booth offered the name of a key individual who would come right to the table of the finance committee and provide the needed insight and expertise to advise us on how to "get our house in order." Brian Hunt answered, "we'll get thru this, our parents did, and we will, too!" (I wonder if Brian was referring to the depression...when unemployment was at 10%....maybe he doesn't know that it's at 30% in MICHIGAN and during the depression, the majority of the population did not own their own homes....so, the loss of property value and equity - personal worth was a lot less! - Or maybe he just has this eternally optimistic vision when he hears depressing news.) He said "they" - meaning Ted, Fred and himself would meet with who they thought would be the best to get "thru" this problem. Brian Hunt plans on reviewing the calendar for another finance meeting next month! I guess he sees no reason to address these critical problems any sooner.
The only people that seemed concerned about this news were the attending residents. Brian Vick said that "all the other municipalities" were facing the same problems" - so, according to Vick, as long as we're one of the group, we don't have to expect anything more - we can all go down the same path of destruction.
John Booth also pointed out that we need to look at serious consolidation of services NOW - police, fire, and DPW with the other Grosse Pointes, and there are ways to handle the union contracts (they are up for renegotiation in June). Can the Shores afford more retirees like Mike Kenyon who left with a last year payout of about double his base salary? Vick said that these were all areas that were "being looked into." I recall this same rhetoric from Vick back in the summer, but to date nothing has changed in those contracts or benefit packages. We're still liable to pay employees for unused sick days, and currently this unfunded liability to Shores taxpayers is in the range of $700,000!
Attorney McInerney's hourly fee of $220 for legal services was also brought up. Vick said that it was going to be "considered" for adjustment when the figures for other city attorneys were compared. We already know that the Woods' city attorney charges a lot less than McInerney. Our legal bill from Clark Hill for September was $10,000. Plante Moran's fee was also brought up. Every time two people from Plante Moran attend one of our meetings it costs us about $1000.
I'm not an accountant...but what I heard and could digest tonight was the stuff of nightmares. We're stuck and facing huge tax increases, (the incumbents on the Council will see to that quite easily). There is a desperate need to have a severe overhaul of everything and to evaluate everyone who's employed in this city. For this, it's clear to me that Mr. Vick does not appear to be up to the job. Every time this has been brought up, he comes up with excuses as to why it's not possible. Of course, none of the incumbents bothered making any serious cuts in the budget, either in the past or in the present. Because of the crisis brought on by the incumbent’s failure to recognize and react to our serious fiscal issues, Shores properties continue to be home values are plummeting?
That's quite a hand this city's incumbent council has dealt us, wouldn't you say?
"I'm mad as **** and I am not going to take it anymore!"
October/13/2009 15:51
Long time Grosse Pointe Shores resident Peggy Posch offers the following observations on the situation in our city. I hear similar sentiments expressed by a good number of fellow citizens. If you don’t think there is a problem with the city government, then why do Shores residents have the fear of ostracism when they raise legitimate issues and questions? Thanks, Peggy, for taking the time to write this guest blog, and for having the courage to share your thoughts with others in our community!
As Peggy points out, engaging in the recall effort gives frustrated Shores residents a real opportunity to effect change for the better. Use the Contact Form on the last page of the web site to volunteer and get involved!
------------------------------------------
It is amazing to me that so many politicians think that they have the right to use their power to put the burden of their negligence and carelessness on the taxpayers they are supposed to represent. Does the Grosse Pointe Shores Council really think that, had this tax hike gone to the voters, it would have passed?
I feel this is a sneaky way to impose a corrective measure to their unsavory actions while in office. Furthermore, why aren't the financial records available to the public on an on-going basis? They should be available on the Internet for everyone to see. This would be proof of their fiscal responsibility (or not). It is appalling that after residing in Grosse Pointe Shores for 35 years, I should feel the need to make an "appointment" to see how the Council uses the money they take from me!
We live in a very small community where word gets around quickly and where people tend to embellish and/or change the facts of things. Nevertheless, I have now gone beyond the point of being concerned about being socially ostracized for expressing my views. I truly believe there are more people than we know who are upset over our tax hike!
I am hoping we can all band together to tell the Council they have been fiscally irresponsible and that they cannot simply raise our taxes to make up for their shortfalls. There was no long-range planning that considered a possible economic decline. Even a short-range plan would have been enough to alert the taxpayers of the Council's intentions. When did that happen?
In conclusion, I'm mad as **** and I'm not going to take it anymore! It's time we took control of our taxes and stopped taking a back seat to Council decisions! This is no time for higher taxes and we know that our houses don't sell because of this issue. The tax increase will make things even worse. I will sign a petition and ask others to do the same. Let's stand up, Grosse Pointe Shores, for our rights and in our own defense!
Give Democracy a Chance to Work!
September/10/2009 18:57
Dr. Jan Pemberton penned the following thought provoking piece expressing her opinion on the benefits of signing a recall petition. As she points out, signing a recall petition indicates your desire to have the matter placed on the ballot, so that all voters can participate in the democratic process.
-----------------------------------------
Neighbors,
As the recall petition drive nears, residents are becoming more vocal about what to expect, what to do. Some of the discussions I've had with residents include the desire to "just get rid of the mayor...then the rest of the Council will fall in line."
This concerns me. I think Dr. Rahi said it best at Tuesday's Council meeting...the community did not vote for a "slate" at the last election. The voters clearly sent the message that they wanted independent thinkers who have the right priorities....the taxpayer and financial solvency for the City. The voters placed two such people on the Council to do just that.
To allow the incumbents "a pass" when they have voted (together) for the millage tax increase, when they have voted (together) for the Master Plan with no resident adaptations, when they have voted (together) against the Charter and placed Brian Hunt as Mayor Pro Tem instead of the highest vote getter - Ted Kedzierski - just to name a few of their (together) transgressions....would be irresponsible. This lack of character to stand up for what one believes, this belief in "strength in numbers" instead of "strength in doing what's right", this disrespectful silence that they show when a fellow Councilman is belittled/chastised by a Mayor and/or other Council person are all despicable and ALL the incumbents need to have an accounting in an election of their peers - all the voters of this city.
I certainly don't want Council people who vote "lock-step" with a Mayor...no matter who that mayor may be. I want every Council person to question, to listen to "experts" - whether they are on the Council or outside experts. In these times, we need all the creative and thoughtful resources we can get....and that means allowing ALL the Council people an opportunity to make the best decisions they can - without anyone withholding information, without anyone shutting out another's opportunity for information, without anyone showing disrespect for another's expertise and knowledge because it runs "counter" to another's plan. I want this City to allow every registered voter to have a chance to decide for themselves if the incumbents should remain on the Council. I don't want "a few" to determine if there is to be a recall or not. That's the democratic process that a ballot provides.
If a resident doesn't want to sign their name to the recall petition, that's a choice they can make but they must know that to make such a decision is NOT being democratic. It's telling their neighbors that they are the ones who will be making the decision on who won't be held responsible. That's just unfair, it's not right. Every resident, when faced to sign the petition for the recall should sign because they want to let the residents decide this and not prevent others from having a voice about the governance of their city. Everyone should sign and let the people of this city decide if the incumbents will be recalled....that's what a democracy is all about. This, neighbors, is what a recall petition does. It gives ALL the voters a chance to say WHO should serve on their City Council....WHO has earned the privilege of serving the taxpayer....WHO will govern and lead this City to sound fiscal health and....WHO has the taxpayer and the resident's needs at the forefront of their decisions.
We are fortunate to live in a city that has such a wealth of intelligence and ability in its residents. I'm sure each of you can think of reasons why our City Council will be stronger if the incumbents are voted to not be recalled....it will send a strong message that the city is behind them....no shadow of "what if" on their service. It will also send a strong message to those who are recalled as well as to future council members. Serve, with respect, the PEOPLE of this city....do not serve YOURSELF....do not make "follow the mayor" decisions....DO think for yourself as to how you can help govern responsibly with strong fiscal sense. This could very well set the precedent for great candidates in the 2010 council election! And, whatever the recall "election" decides....it will be a decision by the majority of this city...and will be the right decision for this city.
So, please, sign the recall petition...give democracy a chance to work in our city!
Dr. Janice Pemberton
-----------------------------------------
Neighbors,
As the recall petition drive nears, residents are becoming more vocal about what to expect, what to do. Some of the discussions I've had with residents include the desire to "just get rid of the mayor...then the rest of the Council will fall in line."
This concerns me. I think Dr. Rahi said it best at Tuesday's Council meeting...the community did not vote for a "slate" at the last election. The voters clearly sent the message that they wanted independent thinkers who have the right priorities....the taxpayer and financial solvency for the City. The voters placed two such people on the Council to do just that.
To allow the incumbents "a pass" when they have voted (together) for the millage tax increase, when they have voted (together) for the Master Plan with no resident adaptations, when they have voted (together) against the Charter and placed Brian Hunt as Mayor Pro Tem instead of the highest vote getter - Ted Kedzierski - just to name a few of their (together) transgressions....would be irresponsible. This lack of character to stand up for what one believes, this belief in "strength in numbers" instead of "strength in doing what's right", this disrespectful silence that they show when a fellow Councilman is belittled/chastised by a Mayor and/or other Council person are all despicable and ALL the incumbents need to have an accounting in an election of their peers - all the voters of this city.
I certainly don't want Council people who vote "lock-step" with a Mayor...no matter who that mayor may be. I want every Council person to question, to listen to "experts" - whether they are on the Council or outside experts. In these times, we need all the creative and thoughtful resources we can get....and that means allowing ALL the Council people an opportunity to make the best decisions they can - without anyone withholding information, without anyone shutting out another's opportunity for information, without anyone showing disrespect for another's expertise and knowledge because it runs "counter" to another's plan. I want this City to allow every registered voter to have a chance to decide for themselves if the incumbents should remain on the Council. I don't want "a few" to determine if there is to be a recall or not. That's the democratic process that a ballot provides.
If a resident doesn't want to sign their name to the recall petition, that's a choice they can make but they must know that to make such a decision is NOT being democratic. It's telling their neighbors that they are the ones who will be making the decision on who won't be held responsible. That's just unfair, it's not right. Every resident, when faced to sign the petition for the recall should sign because they want to let the residents decide this and not prevent others from having a voice about the governance of their city. Everyone should sign and let the people of this city decide if the incumbents will be recalled....that's what a democracy is all about. This, neighbors, is what a recall petition does. It gives ALL the voters a chance to say WHO should serve on their City Council....WHO has earned the privilege of serving the taxpayer....WHO will govern and lead this City to sound fiscal health and....WHO has the taxpayer and the resident's needs at the forefront of their decisions.
We are fortunate to live in a city that has such a wealth of intelligence and ability in its residents. I'm sure each of you can think of reasons why our City Council will be stronger if the incumbents are voted to not be recalled....it will send a strong message that the city is behind them....no shadow of "what if" on their service. It will also send a strong message to those who are recalled as well as to future council members. Serve, with respect, the PEOPLE of this city....do not serve YOURSELF....do not make "follow the mayor" decisions....DO think for yourself as to how you can help govern responsibly with strong fiscal sense. This could very well set the precedent for great candidates in the 2010 council election! And, whatever the recall "election" decides....it will be a decision by the majority of this city...and will be the right decision for this city.
So, please, sign the recall petition...give democracy a chance to work in our city!
Dr. Janice Pemberton
Issues Summary by Dr. Janice Pemberton
September/10/2009 18:57
Neighbors....I have "reviewed" a LOT of the issues that are piling up with our present Council (incumbents) and Mayor and have "summed" them up by the following....also, as I look at the tax bills and see the increase in mills while envision the burgeoning debt of our bonds, pensions, health care costs...I see not only our city topping at 20 mills in the not too distant future, but with the "special tax assessments" added up...our tax bills will weigh-in over 40 mills (we're paying over 30 now)....that's not fantasy...that's too close to reality with these incumbents and this mayor....and as our property values continue to fall, we place our residents (of which the majority are older) in jeopardy with a shaky stock market, uncertain future of our nation's economy (not to mention Michigan's economic "bust") and 401 Ks or retirement monies not able to keep up with living costs....I believe that we will lose a large number of our "founding" residents - those who have made this community strong, who have paid their fair share of taxes over many years and who should NOT be looking at ANY higher taxes, should not be forced to selling their beloved homes in a sorry-housing market, should not be worrying that they can't enjoy the city that they helped build and beautify....our residents deserve better...we ALL deserve better....think about this as you read my simple "summary"......
What do you call a Council and Mayor that do not follow their own "hired" professional's suggestion to NOT sign a Comcast contract and to further discuss it in closed meeting format-
but, instead sign a Comcast contract?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that don't ask the hard questions about water towers, like where are the water mains, what are the size of the mains, routing of the mains-
but, instead are ready to build a water tank, resurfaced with brick, planted around with fully grown trees, with a 30 year debt to the taxpayer, that infringes on 3 streets of property values and has a "noise factor"?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that don't post an information meeting about the water tower-
but start it earlier than some of their own Council members know about?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that don't allow resident questions during an information meeting about the proposed water tower-
but instead allow taxpayer input at a later date when the decision to build is already made?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that allow companies and contractors to talk as long as they need to at a Council meeting, no time limits-
but instead limit the taxpayer (who pays the companies and contractors) to 3 minutes and only one chance to talk per meeting?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that allow residents to speak on agenda items at the beginning of a meeting-
but won't define agenda items until during the meeting?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that won't allow residents to speak after each item on the agenda is presented-
but remain firm on the "form" for the agenda?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that let the manager have the freedom to bring more debt/loans to the taxpayers-
but won't demand that the manager bring back to the Council the details of these debts/loans FIRST before any decision can be authorized?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that use a Master Plan to further their goal of a community center-
but don't address the on-going cost and increase of taxes such a structure with necessary personnel and maintenance will incur?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that want to build a community center-
but through their own Master Plan document that the population of the city is declining, tax revenues are decreasing, property values are falling, vacant homes are increasing and rentals are becoming burdensome to neighborhoods and public safety?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that want to raise taxes-
but through their own Master Plan document that the reason people leave Grosse Pointe Shores is because of high taxes?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that pay proposed bills-
but don't have documented contracts for those bills?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that won't demand union contract renegotiations-
but allow the Manager to choose not to be involved in any union concessions?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that don't recognize the talents and expertise of its own Council members and residents-
but instead place unknowledgeable Council members and residents on key committees?
What do you call a Council that demand no resident clapping or side-talking at council meetings-
but clap and side-talk when they want?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that praise substandard performance-
but criticize expert opinion and validated expertise when they run counter to their wishes?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that allow only the Mayor to have "office hours"-
but refuse to allow other Council members to speak with residents on issues?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that recognize the first year of a new City's Council puts everyone at the first year of serving-
but refuse to recognize the new City Charter and the rules for placing the highest vote getter as the Mayor pro tem?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that try to stifle responsible questions and actions of appointed Council members-
but want lock-step agreement on all Council business?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that try to stop resident inter-communication-
but refuse to meet with residents to discuss problems and actions that are in question?
What do you call a Council and Mayor that need to have paid legal counsel at every Council meeting-
but refuse residents their right to access that same paid legal counsel?
What do you call such a Council and Mayor?....A RECALLED COUNCIL and MAYOR!
Dr. Jan Pemberton
Master Plan Comments from Dr. Jan Pemberton
August/29/2009 09:29
To: Members of the Planning Commission
Re: Master Plan for the City of Grosse Pointe Shores
I will be unable to attend the Sept. 1st meeting at 8:00 a.m. I understand that I may make written "requests" and/or state my concerns this way.
First, I am concerned when I see plans in this Master Plan for a community/activities/recreation center on a "mid-term" time frame. The community center failed by a large vote when the populace went to the polls on this issue several years ago. Now, what has changed? Our property values are lower than they were then, we did not have the problem of vacant and foreclosed homes that we have now. We did not have the looming pension and bond debt that we are facing today. When I read in the Master Plan that 100 people are in favor of this structure, my response is that we have about 2, 776 residents and of that number the majority are against it. The reasons for not building such a structure are many. We do not need, nor can we afford another bond to fund such a building. We do not need the expense of maintaining such a structure. We have a small population and we have many facilities available to us should we need a "building" for an event. There is the Grosse Pointe Yacht Club to which many residents claim membership. We have the Grosse Pointe War Memorial, that is available for activities. There are an abundance of halls and even churches that rent their facilities out as well. We certainly cannot afford added personnel to manage and direct such a facility. For those who believe that because "other" Grosse Pointes have a community center, we need one, I say, NOT! Other Grosse Pointes have businesses, other Grosse Pointes have much larger populations and, thus, a larger tax base. To put this structure in our "plan" is irresponsible. According to the Master Plan, the number one reason people leave Grosse Pointe Shores is TAXES. So, let's keep them down, and not encumber the remaining taxpayers we have in this community with more mills and higher taxes. They are already quickly losing their home equity and don't need any more reasons for home buyers to scratch Grosse Pointe Shores off their list for prospective home purchases. In other words, this is a request to put the community/activities/recreation center on the "no-term" time frame - get it OUT OF THE MASTER PLAN!
Second, there is a "regional water source" listed in the Master Plan. This is on a "short-term" time frame. For those of you with short-term memories, there was much community concern about a 30-year debt that a proposed water tower would incur on the taxpayer. There were over-flowing numbers of concerned residents at Council meetings voicing their disapproval of having such a water storage facility in their front yards, in their backyards, in their parks - be it Osius or Schroeder. The expense of "masking" such a huge structure with bricks and trees is another huge cost - outside of the enormous budget to build such a thing. Include the security fencing and the personnel needed to be trained to operate, maintain and repair a water tank - the costs keep climbing. When would such a structure actually bring a savings? Not for well over 30 years when the bond would be repaid. Again, in an economic climate such as ours, when we're losing residents and facing vacant, foreclosed, rental, abandoned properties in record numbers - WHY would you even consider such an expense for the remaining taxpayers? In fact, Councilman Fred Minturn personally assured me that he would never vote for such a long-term commitment of tax dollars in this economic climate and with the financial difficulties this city is facing. We must face the facts. Those being that Detroit takes care of our sewage and provides our water. If we were to build a water tank at great expense to the taxpayer now, the water cost savings would not occur until the bond would be paid off because the increase in taxes would far offset any savings in a resident's water bill. If we purchase our water from Grosse Pointe Farms, there is a big chance that Detroit would raise our sewage costs - to make up for their loss of revenue, thereby negating any savings in water cost, not to mention the tax increase of still having to build a water tank. And if taxes increase in this city, there will be fewer and fewer prospective buyers for our homes and our properties. That is a fact. That is a fact stated in the Master Plan. Higher taxes force residents to sell, higher taxes eliminate prospective home buyers. Homeowners have a choice on how much water they may use, they don't have a choice on how much taxes they may pay. Again, this is a request to put the "regional water source" on a "no-term" time frame - get it OUT OF THE MASTER PLAN!
I fully understand that a Master Plan is a guide for the future of a city. I would suggest that this Master Plan be very conservative as to what future projects are being planned. For, the very existence of this city and its ability to preserve and protect the beauty and the services that we now have will be, in itself, a difficult and real challenge for its leaders and for its residents in the uncertain economic future we now face.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Janice Pemberton
And Change is Needed!
August/22/2009 14:13
The following letter was penned by Shores resident, Dr. Janice Pemberton, and was recently published in the Grosse Pointe News. Dr. Pemberton has kindly granted me permission to post her thought provoking observations on the Guest Blog for those of you who did not see her letter in the paper. I really look forward to getting Jan’s monthly email that recaps the highlights of our Shores council meetings. If you would like to get Jan’s monthly email summarizing what happened, you can let her know at janjpem@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------
To the editor:
With resident attendance at the Grosse Pointe Shores’ Council meetings growing, opportunities to hear directly from the taxpayers grow. But when residents are discouraged to speak, whether because of forced time limits or by number of responses “allowed,” a clear message is being sent by the Mayor…and change is needed.
When the Mayor and some Council members voice great displeasure at having residents attend Council meetings, a clear message is being sent…and change is needed.
Effective leaders know how to bring about desired results – as defined by the population they represent. But when the Mayor and some Council members push their personal agendas, regardless of the desire of the people, a clear message is being sent…and change is needed.
Effective leaders are encouraging and able to “see” the bigger picture and enable others to use their skills and abilities for the good of the whole. But when fellow Council members are criticized and chastised in public and private by other Council members for trying to do the best job they can and truly represent the people, a clear message is being sent….and change is needed.
Effective leaders know how to develop the potential in all for the good of everyone. But when the talent and skills of the community are discarded and/or ignored by the Mayor and some Council members, a clear message is being sent…and change is needed.
We have a Mayor in a leadership position in Grosse Pointe Shores who is swiftly stifling and destroying the opportunity for any growth, talent and ability to rise from its capable population. We have some Council members who are fighting against transparency and fiscal responsibility of this newly formed City.
If some of those who sit on this City’s Council continue to disregard the taxpayers they represent, if some of them continue to display flagrant disrespect for fellow Council members – by actions and by voices, a clear message is being sent….and change is needed.
Grosse Pointe Shores’ residents did not elect a “Council in training.” They expected capable leaders who would represent them, be fiscally responsible and encourage everyone in this community to contribute toward the growth of this new city.
Again, if this isn’t happening, if there isn’t growth or progress here, a clear message is being sent…and change is, indeed, needed!
Dr. Janice Pemberton
Grosse Pointe Shores
Cable Questions ????
August/16/2009 13:33
The following guest blog posting was received from a Shores resident who did some homework to learn what is behind the cable franchise agreement the city council will consider at the August council meeting. Being aware of retribution already made against the author, I am honoring the request to keep the posting anonymous. The questions raised are very good ones.
----------------------------------------------------------
If it weren’t for the local papers, residents might have a hard time understanding some of the items on the agenda for the August Shores City Council meeting. The Council will be asked to approve the Uniform Franchise Agreement with Comcast and to enter into a participation agreement with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. City Council members were asked to approve the “Franchise” agreement at the July meeting but asked for more information. Though we aren’t sure what additional information the council has been provided, from reviewing the minutes of the last Council meeting and articles in the Grosse Pointe Times, we hope the Council has a clear understanding of who is paying for what and out of whose checkbook the money is coming.
It appears as if there have been substantial legal fees paid for representation to obtain a 1.15% PEG (public, education and government channel) fee computed on gross cable revenues. These fees will be directed to the Grosse Pointe War Memorial in order to keep Channel 5 running, as well as providing the feed for the school district and the cable channel for the Grosse Pointes and Harper Woods. Grosse Pointe Shores is the only community that has its own cable channel. Let’s hope there are answers to the following questions:
1) Does anyone know how much has been paid in legal fees for representation and to whom?
2) Does anyone know how the legal fees are being apportioned among the cities and the War Memorial?
3) Have any of the beneficiaries of the legal representation refused to pay a share or any of the fees for this representation?
4) Does anyone understand the funding mechanism of the Conference of Eastern Wayne, the alleged payer for these legal fees? Are they asking if these fees are reasonable and necessary?
5) Since Grosse Pointe Shores apparently has its own PEG channel and since according to the Grosse Pointe Times article, the War Memorial will not have the staff or equipment to broadcast our City Council meetings, should the Shores consider reserving some of the PEG fees for the purposes of maintaining our PEG channel and broadcasting our city Council meetings?
In another “Times” article Grosse Pointe Farms council members were split on the idea of participating in The Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office that will work as a consortium to obtain energy saving grants. Sounds like a great idea, but some Farms council members wondered if there would be true savings when any grants through the Energy Office would be repaid interest free over a 5 to 10 year period from derived energy savings and put in a fund for future projects. If there are no savings, who pays for the services of the Energy Office? Let’s hope the Council has a clear understanding of what they are being asked to approve – it may be worth pooling resources but if that is the case… we should make sure that we will be able to repay our “loans”.
Shores efforts to restrict salary information before election
July/09/2009 17:59
The following guest blog posting is from Henry S. Woloson, J.D., the driving force behind Energize Michigan. This organization has the goal of reforming state and local government to improve transparency, efficiency and tax policies. In this posting, Mr. Woloson tells citizens how Grosse Pointe Shores officials obstructed the efforts of his organization to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out just how much some of our civic employees are compensated.
The experience that Mr. Woloson relates raises the following questions. Who authorized the Shores attorney to fight the FOIA request and used taxpayer’s money to try to avoid releasing information that the public is entitled to know? Just how many hours at $200+ an hour were billed to the Shores by Mr. McInerney to prevent taxpayers from knowing how their dollars were spent? Could this blatant effort to avert the salary of Shores employees becoming public be linked with the timing of the recent election to approve the new charter and elect new council members?
Read Mr. Woloson’s letter, and draw your own conclusions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2009
Dr. Lee:
Thank you for contacting me concerning our unsuccessful efforts to secure financial information from the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores.
As we discussed, I belong to a statewide group seeking to have voters convene a State Constitutional Convention. Our hope is to amend the State Constitution to improve the transparency and efficiency of local and state government along with reviewing our tax policies and other issues.
On December 30, 2008, I mailed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Michael Kenyon at the Village offices seeking compensation information for: 1) Michael Kenyon 2) James Cooke 3) Brett Smith and 4) Angela Kenyon. Our group is interested in amending the State Constitution to require better disclosure of the compensation and benefits paid to government employees.
It is important to note that the compensation information I requested has since been released and is disclosed on the home page of your website so it was apparently not as sensitive as the Village management portrayed it.
Village Corporation Counsel Mark McInerney wrote to me on January 7, 2009 that ten additional business days were needed to respond to my request. He stated: “This extension is necessitated by the nature of your request and the need to search a number of documents stretching over several years in order to obtain all (or as much as can be located) of the information you request.”
The request for extra time to respond seemed reasonable so I waited.
In a subsequent letter dated January 26, 2009, Mr. McInerney declined three times to produce any records and/or information. He wrote that, “the Village is not obligated to prepare or provide” a “new public record” which is what he deemed I was seeking. Obviously this was not true since he should have been aware of documents called payroll records which are used to record compensation to personnel.
Although Mr. McInerney indicated in his second letter that I could appeal the rejection to circuit court, I declined in order to avoid having the Village incur any additional legal expenses related to this request.
Looking back, it seems probable that Mr. McInerney, presumably at the direction of the Village, never intended to release the information that was being sought by my FOIA request. Someone did not want residents to know about the 2008 compensation of $207,000 paid to Mike Kenyon and the $149,000 paid to Angela Kenyon. Again, this compensation information has since been revealed with no apparent adverse impact on the environment. Why was it so sensitive in January but not now?
Our group continues to encourage a yes vote for Michigan in November, 2010 to authorize a State Constitutional Convention. Our experience with the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores management supports our call for greater government transparency.
Thank you.
Henry S. Woloson, J.D.
Web site: http://www.energizemichigan.com/index.html
The experience that Mr. Woloson relates raises the following questions. Who authorized the Shores attorney to fight the FOIA request and used taxpayer’s money to try to avoid releasing information that the public is entitled to know? Just how many hours at $200+ an hour were billed to the Shores by Mr. McInerney to prevent taxpayers from knowing how their dollars were spent? Could this blatant effort to avert the salary of Shores employees becoming public be linked with the timing of the recent election to approve the new charter and elect new council members?
Read Mr. Woloson’s letter, and draw your own conclusions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2009
Dr. Lee:
Thank you for contacting me concerning our unsuccessful efforts to secure financial information from the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores.
As we discussed, I belong to a statewide group seeking to have voters convene a State Constitutional Convention. Our hope is to amend the State Constitution to improve the transparency and efficiency of local and state government along with reviewing our tax policies and other issues.
On December 30, 2008, I mailed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Michael Kenyon at the Village offices seeking compensation information for: 1) Michael Kenyon 2) James Cooke 3) Brett Smith and 4) Angela Kenyon. Our group is interested in amending the State Constitution to require better disclosure of the compensation and benefits paid to government employees.
It is important to note that the compensation information I requested has since been released and is disclosed on the home page of your website so it was apparently not as sensitive as the Village management portrayed it.
Village Corporation Counsel Mark McInerney wrote to me on January 7, 2009 that ten additional business days were needed to respond to my request. He stated: “This extension is necessitated by the nature of your request and the need to search a number of documents stretching over several years in order to obtain all (or as much as can be located) of the information you request.”
The request for extra time to respond seemed reasonable so I waited.
In a subsequent letter dated January 26, 2009, Mr. McInerney declined three times to produce any records and/or information. He wrote that, “the Village is not obligated to prepare or provide” a “new public record” which is what he deemed I was seeking. Obviously this was not true since he should have been aware of documents called payroll records which are used to record compensation to personnel.
Although Mr. McInerney indicated in his second letter that I could appeal the rejection to circuit court, I declined in order to avoid having the Village incur any additional legal expenses related to this request.
Looking back, it seems probable that Mr. McInerney, presumably at the direction of the Village, never intended to release the information that was being sought by my FOIA request. Someone did not want residents to know about the 2008 compensation of $207,000 paid to Mike Kenyon and the $149,000 paid to Angela Kenyon. Again, this compensation information has since been revealed with no apparent adverse impact on the environment. Why was it so sensitive in January but not now?
Our group continues to encourage a yes vote for Michigan in November, 2010 to authorize a State Constitutional Convention. Our experience with the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores management supports our call for greater government transparency.
Thank you.
Henry S. Woloson, J.D.
Web site: http://www.energizemichigan.com/index.html