Oct 2009
Incumbents React to Recall Efforts
October/28/2009 09:31
The October 26, 2009, Detroit News contains an article entitled “Resident Pursues Council Recall.” Click on this link to see a copy of the article annotated with a couple of open ended questions. Councilman Hunt has adopted the same strategy that Mayor Cooper did when he was recently interviewed by another paper. That is: Shoot the messenger – do anything but address the real issues at hand.
Once again the “failed candidate” card has been used to draw attention away from the truth. Once again, the recall effort has been labeled as “mean-spirited” in an attempt to inject divisiveness (not “decisiveness” as many of the Mayor’s stand-ins mistakenly recited at the October Council Meeting).
By the way, we can disregard the threat of a recall being divisive. Anyone paying attention knows the city has been divided for a long time. If anything, a recall will heal this city and make it a better place to live than most have ever known.
Nobody wants a recall. This is not a game or a personal attack. However, when a government fails to perform in the best interest of its people, a recall is the most civilized and expedient way to avoid total failure and restore stability to the constituency. Our nation’s greatest leaders recognized the importance of giving citizens the opportunity for recall to ensure good government. That’s why it is part of a free democratic process.
Dear residents, if mean-spirited behavior exists anywhere, it exists at city hall.
How many of you want better leadership but are afraid to take an open stand? Afraid the city will somehow get back at you? Afraid the police won’t come quickly enough when you call? Afraid it might affect your business relationship with the city?
Are you also afraid to exercise the rights that so many Americans before you have fought and died for?
As Americans, we’ve earned the right to express our concerns freely without fear of retribution. If we fail to exercise those rights we will lose them.
The recall campaign has nothing to do with being mean-spirited. It has everything to do with promoting quality government. It has to do with making sure our property values don’t sink into the quicksand of government mismanagement while property taxes rise around us like jungle weeds.
It has to do with stopping the abuse of authority and of taxpayer money.
It has to do with paying attention to what’s going on in our community and restoring our government to one that is more focused on the best interests of the residents than the interests of itself.
There’s a reason the incumbents would rather point fingers at a decade-old campaign and make personal attacks than discuss today’s critical issues when they speak with the press. It’s to distract residents from staying focused on the issues and demanding better government.
If the incumbents succeed in scaring us from exercising our unalienable rights in our own neighborhood, don’t blame anyone else if that neighborhood becomes valueless. Don’t blame anyone else when good candidates no longer run for city government because they’ve learned the residents here won’t back them.
Please take the time to learn the facts. This website has attempted to inform the community with verifiable, documentable information. If you see any item that qualifies as an unsupported personal attack, point it out and we’ll remove it with apology. Our intent is to promote the solution, not add to the problem.
While a recent Detroit News article claimed the Shores recall is “similar to the Woods Recall,” the two are more dissimilar than not. Although the focus of the Shores’ recall is based on a tax increase that five incumbents promised “would not happen,” we have more serious issues that go beyond the June tax increase, such as:
Inadequate long-term fiscal planning which has put Grosse Pointe Shores in the dangerous and embarrassing situation of being placed under fiscal watch by the State of Michigan.
Huge unfunded liabilities for retiree pension and health care benefits that will only lead to further escalation of taxes. This higher tax burden will do nothing to enhance services, but it will drive away desirable, family-focused home buyers.
Unacceptable behavior by the mayor and council including withholding public records from elected officials and residents, willfully incurring unsustainable debt despite the clear advice of well-paid financial consultants to avoid doing so, using the city attorney to threaten citizens who exercise their legal right to question the dubious actions of our city’s administration, and the way they treat those with opposing points of views, even fellow council members.
To counteract the recall effort, the incumbents and their supporters will say “whatever you need to hear” to make citizens frightened, intimidated and withdraw in fear from signing a recall petition. They are already saying the recall campaign will be costly for the city. Hardly.
Compared to the $26 million worth of long-term debt the Shores has accumulated, the few thousand dollars a recall election may cost, if that, is money well spent. If costs really mattered to the incumbents, why weren’t they concerned with costs when they scheduled a special election to approve a new charter that raised the tax ceiling to 20 mils – the highest legal limit!
The incumbents have tried to instill fear by saying that tax cuts mean reduced services. That isn’t true. Look at your property tax bills over the last decade. You’ll be surprised at how much less you were paying ten years ago. Are we getting better services now than in1999? Was the money well invested? The answer is No.
The people on the recall list have had many years to execute a good, long-range fiscal plan. They have failed to do so.
Read the 2007 Grosse Pointe Times article: Audit Sparks Debate Over Shores' Financial State. It’s clear that our financial troubles were apparent back in 2007, yet the council failed to act. Even after approving an unpopular tax increase this June and promising to find more efficiencies, what concrete proposals or actions have come forth? None.
Now, due to the incumbents’ lack of foresight and failure to act, even more of your tax dollars have been and will be consumed, not for direct services like road repairs, but to pay for excessive overtime, exorbitant wages, and unsustainable pension and retiree benefits. Not to mention additional employees – yes, we’re still hiring employees when we should be cutting back.
There has never been a more appropriate time for Grosse Pointe Shores voters to look beyond the smoke screen being cast by the incumbents and their cronies, and take action to hold these officials accountable by signing the recall petition.
Ask yourself. Recall petitions do not remove anyone from office. They only open the door to a free election of the people. So, if these officials are so convinced that their course of action has been correct, why are they fighting so fiercely to prevent this election from happening? And how much of your tax money are they using to fight it?
ONE COMMUNITY - Each and Every Citizen
ONE GOAL – Quality, Accountable Government For All
ONE VISION – The Most Desirable City In Michigan
A Truly Momentous Event!
October/25/2009 11:03
At this past week’s council meeting, I witnessed an unprecedented event of historic proportion. THE CITY COUNCIL OPPOSED THE MAYOR AND VOTED AGAINST HIM!
Councilman Dan Schulte tried to bring up televising the council meetings under the “old business” segment of the meeting. Mayor Cooper vehemently refused to permit discussion of this appropriate old business item at that point in the agenda. Councilman Schulte waited and then readdressed the issue at the end of the meeting, when council members have the liberty to bring up items of their choosing. Dan proposed a motion that the Shores council meetings be broadcast on our city cable TV access channel. His motion was seconded by Ted Kedzierski, and then was amended by Brian Hunt, that the broadcasts will be done on a six-month trial basis.
Mayor Cooper was clearly against broadcasting the council meetings. In view of the promises made for more transparency at city hall, I am surprised any council member would oppose letting Shores citizens have the opportunity to see first hand what is going on in our city. When it came time to vote, council members Fred Minturn and Robert Graziani joined Mayor Cooper in voting “NO”. However, despite the firm mayoral opposition, the amended motion to broadcast meetings went on to carry by a 4-3 margin.
In my decade plus of council watching, this is the first time I recollect that THE CITY COUNCIL OPPOSED THE MAYOR AND VOTED AGAINST HIM ON A CRUCIAL ISSUE! Truly a momentous occasion! I hope this outcome shows Mayor Cooper that citizens expect our council members to vote their own convictions, not just to rubberstamp his agenda with 7-0 votes.
For those of you who just can’t wait to see the future council meetings televised, I have added a new section to the web site entitled Shores Video Clips. I think Shores residents who are not regular attendees at council meetings will be very surprised at what they see!
Residents and council members are threatened with or actually ejected from meetings. Members of the public or councilmen with opposing points of view are treated in rude and dismissive manner. When you review the videos, it is painfully apparent why Mayor Cooper did not want our Shores council meetings to be televised.
A Blast from the Past
October/21/2009 20:05
Being named after a famous Civil War general, I have always enjoyed the enlightening perspective that reviewing history gives one on the current events of today.
In doing some research on Shores issues, I came across a 2007 article from the Grosse Pointe Times written by Michelle Moran, entitled: “Audit sparks debate over Shores' financial state”. Clicking on this link will take you to the article, which I have highlighted to emphasize some of the key issues, and also have annotated with some personal observations in the red comment boxes
I believe this news article came out about the time the Shores 2007 financial report became public. Reading Michelle’s article today really shows just how far in the dark our Shores officials have been in recognizing and reacting to critical issues, even when provided with the facts by informed and interested residents!
While several prominent Shores citizens pointed out the trend in declining property values in our lakefront city, the article reports out how this painfully evident fact was disputed by Mayor Cooper. Mayor Cooper went on to assert that that he was pleased with audit report and the work of our finance officer! Note that the State of Michigan placed Grosse Pointe Shores under fiscal watch for the same 2007 fiscal data that Mayor Cooper found pleasing!
John Booth proved to be right on target with his astute observations about how the proposed marina renovation project would become problematic, despite the Shores officials promise that the additional long term bond debt would be paid off with harbor revenues.
What I find most disturbing about this last issue is that Mayor Cooper and the incumbents had a letter from the Shores’ own accountants telling them that the harbor would not be self supporting unless the well occupancy rate was 100% at all times. A letter on marina revenue from Plante Moran has been added to the web site as the latest source document for your review. Anyone who has walked the harbor during recent years could have predicted that the assumption on well occupancy was false from the start.
Read the Grosse Pointe Times article, and then take a look at the Plante Moran source document. Draw you own logical conclusion based on the facts. I cannot help but conclude that Grosse Pointe Shores taxpayers deserve better.
This historical blast from the not too far distant past shows the leadership provided by Mayor Cooper and his slate of incumbents has been woefully inadequate. Denying reality, and making long term fiscal decisions that fly counter to the Shores own accounting consultants are yet more reasons why voters need to recall those elected officials whose poor vision and faulty judgment will adversely impact taxpayers for many years to come.
Shores threatens citizens with sanctions!
October/17/2009 15:48
This week’s Grosse Pointe Times has an article by Michelle Moran entitled “Shores refutes campaign act violation allegations.” The article reports that Shores officials are asking the state to sanction Dan Schulte and Jan Pemberton for asking whether the line was crossed when City Manager Vick sent in some of their campaign material for review by the city attorney. I find the course of action taken by the city outrageous. The article quotes the joint response of Mayor Cooper, Mr. Vick and Attorney McInerney to the state’s inquiry as indicating that Dan and Jan’s complaints have “…neither legal or factual basis.”
If you want to see the factual basis behind the complaint for yourself, please review the February 2009 Clark Hill legal bill posted on the Source Document page of this website. The bill to the Shores as submitted by Mr. McInerney clearly says “Review Pemberton and Schulte campaign materials.”
What self-respecting candidate when faced with such clear and objective evidence would not want an independent third party to look into things and provide an unbiased answer? As Dr. Ray Rahi noted at the council meeting when this issue came to light, this activity “smells bad and it looks bad.” To clear the air, the Shores council should welcome an outside look into this matter, and not threaten citizens who have a right to know what really happened!
I also find it disconcerting that Mr. McInerney, Mayor Cooper and City Manager Vick chose to release their joint response directly to the press, even before the Michigan Secretary of State officials have had the chance to review all of the facts. Their request for sanctions appears to be a not so subtle attempt to bully, threaten and intimidate any citizen bold enough to question the status quo with the Shores. If the State does rule that the concerns of the two candidates are legitimate, the outcome will certainly make the Shores officials who took this confrontational course of action look even worse than they already do.
What kind of legal advice is the city getting when citizens who bring forth legitimate concerns are threatened and intimidated in such an overt manner? Why are Mayor Cooper, Mr. Vick, and Mr. McInerney so afraid of a state investigation that they would file a joint response asking for the sanction of two individuals who just want an honest answer to their concerns?
It also appears to me that a potential conflict of interest exists when Mr. McInerney, who is supposed to be the City Attorney, is representing the mayor and the city manager in this open attack against another elected official. It is bad enough that any citizen is treated this way, but for Mayor Cooper to go after another council member in such an overt fashion leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Is this antagonistic approach the type of leadership we want in the Shores?
Would it not have been more appropriate for Mr. McInerney to have secured his own defense and let the mayor and city manager secure their own defense in this matter? Or better yet, let each individual stand on his own two feet and state their own case, as the two candidates are doing? The candidates, whose campaign material was “reviewed”, are not using our taxpayer-paid city attorney at $220 per hour to represent their concerns.
Instead of dealing with this honorably, our civic officials have banded together like bullies, threatening two Shores citizens who merely exercised their right to request the state to come in and review the use of your tax money in campaign activity that clearly looks suspicious. Take a look at the February 2009 Clark Hill legal bill and see for yourself. Note there are other issues that raise even more questions about what is happening at the Shores city hall.
All of this provides yet another solid reason why Mayor Cooper and the other Shores council members who sit there silently and let this type of intimidation go on with your tax dollars need to go! If you are as offended about this assault on the democratic rights of your fellow Shores citizens as I am, don’t just sit there! Use the Contact Form on the last page of the web site and volunteer to help with the upcoming recall activities.
Response to Mayor Cooper's Recall Comments
October/11/2009 09:38
In an article by Brad Lindberg in the latest edition of The Grosse Pointe News entitled “Recall Language Filed with County”, Mayor Cooper’s response was reported as: “ Whether successful or not, this recall effort will have a polarizing effect that will further divide Grosse Pointe Shores.”
In my opinion the community is polarized not by the early stage of any recall effort, but by a variety of much more important factors, including:
- Mayor Cooper’s management style and the way citizens bringing forth concerns to our municipality are treated
- Escalating property taxes in the face of precipitously declining home values
- Lack of transparency at City Hall
- An incumbent government whose fiscal oversight has resulted in the Grosse Pointe Shores receiving the ignominious honor of being placed under fiscal watch by the State of Michigan.
Rather than address the real issues with the press in meaningful manner, Mayor Cooper again uses the opportunity to demean me, and brand me as being “rejected by the voters over 10 years ago”. Rather than making things personal, Mayor Cooper, it seems to me that you should be more concerned with responding to the strong message for change that Shores voters sent earlier this year by sending two members of your incumbent slate packing. Do you refer your own two friends who lost their Shores council seats in a democratic election as losers?
Yes, Mayor Cooper, I did finish one place out of the money in that election over a decade ago, but it did teach me a valuable lesson. As a result of continuing to stay involved in Shores issues, I have learned that you can have just as powerful, or even perhaps more of an impact on what happens by staying engaged, without of being an elected officeholder.
I take great pride in being part of the citizen’s coalition that worked on prior petition drives that lead to the sound defeat of two previous debacles that the Shores council wanted to ram down the taxpayer’s throats – the harbor expansion project, and the large activities building in Osius Park. Thank goodness the Shores residents had the wisdom to come together and work to soundly defeat these projects, which would have no doubt left of city finances and debt levels in worse shape than we find them in today.
Mayor Cooper, you are also making a mistake in personalizing things, and branding this as effort as “Lee’s recall campaign”. While it is true that one citizen did have to take the initiative and file the petition language, I am confident that as things proceed, you will be surprised by the groundswell of support behind the recall effort. Please, Mayor, do all Shores residents a favor, and as things progress with the recall, stick to the real issues voters are concerned about. Don’t personalize things and be desultory or demeaning about citizens collectively exercising their democratic right to effect change!
Web Site and Recall update
October/07/2009 12:01
The web site has been updated to include more Source Documents. I encourage Shores taxpayers to read the Pew Foundation report on the costs and consequences of retiree benefits and health care. Then read the latest reports from Grosse Pointe Shores on the current status of our retiree pension and health care benefit programs. You don’t need to be a CPA to understand the rising magnitude of the financial burden that is being passed on to Shores homeowners ! Just click on the link to see a chart that shows just how our pension costs are skyrocketing out of control over the past few years:
SHORES PENSION COSTS
The hearing on the recall petition language is set for Monday, October 19th. I am hopeful that we can have the petitions printed up and ready to go shortly thereafter. We can use some more volunteers to circulate petitions on their street. If reading the status of the Shores pension and health care plans doesn’t make the need for change apparent, then expect an even bigger tax bill next year. If you want to get involved and help in the recall effort, please use the contact form on the last page of the recall web site to let me know.
More Questions on Shorelines Answers
October/04/2009 19:43
In looking at the other answers to the Frequently Asked Finance Questions provided by the city, the “Yes” answer to Question 14 on whether the finance committee will prepare a long-range view strikes me as tardy, inadequate, and impertinent. The real question should have been: “Why wasn’t the finance committee and Shores council already well engaged in effective long term fiscal planning?” The meltdown in the financial and housing markets that occurred over the past several years should have prompted a more immediate call to action.
The clear-cut failure of our incumbents to look ahead has been made publicly and excruciatingly apparent by the State of Michigan placing Grosse Pointe Shores under fiscal watch, along with Detroit, Ecorse, Highland Park, River Rouge and other cities in dire financial straits. Of all the Pointes, ONLY Grosse Pointe Shores is on this embarrassing list.
If you’ve looked at the Michigan Taxpayer’s Alliance link recommended in my last blog, it is clear that the precarious financial status of many municipalities is due to the unsustainable level of salaries and benefits provided to public employees. Nowhere is that more applicable than right here in Grosse Pointe Shores. The situation with employee salary and benefits in the Shores appears to be a model for the problematic issues discussed. What makes this crisis is even more pressing for cities like ours, is that there are no businesses to assume some of the tax burden, which is heaped directly on the backs of Shores homeowners.
To see how these benefit costs are affecting Shores taxpayers, let’s look at how the health care and retirement benefits reported in Question 7 inflate the actual taxpayer cost per employee well above the generous salaries as listed in the Finance FAQs.
Did you know that on top of the Shores’ generous wages, our city kicks in an additional 20% of salaries to fund the general employees’ pension plan, and 23% for the public safety members? Then we yet contribute another 22% of payroll to fund employee health care. So for each of our general employees, taxpayers contribute an additional 42% of their income to fund health care and retirement benefits. For the public safety employees, this figure jumps to 45%!
To look at things in a simple way, the $50,000 in gate guard wages referred to in Question 20 (or any similar general employee’s salary) actually requires taxpayers to pony up about $71,000 to cover wages, health care and pension benefits! This figure does not include the extended list of other employee benefits like long-term disability, paid time off, cost of living and longevity allowances, and life insurance.
The huge impact these benefits place on the taxpayer are evident by reviewing the answer to Question 8 regarding the 2008 compensation of Mike and Angela Kenyon:
| Employee | Regular Wages | 2008 W2 Total | Overtime & Comp Time Payout | Sick & Vacation Payout |
| Mike Kenyon | $101,149 | $207,676 | $50,090 | $54,236 |
| Angela Kenyon | $65,081 | $149,844 | $36,528 | $46,035 |
What kind of non-governmental enterprise could survive, when on top of an excessively generous pension, salaried employees earn overtime and comp time equal to 50% of their base salary, and then are allowed to cash out unused sick and vacation time that equals or exceeds 50% of their base salary?
Lest taxpayer’s think that this example with the Kenyon’s is unique, a close study of the Grosse Pointe Shores 2008 finance report will reveal on page 34 that the city’s accrued liability for unused employee sick time is in the range of $850,000! This equals almost 3 mills of tax revenue for our city.
The answers provided by the city on Shores finances just seem to create even more uncertainty about where we really stand. The one question that I would like to see answered in the Finance FAQs is: When you add up the total cost of Shores employee wages and benefits, and then add in the costs of paying off the city’s long term bond debt and other obligations, just how few of our tax dollars are left to provide services to Shores residents?