Jul 2009
Detroit News Article on Shores Issues
July/30/2009 11:18
Today’s issue of the Detroit News contains an insightful article by reporter Maureen Feighan entitled “ Dispute over taxes erupt into Grosse Pointe wars”. I encourage all Shores residents to read this fine piece of journalism and reflect on the issues related to our city.
I found the most interesting part of the article to be Councilman Kedzierski’s story of how he was not permitted to see the general ledger before the vote on the new budget (and higher taxes). It took Ted three months to get access to the Shores general ledger. Yet despite the facts on this issue as presented in the Detroit News story, Mayor Cooper has the audacity to claim in the same article: “we have been very open and transparent to our residents.” Well, what about being transparent with all of our elected officials and giving them the requisite access to the information they need to do their jobs, Mayor Cooper?
The facts presented in the Detroit News also contradict the recent answer posted on the Shores web site to question #3 in the Finance FAQ posting that asks “ Was there any information requested by the finance committee members that was not provided?” It is unmistakably clear that Ted wanted to see the books before voting on the new budget, and it is very apparent that Mayor Cooper and the powers that be denied Ted access to this information in timely fashion. Don’t you think all the elected Shores officials should have wanted to take a long and hard look at the books before raising our taxes?
The other notable item that Ms. Feighan brought out in her article is how certain council members and residents are treated at the Shores council meetings. When our freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, why does Mayor Cooper consider it “rogue behavior” when a council member sounds out the constituents who elected him? I would encourage Shores residents to review this part of the article and draw their own conclusions, as things are presented as seen through the objective eye of a newspaper reporter who regularly attends the council meetings of other local cities.
Between our higher Shores taxes, the outrageous municipal wages, a clear lack of transparency even when it comes to providing elected officials with the information they need to function, and the unacceptable manner in which those not aligned with the status quo are treated, it is becoming even more apparent to me that a recall effort will provide the best means of effecting change.
I found the most interesting part of the article to be Councilman Kedzierski’s story of how he was not permitted to see the general ledger before the vote on the new budget (and higher taxes). It took Ted three months to get access to the Shores general ledger. Yet despite the facts on this issue as presented in the Detroit News story, Mayor Cooper has the audacity to claim in the same article: “we have been very open and transparent to our residents.” Well, what about being transparent with all of our elected officials and giving them the requisite access to the information they need to do their jobs, Mayor Cooper?
The facts presented in the Detroit News also contradict the recent answer posted on the Shores web site to question #3 in the Finance FAQ posting that asks “ Was there any information requested by the finance committee members that was not provided?” It is unmistakably clear that Ted wanted to see the books before voting on the new budget, and it is very apparent that Mayor Cooper and the powers that be denied Ted access to this information in timely fashion. Don’t you think all the elected Shores officials should have wanted to take a long and hard look at the books before raising our taxes?
The other notable item that Ms. Feighan brought out in her article is how certain council members and residents are treated at the Shores council meetings. When our freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, why does Mayor Cooper consider it “rogue behavior” when a council member sounds out the constituents who elected him? I would encourage Shores residents to review this part of the article and draw their own conclusions, as things are presented as seen through the objective eye of a newspaper reporter who regularly attends the council meetings of other local cities.
Between our higher Shores taxes, the outrageous municipal wages, a clear lack of transparency even when it comes to providing elected officials with the information they need to function, and the unacceptable manner in which those not aligned with the status quo are treated, it is becoming even more apparent to me that a recall effort will provide the best means of effecting change.
Shores July Council Meeting Notes
July/26/2009 19:43
With Jan Pemberton away on vacation, I realize just how much I miss her incisive monthly email letter to interested Shores residents, keeping them informed on what happens at our city council meetings. Jan will be happy to add your name to her email list. If you would like to receive Jan’s future updates, you can let her know by email at Janjpem@aol.com. In her absence, I will use this blog posting to comment on several items of note that arose at this week’s meeting.
At the time when citizens could comment on agenda items, Gloria Anton inquired about a nebulous agenda item entitled “Uniform Franchise Agreement”. It turns out this was meant to indicate the council was to review a new long-term cable franchise agreement with Comcast. I don’t know how any interested citizen perusing the agenda on the Shores web site would have been able to realize this in view of the very obscure way this item was listed on the agenda. During the meeting it came out that even the council members did not receive the franchise agreement in time to either solicit public opinion or to properly scrutinize it. For this reason, Councilman Schulte proposed deferring action to a future meeting, a course that was adopted. What are they trying to hide from Shores citizens by not distributing unequivocally clear meeting agendas?
During the meeting Council members Schulte and Kedzierski voiced their dissatisfaction at the draft June meeting minutes drawn up by city manager Vick. Having been the secretary of 3 professional associations myself, I know that meeting minutes are not meant either to be a venue to take people to task, or to record what happened in a biased or slanted way. Dan Schulte raised an objection as he felt the draft minutes on the harbor issues did not reflect both sides of the story. The draft minutes on the discussion over raising taxes contained the line that “ Mayor Cooper the asked Council Member Kedzierski if he had any proposals to consider.” Having been at that meeting, I heard Ted outline at least a handful of specific areas where expenses could be contained in order to avoid a tax increase. Ted was right to object to language that indicated he had nothing specific to offer in terms of ways of avoiding a tax increase. Those who voted for the tax increase ignored Ted’s proposals. Dan and Ted should be applauded for speaking up and making sure the June meeting minutes were corrected.
During the legal report, City Attorney McInerney was asked to explain a bill submitted that was to “ Review Pemberton and Schulte campaign materials”. I personally found his explanation of why Mr. Vick sent him the challenger’s campaign literature less than adequate. For propriety’s sake there are definite lines that should not be crossed. In a free country, having the city manager use public tax dollars to send candidates’ campaign literature in for scrutiny by the city attorney is one of them. As Dr. Raymond Rahi eloquently noted in the citizens’ comment section at the end of the meeting, this episode did not pass the sniff test, and the explanation proffered seemed very carefully scripted. Dr. Rahi noted that he would have a higher level of respect had the involved officials admitted that they made a mistake, rather than trying to explain their way out of the situation.
The Sunday edition of the Detroit Free Press reported on Councilman Dan Schulte’s proposal to broadcast our city council meetings over local cable access in a brief article entitled: Grosse Pointe Shores may televise council meetings. Dan’s expressed logic for this move is that he thinks that "it's healthy for the city to see what's going on, to raise awareness". While Dan deserves commendation for proposing this giant step forward in improving transparency at city hall, don’t be surprised if other council members try to block his efforts to bring the action at city council meetings directly into your living room!
At the meeting it was reported that the Shores web site now contains a Finance FAQ area. To me, this appears to be a retrospective attempt to try to justify the inflated municipal wages and other fiscal concerns that have recently come to light. I think these FAQ’s raise just as many questions as they purport to answer. In upcoming blogs I plan to address some of the lingering questions that remain despite this feeble effort at damage control.
At the time when citizens could comment on agenda items, Gloria Anton inquired about a nebulous agenda item entitled “Uniform Franchise Agreement”. It turns out this was meant to indicate the council was to review a new long-term cable franchise agreement with Comcast. I don’t know how any interested citizen perusing the agenda on the Shores web site would have been able to realize this in view of the very obscure way this item was listed on the agenda. During the meeting it came out that even the council members did not receive the franchise agreement in time to either solicit public opinion or to properly scrutinize it. For this reason, Councilman Schulte proposed deferring action to a future meeting, a course that was adopted. What are they trying to hide from Shores citizens by not distributing unequivocally clear meeting agendas?
During the meeting Council members Schulte and Kedzierski voiced their dissatisfaction at the draft June meeting minutes drawn up by city manager Vick. Having been the secretary of 3 professional associations myself, I know that meeting minutes are not meant either to be a venue to take people to task, or to record what happened in a biased or slanted way. Dan Schulte raised an objection as he felt the draft minutes on the harbor issues did not reflect both sides of the story. The draft minutes on the discussion over raising taxes contained the line that “ Mayor Cooper the asked Council Member Kedzierski if he had any proposals to consider.” Having been at that meeting, I heard Ted outline at least a handful of specific areas where expenses could be contained in order to avoid a tax increase. Ted was right to object to language that indicated he had nothing specific to offer in terms of ways of avoiding a tax increase. Those who voted for the tax increase ignored Ted’s proposals. Dan and Ted should be applauded for speaking up and making sure the June meeting minutes were corrected.
During the legal report, City Attorney McInerney was asked to explain a bill submitted that was to “ Review Pemberton and Schulte campaign materials”. I personally found his explanation of why Mr. Vick sent him the challenger’s campaign literature less than adequate. For propriety’s sake there are definite lines that should not be crossed. In a free country, having the city manager use public tax dollars to send candidates’ campaign literature in for scrutiny by the city attorney is one of them. As Dr. Raymond Rahi eloquently noted in the citizens’ comment section at the end of the meeting, this episode did not pass the sniff test, and the explanation proffered seemed very carefully scripted. Dr. Rahi noted that he would have a higher level of respect had the involved officials admitted that they made a mistake, rather than trying to explain their way out of the situation.
The Sunday edition of the Detroit Free Press reported on Councilman Dan Schulte’s proposal to broadcast our city council meetings over local cable access in a brief article entitled: Grosse Pointe Shores may televise council meetings. Dan’s expressed logic for this move is that he thinks that "it's healthy for the city to see what's going on, to raise awareness". While Dan deserves commendation for proposing this giant step forward in improving transparency at city hall, don’t be surprised if other council members try to block his efforts to bring the action at city council meetings directly into your living room!
At the meeting it was reported that the Shores web site now contains a Finance FAQ area. To me, this appears to be a retrospective attempt to try to justify the inflated municipal wages and other fiscal concerns that have recently come to light. I think these FAQ’s raise just as many questions as they purport to answer. In upcoming blogs I plan to address some of the lingering questions that remain despite this feeble effort at damage control.
Council- committee- quorum flap
July/18/2009 08:38
This week’s Grosse Pointe News has an article entitled “ Council- committee- quorum…flap clarified”. The article points out that Mayor Cooper tried to prevent Councilman Dan Schulte from attending the Shores finance committee meetings. Being at the last council meeting and seeing how Councilman Schulte responded back to the public dressing down from Mayor Cooper, it was clear Dan did his homework in advance of the committee meeting. He checked with appropriate authorities to insure that his attendance in an effort to educate himself on the complex fiscal issues the Shores is facing would not violate the open meetings act. Yet Mayor Cooper openly admonished Dan for standing up for his right to be at the finance committee meeting.
I commend Councilman Schulte for having the determination to do his job and not be intimidated by Mayor Cooper’s effort to keep him out of the loop. Seeing how Councilman Schulte was treated raises the following questions. How do other council members who are not members of the important finance committee gain the in depth knowledge needed to make crucial decisions? Did they just rubber-stamp the committee recommendations and vote the mayor’s way on the tax increase without doing their due diligence?
Even though the vote on the tax increase went against public sentiment, I was pleased to see for the first time in my memory that we have several Shores council members who are not afraid to break with the crowd, ask some tough questions, and have the courage to keep their promise to the voters who elected them.
Grosse Pointe News Question of the Day
July/16/2009 09:55
I do not know how long it will be up on the Grosse Pointe News web site, but their question of the day is “Will the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores recall effort succeed?’ After you click to indicate your opinion, a small browser window opens that lets you know the results of the poll.
I am encouraged to see that as of today those who believe the Shores recall will succeed outnumber those who don’t by a four to one ratio! I remember just how accurate the pre-vote survey was when the council put the proposed activities building in Osius Park up for a vote, after a citizen’s petition drive garnering hundreds of signatures forced their hand. The outcome of that vote was that the survey predicted the defeat of the council’s activities building proposal almost to the exact percentage point.
Hopefully this early indication of sentiment will be a reliable predictor of things to come!
I am encouraged to see that as of today those who believe the Shores recall will succeed outnumber those who don’t by a four to one ratio! I remember just how accurate the pre-vote survey was when the council put the proposed activities building in Osius Park up for a vote, after a citizen’s petition drive garnering hundreds of signatures forced their hand. The outcome of that vote was that the survey predicted the defeat of the council’s activities building proposal almost to the exact percentage point.
Hopefully this early indication of sentiment will be a reliable predictor of things to come!
Shores Recall effort brewing
July/13/2009 11:55
The July 9th issue of the Grosse Pointe News contains an article on Shores politics entitled “Recall effort brewing”.
I thought Brad Lindberg did a good job bringing out many of the issues behind the recall, mentioning the property tax increase, the huge unfunded pension liability, and a harbor that does not appear to be self funded by the boating revenues. I was surprised that rather than respond directly to the facts and the issues that the reaction of Mayor Cooper was merely: “The campaign of former candidate Lee is predictable”.
To dismissively brand me as a “former candidate” nearly a decade after the election challenge of the Clean Slate group, shows just how long lasting and deep seated the animus is against anyone who dares to question the track record or the judgment of our mayor and his allied incumbent officials. Mayor Cooper, just call me a concerned Shores citizen!
You can also appreciate overt hostility in how Mayor Cooper is trying to constrain the efforts of new council members Dan Schulte and Ted Kedzierski to get the information needed do the job the people elected them to do. Ted asked to be able to go through the general ledger of the city, and he was denied access to this crucial information before the council vote to raise your taxes. My question is: How could have any of those who voted to raise your taxes have done so without scrutinizing the general ledger line by line to see what fat could be cut out of the city budget?
I guess the failure to analyze things in proper depth would explain Councilman Brian Hunt’s quote in the article, who said: “I asked all members of the finance committee and council for alternatives to the 1-mill increase, and none were offered.” This statement is incorrect in the sense that two council members, Dan Schulte and Ted Kedzierski did offer a clear alternative to the millage increase - by voting no!
I would encourage all Shores voters to read the long and very articulate letter to the editor also published in this week’s Grosse Pointe News by Shores resident Val Fitzsimons. While I could not find her letter in the online edition, her letter alone with its valuable insights into the behavior of our mayor and certain council members is more than worth the price of this week’s paper. Hopefully more Shores residents will plan to attend the council meeting next Tuesday to see things first hand and make a judgment for themselves.
I thought Brad Lindberg did a good job bringing out many of the issues behind the recall, mentioning the property tax increase, the huge unfunded pension liability, and a harbor that does not appear to be self funded by the boating revenues. I was surprised that rather than respond directly to the facts and the issues that the reaction of Mayor Cooper was merely: “The campaign of former candidate Lee is predictable”.
To dismissively brand me as a “former candidate” nearly a decade after the election challenge of the Clean Slate group, shows just how long lasting and deep seated the animus is against anyone who dares to question the track record or the judgment of our mayor and his allied incumbent officials. Mayor Cooper, just call me a concerned Shores citizen!
You can also appreciate overt hostility in how Mayor Cooper is trying to constrain the efforts of new council members Dan Schulte and Ted Kedzierski to get the information needed do the job the people elected them to do. Ted asked to be able to go through the general ledger of the city, and he was denied access to this crucial information before the council vote to raise your taxes. My question is: How could have any of those who voted to raise your taxes have done so without scrutinizing the general ledger line by line to see what fat could be cut out of the city budget?
I guess the failure to analyze things in proper depth would explain Councilman Brian Hunt’s quote in the article, who said: “I asked all members of the finance committee and council for alternatives to the 1-mill increase, and none were offered.” This statement is incorrect in the sense that two council members, Dan Schulte and Ted Kedzierski did offer a clear alternative to the millage increase - by voting no!
I would encourage all Shores voters to read the long and very articulate letter to the editor also published in this week’s Grosse Pointe News by Shores resident Val Fitzsimons. While I could not find her letter in the online edition, her letter alone with its valuable insights into the behavior of our mayor and certain council members is more than worth the price of this week’s paper. Hopefully more Shores residents will plan to attend the council meeting next Tuesday to see things first hand and make a judgment for themselves.
Private Sector Supports Bloated Public Benefits
July/08/2009 15:02
Thanks to a dedicated shoresrecall.com reader for recommending a recent posting on the web site of the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy entitled: “Diminishing Private Sector Keeps Supporting Bloated Public Benefits”.
The article mentions that despite the hard economic times in our state, that not everyone in Michigan is feeling the pain. There is a large disparity between the impact felt by those of us the private sector, and those in the public employ. Increasing government pay and a huge disparity in benefits insulate our public servants from the economic pressures felt by the rest of us. The article points out that the greatest inequity is not from the disproportionately rising public wages, but from the additional benefits paid to public workers on top of their elevated salaries.
I think most of us in Grosse Pointe Shores can appreciate this disparity by answering the following questions: How many of us can roll over nearly a year of unused sick days into our salaries before we retire? How many of us can retire with a guaranteed pension of 75% to 80% of our salary after thirty years of work, without having to worry about the vagaries of the stock market? How many of us get health insurance and prescription drug coverage at no cost after we retire? Does your employer give you a $500+ a month car allowance when most of your working hours are spent at the company office? How about an allowance for you to join a private club?
The disparity is illustrated in the graphic below from the Mackinaw Center web site. When we add the costs of added benefits to Shores employees on top of the salaries listed elsewhere on this website, you can appreciate what the true burden to taxpayers may be.
The conclusion of the article from the Mackinaw Center is worth quoting directly: “The people of Michigan have a government that is supposed to serve them, not the other way around. With the state’s accelerated economic decline, its shrinking number of private-sector workers can no longer afford paying an extra $5.7 billion so public-sector workers can have a more comfortable lifestyle than they do…”
I think it is high time to hold our Shores civic officials accountable for this unacceptable disparity. What do you think?
Independence Day Reflections
July/02/2009 18:45
Over the Independence Day weekend, I hope everyone will pause and spend some time to reflect on the importance of this holiday, and on the debt of gratitude that we owe our Founding Fathers. While the Founders were men of different temperament and from varying walks of life, and those from the various states had extremely divergent interests, they were all united by a common ambition – freedom from the ruling government that burdened them with unfair taxation. In declaring their opposition to the status quo, these courageous men knew they literally were putting their lives on the line for the principles they believed in.
Having had the opportunity to visit Philadelphia recently, it was an emotional experience to visit Independence Hall and spend some time in the very Assembly Room where our patriot forbearers deliberated over the issues that led to the framing of the Declaration of Independence. The room has a sacred and spiritual air, and the presence of such great patriots like Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson remained perceptible.
In the back of my mind, I wondered what these noble men would have to say if they could come alive and pay a visit to the United States of the twenty-first century. I believe they would be surprised to see that the average American works till the middle of April (even longer where property taxes are high!) to pay their burden of taxes demanded by our federal, state and local governments. I think they would be horrified to see the United States House of Representatives approve a huge hidden tax obscurely buried in a thousand plus page long Cap and Trade bill.
I imagine it would trouble these men of great principle to see a local government raise taxes after just promising the citizens they had no intention to do so. In the Shores, they would be flabbergasted to see that tough decisions are made with out the public debate and open discourse, often times contentious but marked with respect, that epitomized their successful efforts that led to a free and independent America.
After reflecting on what our Founders would think about seeing the state of our contemporary government, I could only hope that if they had it to do all over again, that they would not be discouraged to see how just how far our country has strayed from the principled course they set for us.
I hope on this Fourth of July you will spend some time reflecting on the contributions of our Founding Fathers, and considering what we can do as modern day citizens to bring our civic government back into alignment with the values they espoused.
Happy Independence Day!
THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM FROM UNFAIR TAXATION STARTED HERE IN 1776:
Having had the opportunity to visit Philadelphia recently, it was an emotional experience to visit Independence Hall and spend some time in the very Assembly Room where our patriot forbearers deliberated over the issues that led to the framing of the Declaration of Independence. The room has a sacred and spiritual air, and the presence of such great patriots like Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson remained perceptible.
In the back of my mind, I wondered what these noble men would have to say if they could come alive and pay a visit to the United States of the twenty-first century. I believe they would be surprised to see that the average American works till the middle of April (even longer where property taxes are high!) to pay their burden of taxes demanded by our federal, state and local governments. I think they would be horrified to see the United States House of Representatives approve a huge hidden tax obscurely buried in a thousand plus page long Cap and Trade bill.
I imagine it would trouble these men of great principle to see a local government raise taxes after just promising the citizens they had no intention to do so. In the Shores, they would be flabbergasted to see that tough decisions are made with out the public debate and open discourse, often times contentious but marked with respect, that epitomized their successful efforts that led to a free and independent America.
After reflecting on what our Founders would think about seeing the state of our contemporary government, I could only hope that if they had it to do all over again, that they would not be discouraged to see how just how far our country has strayed from the principled course they set for us.
I hope on this Fourth of July you will spend some time reflecting on the contributions of our Founding Fathers, and considering what we can do as modern day citizens to bring our civic government back into alignment with the values they espoused.
Happy Independence Day!
THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM FROM UNFAIR TAXATION STARTED HERE IN 1776:
Shores recall news in Grosse Pointe Times
July/01/2009 17:43
Michelle Moran publicized the Shores recall effort in this week’s issue of the Grosse Pointe Times. The article can be accessed via the following hyperlink, and is entitled:
“Former council candidate leads Shores recall effort”
As far as Mayor Cooper’s response to the recall as cited in the article, if any of you have heard a satisfactory answer as to why some of our village employees are compensated at a rate much higher than commensurate positions at the state level, I would like to know. I raised this very issue at the recent public forum. Mayor Cooper and the four council members who acted to raise your taxes sat silent and did not respond.
I will wait for an answer at next month’s meeting as to why the Shores attorney was paid tax dollars to look into the campaigns of two of the non-incumbent challengers, and who authorized him to do so. Using tax dollars to meddle in a free election is a questionable endeavor.
Personally, I consider myself a concerned citizen rather than a former candidate. While I lost the council election nearly a decade ago, my subsequent involvement in the petition drive that lead to the defeat of the Osius Park activities building proposed by the council was a very gratifying experience. Had the Shores citizens not taken action to block the large activities building, I would hate to see how much worse the city’s fiscal situation would be now.
With the assistance of other Shores residents, I look forward to another petition effort with a different focus this coming fall.
“Former council candidate leads Shores recall effort”
As far as Mayor Cooper’s response to the recall as cited in the article, if any of you have heard a satisfactory answer as to why some of our village employees are compensated at a rate much higher than commensurate positions at the state level, I would like to know. I raised this very issue at the recent public forum. Mayor Cooper and the four council members who acted to raise your taxes sat silent and did not respond.
I will wait for an answer at next month’s meeting as to why the Shores attorney was paid tax dollars to look into the campaigns of two of the non-incumbent challengers, and who authorized him to do so. Using tax dollars to meddle in a free election is a questionable endeavor.
Personally, I consider myself a concerned citizen rather than a former candidate. While I lost the council election nearly a decade ago, my subsequent involvement in the petition drive that lead to the defeat of the Osius Park activities building proposed by the council was a very gratifying experience. Had the Shores citizens not taken action to block the large activities building, I would hate to see how much worse the city’s fiscal situation would be now.
With the assistance of other Shores residents, I look forward to another petition effort with a different focus this coming fall.