Reality Check

Sorry this is such a long post. As always I will be happy to discuss any issues with anyone.

I see that Marilyn Dillon wrote an editorial piece for the Norwalk Reflector. I couldn't find it online so I am posting it here for you to read at the end of this post.

I am going to take some of the best parts and give you my commentary on them. Her words are in quotation marks.


"Fact: Some of the council
members believe that the residents
do not have the right to
vote on taxes. They have been
heard saying that they (the council
members) deserve this money
and they should just enact the
one-percent permanently without
going to the people."

The state has given municipalities the power to enact a minimal income tax without asking the residents for a vote. Some of us (myself included) feel that this was done because of the fact that many people do not attend council meetings and do not always understand why a tax is needed. You also voted for me to take care of things like this so you don't have to go to all the meetings I do. I have stated this here on the blog before. Safeguards are in place for the people to revoke a tax like this, even when its passed by an emergency ordinance. Do I think we deserve the money? No, we need the money in order to keep the village moving forward.

"Fact: The people who were
going to referendum the quickly
passed three reading ordinance
decided to keep their heads about
them and allow for the council to
show fiscal responsibility. ...
...They gave the appearance of
working on doing the right thing.
Certainly we could give them one
more try at the cookie jar."

They can say they kept their heads about them but they didn't have a choice. We are placing the tax vote on the November ballot, which is the earliest they could have placed an initiative on the ballot to repeal the tax. The reason we did it that way was because a referendum would have stopped the tax until this November. An emergency ordinance keeps the tax until the vote this fall. Marilyn evidently is a part of the group that was seeking the referendum since she used the word "we". Also the money we have to budget is not a "cookie jar". Using language like that to refer to taxpayer money is a bit immature in my opinion.

"Fact: At the regularly
scheduled council meeting in
January 2009, it was determined
that even though at the
December meeting they
agreed to pay the employees
the same amount for the last
year, they had no official ordinance...."

We did not agree to keep their pay the same. It was a tie vote and the mayor voted no that night as the tie-breaker. Shortly after that he apologized for his vote and supported the pay raise. Not passing any pay ordinance in December was an error on Council's part. It was an unfortunate error for those of you against pay raises because it gave those of us in favor of them one more shot at passing them which we did. The mayor did not have to break the tie that time.

"Not having the needed five votes
of council to pass an emergency
ordinance that contained
pay raises for everyone,
some council members agreed
to pass the old ordinance for
the new year keeping the set
pay in place. They assured
those members who were not
going to vote for pay raises
that that was all they were
doing. The ordinance was
motioned and passed by six
votes. Immediately, Mr.
Morman motioned to amend
the current pay ordinance to
include the pay raises that
were in question and Ms. Frey
seconded. They no longer
needed five votes to amend an
existing ordinance and the four
votes passed it, those yes votes
being Mr. Morman, Ms. Frey,
Ms Delong and Mr. Wilson."

The first payroll of the year had not occurred when that meeting took place. We had to pass some type of pay ordinance that night in order to pay our employees. In effect the two people voting no on the emergency pay ordinance (Tansey and Tkach) would have technically kept our employees from being paid. They knew we had enough votes to get the raises through. I stated at the meeting that even if we passed it that night without raises I would have motioned to have the raises done in three readings, which would have taken four months to pass and would have been retroactive to January 1, which would have cost the village time and money to do. In January of 2008 the exact same thing happened and Jan Tkach voted for the emergency pay ordinance then because she stated she knew we could and would pass it in three readings anyways. This time however she felt differently, I guess. Jim Tansey voted no for pay raises that time as well.

"Yes our
budget balances. It is required
to by law, but to do that and to
keep afloat we have to borrow,
sell bonds and other means."

I am not even sure what Marilyn is referring to there. We are not selling bonds to stay afloat. We are getting a loan to buy a police cruiser, but that is a routine thing for us. We usually finance equipment purchases like that. I have mentioned here before that the budget is in great shape and the reason why is because of the income tax.

"We are no different than any of
the other communities in
Huron County. We have not
done anything more courageous
or more intelligently
than any other community. If
anything, spending like we
have it and don't really. Is that
being fiscally responsible?"

I'd say we are very different than other communities. Look at New London and the problems they are having without their income tax. We certainly ARE NOT spending money we don't have. Even though the council members disagree on how the money should be budgeted and spent, we are certainly being fiscally responsible.

"Do we really
need to legislate what one
does with their house or do we
need to be a little more neighborly
and make the necessary
improvements by encouragement.
I remember a house on
Clark street that took an
extremely long time to put an
edition on and no one hassled
that family as the addition
stood in a variety of stages."

Ouch! I think she is referring to my house. Let's get something straight right there. I filled out the proper paperwork and paid for a building permit for my "edition" to my home. The zoning states that work must be started within one year of the permit being issued. As far as I know, there is nothing in the zoning to specify when the work must be completed. I have spoken with the Zoning Inspector several times to make sure I was in compliance. The permit which hung in my window for quite a long time is no longer there. I offered to buy a new one or get a replacement. I asked most recently before my election to council as I was sure someone would bring it up. He assured me I was fine. If I need to do something to be in compliance, I will do it. As far as the Exterior Maintenance Ordinance is concerned, that will be presented at the next council meeting. I am sure Linda Rogers would be happy to explain her situation and how far being neighborly has gotten her with the issues she is having on Pleasant Street.

"Besides even the business
downtown that runs the loud
machinery has promised to do
something to decrease the
noise level and we have been
gracious to that business while
we wait for them to comply,
haven't we?"

I know that council, the mayor and Marilyn have received two letters from that business regarding that issue in December of 2007 or January of 2008. Anyone can get a copy of those from me, they are not secret. This post is too long already to repost them here, but I will quote the last sentence of the second letter, "..the next time Marilyn Dillon decides to disrupt my business I will contact my lawyer to see if we can't work out some type of harrasment suit".

One thing to point out for all of you. Marilyn has only attended one council meeting since I took office (and she was voted out of office) and she was not even there for the entire meeting. Just putting that out there for you.

Here is the entire article for you.

That was a great section that
you had in the paper recently
about Huron County cities and
villages.
At a time like this it is great to
see the positive aspects of our
community. There is so much
bad news that a wink and a smile
always makes one feel better.
Alas, along with the good, a
reality check for even the best
communities is necessary.
Fact: The village of
Wakeman voted for a municipal
income tax more than five
years ago for a set time to see
how well the village was able
to manage its finances. It
passed by a slim amount but it
passed and villagers were willing
to give the tax and the
budget makers a try.
Fact: In November of 2008,
the villagers voted down the
income tax by 70 some votes.
It was a big election, as we
were deciding on a president
and the turnout was bigger
than we usually see at our
elections. The mayor and some
of the council believe that the
people were confused about
what they were voting on. I
rather doubt that because our
residents do keep up with
what's going on, just meet
downtown to go to th,e bank or
have coffee at Sterk's, etc ....
Fact: Some of the council
members believe that the residents
do not have the right to
vote on taxes. They have been
heard saying that they (the council
members) deserve this money
and they should just enact the
one-percent permanently without
going to the people.
Fact: Following the
November 2008 election, a
member of council motioned
an ordinance in place to enact
the income tax even though it
was voted down. It was seconded,
even though this item
was not on the published agenda
and the agenda had not
been moved to be amended.
On the first reading it was
passed by a majority vote. It
had two more readings before
it could be enacted. The mayor
allowed the next two meetings
to be scheduled within one
week of each other and even
over protests, the majority of
council voted the ordinance in
place. As soon as this was
done the process for a referendum
was started. The required
signatures had been assured
and it would have been done
except that the mayor and
council at the next council meeting,
a little more than a week
later, chose to adjust their strategy.
They came to the regularly
scheduled December council
meeting and rescinded the justpassed
income tax ordinance
and proposed an emergency tax
ordinance for an income tax for
the year 2009 and promising
that it would again be put on the
ballot. The mayor and some of
the council were hoping that the
residents would clear the cobwebs
of confusion out of their
minds for a more amiable vote
in November of 2009.
Fact: The people who were
going to referendum the quickly
passed three reading ordinance
decided to keep their heads about
them and allow for the council to
show fiscal responsibility. They
(council) did reject the pay raises
for the village workers at the
December meeting and Mr.
Strickler took back his increase in
the retainer fee and the increase
he requested in his hourly wage.
They gave the appearance of
working on doing the right thing.
Certainly we could give them one
more try at the cookie jar.
Fact: At the regularly
scheduled council meeting in
January 2009, it was determined
that even though at the
December meeting they
agreed to pay the employees
the same amount for the last
year, they had no official ordinance
to pay the village
employees so of course they
needed to do emergency legislation
in order to do this. Not
having the needed five votes
of council to pass an emergency
ordinance that contained
pay raises for everyone,
some council members agreed
to pass the old ordinance for
the new year keeping the set
pay in place. They assured
those members who were not
going to vote for pay raises
that that was all they were
doing. The ordinance was
motioned and passed by six
votes. Immediately, Mr.
Morman motioned to amend
the current pay ordinance to

include the pay raises that
were in question and Ms. Frey
seconded. They no longer
needed fi ve votes to amend an
existing ordinance and the four
votes passed it, those yes votes
being Mr. Morman, Ms. Frey,
Ms Delong and Mr. Wilson.
This council has not told the
residents that after the audit of
2006 we barely escaped fiscal
watch and that the council in
place at the time had to work
endlessly to satisfy vendors,
retirement funds and make
some really hard decisions
about health care and what
infrastructure could be
repaired and improved on. We
are still not to the point of
being able to do these things
without incurring more debt
for the community. Yes our
budget balances. It is required
to by law, but to do that and to
keep afloat we have to borrow,
sell bonds and other means.
We are no different than any of
the other communities in
Huron County. We have not
done anything more courageous
or more intelligently
than any other community. If
anything, spending like we
have it and don't really. Is that
being fiscally responsible?
Some of the council members
want to enact an exterior
maintenance ordinance. They
will establish parameters for
how the houses should look
and if you don't meet these
requirements they will fine
you. When you ask yourself
how you are tightening the
belt, don't forget to ask yourself
who you are telling that
you are having some financial
problems? Are you doing a little
better than your neighbor?
Well remember that "There but
for the grace of God, go I"
before you judge. Do we really
need to legislate what one
does with their house or do we
need to be a little more neighborly
and make the necessary
improvements by encouragement.
I remember a house on
Clark street that took an
extremely long time to put an
edition on and no one hassled
that family as the addition
stood in a variety of stages.
Besides even the business
downtown that runs the loud
machinery has promised to do
something to decrease the
noise level and we have been
gracious to that business while
we wait for them to comply,
haven't we?
Russell and Marilyn Dillon
are Wakeman residents.