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