Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor
January 3, 2010
Having just read several pieces in the NorthernIslander on the sad state of local politics, I decided the public needed better information. The authors (Connie Wojan and Steve West) characterized the tensions between Peaine and St. James as simply â??good guysâ? vs. bad guysâ?. Bill Cashman suggests in the Beaver Beacon, however, that â??the issues involve a debate between two ideologies, â??if it ainâ??t broke, donâ??t fix itâ?? vs. â??we must do things properly to prepare for what lies aheadâ??.â? But Beaver Islanders like to think for themselvesâ??and they need to know what the conflict is really about and the factual information that lies behind it.
In my first year as Peaine Supervisor I struggled to do things â??properlyâ? but found much to be â??brokenâ?. The parts that were broken affected our relationships and credibility with state and county governmentâ??and attempts to fix what was broken affected relationships between and among members of the Peaine and St. James Boards. Some still say, â??nothinâ??s brokeâ? and urge admiration of past accomplishments. Others admit some things are broken but donâ??t want to deal with the conflict of change. Others long for the good old days when Supervisorsâ?? family ties kept things quiet and peaceful. And it probably hasnâ??t helped that Iâ??m short and bald.
I donâ??t mind taking some responsibility for the fussâ??but I want it clear that it is not personal. Todayâ??s issues are about real differences in how people want local government to operate on the Island. The issues and the tensions will be with us for a whileâ??though we will be stronger once we work through them. I write here so people can better understand the differences, know what is broken, have the facts, and respond with feedback, questions, or suggestions.
So what are the key differences in how good township government should operateâ??and what is really broken? Three key differences lie beneath the current fuss and are in areas where Iâ??ve been trying to bring about change. They reveal some of what is broken in Peaine:
- Differences on financial accountability and how to make responsible, informed decisions regarding township revenues, expenditures, and taxes;
- Differences in how jointly owned Township committees should operate; and,
- Differences on the need for tough questions and healthy disagreement on key issues.
This view of good government calls for: 1) Accurate and easily accessible financial information, 2) Appropriate and timely reports, 3) Compliance with state law, 4) Careful budgeting, and, 5) Competitive bids for Township work. Here are some things in need of repair.
- Financial Information. The townships and committees operate without monthly financial statements and without the quarterly statements required by law. The treasurers donâ??t provide monthly reports on cash-on-hand or money invested. The simple list of monthly bills to be paid lacks sufficient information. Itâ??s like running a business based only on a list of monthly billsâ??without any analysis of cash flow, revenues, and the annual budget. Peaine has developed a new monthly financial reporting policy for 2010. It will provide Peaineâ??s Board, residents and other interested parties the timely and accurate financial information they need.
- Financial Disclosures. Part of Peaineâ??s revenue-sharing payment is now being withheld by the State because the Township failed to file a required financial report for 2007. The 2008 financial report must also be redone as it was filed without showing one of Peaineâ??s major financial liabilities (the chipper loan). It was not recorded on the township books and was not filed with the last State report.
- Compliance with State Law. The State Tax Commission ordered a complete reassessment of all Peaine and St. James Township properties. Our assessment policies have been severely out of compliance with state standards for years. All Peaine properties must now be reassessed and recorded with 95% accuracy by March 2011 or further penalties may follow. It is estimated that this lack of prior compliance could cost our taxpayers between $60,000 and $100,000. We are working to do much of this corrective work ourselves to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
- Careful Budgeting. In 2009, I was unable to get any budget work sheets for prior years, and no financial records were left in the Supervisorâ??s office when I took office. Our clerk had almost nothing. The prior practice was to automatically raise taxes as property values increasedâ??with little if any analysis of whether or not the additional tax was needed. This practice is â??brokenâ? since it leads to ever-increasing taxes. This past summer the Peaine Township Board approved a new budget-review process for all of its funds, and asked all committees to prepare a report of revenues and expenditures projected for 2010. All committees did so, with the exception of those jointly operated with St. James. Nonetheless, the improved budgeting work enabled the Peaine Board to limit its tax increase to 1.7%. Following past practice would have resulted in a 4.4% increase.
- Bidding Contracts. Competition typically lowers costs and sheds public light on decision-making and expenditures. For many areas of township work this open request for bids has been neglectedâ??but it is now being opened for all areas.
#2â??How jointly-owned committees should operate (the facts and issues)
This major area of contention involves the Airport and Waste Management Committees, which were created by the townships as jointly-funded, jointly-operated units. St. James Township Board members have chaired these committees for most of the past decade, and have neglected their reporting obligations to the Peaine Board. The governing documents for the committees are incomplete, inconsistent, and often ignored. When issues of authority and responsibility are raised, we get resistance instead of clarity. Hereâ??s how the jointly-owned airport and waste management operations have broken down, how they should be fixed, and how they fuel the controversy between our two townships. I begin with the Airport Committeeâ??but first a caveat. I must deal with the false charges that I donâ??t support the Public Airport and Fresh Air Aviation.
Nothing could be farther from the truth! I support the competitive and complementary benefits both airlines bring to the Island. They are essential to our economy and emergency servicesâ??especially since they are the only means of transportation during the winter. I want both private airlines to be treated fairly and well by our local government, and Iâ??ve said these things publicly, privately, and oftenâ??along with my expressed belief that we can and should improve Beaver Islandâ??s public airport. This is why, in fact, I have been seeking good information on its use, planned expansion, and finances. Those who assign simple false motives to me just fuel the controversy.
Joint Management of the Airport.
- Failure to comply with Michigan law. Michigan requires either an airport authority or an intergovernmental agreement for joint operation and ownership. We have neither. What we have now are two incomplete and incompatible documentsâ??the 1983 airport resolution and the 1993 airport ordinance. At the base of recent conflicts are issues about the authority of the Airport Committee and its obligation to report to the Peaine Board about its finances, plans, and activities. The way to â??fixâ? this broken part of governance is straightforward. Have the Townships negotiate with each other in good faith and draw up a real agreement that conforms to Michigan Law. Though controversial, weâ??re on our way to a solution by having both Townships meet in early January to discuss the alternatives.
- Failure to record and share essential information. Effective joint-operations require more than agreed upon rulesâ??they also require access to the same good information. But Peaine Township has not had such access. In July, as Peaine moved into its new budgeting process, I requested information on a preliminary airport budget, expansion plans, and airport usage. The Chair provided little meaningful information on the proposed budget. I received vague cost estimates on the expansion plans and nothing on airport usage. I got a brochure on terminal expansion that appeared in the Beacon, which provoked calls and criticism to me for running on a platform of transparency while keeping such important things hidden. Apologetically, I explained that I too had just gotten the information.
Significant gaps existed in the minutes Birdsall acquired. The Airport Committee meets quarterlyâ??so over the past ten years they would have had 40 meetings and 40 sets of minutes. We received 25â??so either they didnâ??t meet that often or minutes were not recorded. Four 12-month periods had no minutes at allâ??even when important activities took place.
Two days before our November Board meeting, the Airport Chairman brought me a proposed resolution that would authorize eminent domain proceedings to take private property. No background information was provided. The Board knew practically nothing about the Airport plans and certainly nothing about why the â??takingâ? was necessary. We put the request on our agenda, but the Board deferred action and arranged for a joint meeting of the Townships later in the month to discuss the â??resolution of necessity.â?
At that meeting, both Townships agreed to table the eminent domain decision until better information was available. Some argued in favor of the proposed â??takingâ? because plane crashes proved a lack of safetyâ??but it was pointed out that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded thus far that all fatal Island plane crashes resulted from pilot error. The issues of airport expansion, eminent domain, and governance will be discussed at a special joint meeting of the Townships in January. The current status of airport expansion plans will be made public and our attorney will discuss alternative ways to legally govern the airport.
Joint Management of the Waste Management Committee.
- Failure to comply with Michigan Law. Michigan also requires an intergovernmental agreement or contract for joint operation and ownership of the Transfer Station. We donâ??t have one. Weâ??ve operated under a 1991 resolution that was adopted by both Townships, but it lacks clarity on the relationship between the Waste Management Committee (WMC) and the Township Boards. The â??fixâ? will require the Boards to reach agreement on a new legal agreement with the help of the Townshipsâ?? lawyer. This work is underway.
- Failure to follow the written agreements we do have. In the case of the WMC (unlike the airport) we have a signed resolution passed in 1991â??but it has not been followed. The WMC membership has not been constituted properly. The spending limitations have been ignored. St. James Township has had three of their Board Members on the Committee for years (constituting a quorum) when only two are allowed. This year they didnâ??t hold even the minimum number of recommended meetings.
- Disrespect for Peaineâ??s equal role. Cooperation and respect are essential to good joint operations, but weâ??ve had little from the WMC. Peaine requests for agenda items are ignored. The Peaine Board officially approved a motion to conduct a study of WMC operations, but the Chair ignored it. In July, the WMC was sent financial information on the prior 15 months and asked to review it and prepare a preliminary budget for 2010. The St. James members of the WMC said they would not participate, but the Peaine members could do it. So they did and had it ready for the next meeting, only to have the chair cancel the meeting without notifying any Peaine members. In response to the financial information request, the Chair wrote that she wouldnâ??t provide it because â??we donâ??t do it that way here.â? Peaine is clearly not an equal partner in this joint operation.
- Failure to develop and use needed operating and reporting policies and practices. The WMC should develop and get Board approvals for its operating policies and practices, but they havenâ??t done so. There are no personnel, purchasing, bidding, record keeping, or reporting policies that I know of. Committee members receive no reports on monthly revenues or expenses or compliance with the budget. The Transfer Stationâ??s fee structure hasnâ??t been reviewed in years. The infamous, expensive â??Chipperâ? was to be evaluated over a year ago based on a unanimous order from both Township Boards. It has been ignored.
#3â??Differences on the need for tough questions and healthy disagreement
Probing questions, disagreement, and argument are important aspects of developing creative solutions to difficult problems. They are valuable toolsâ??and the Townshipsâ?? struggles on how best to organize for more productive work together are actually good struggles. If handled constructively, we can resolve our differences and come out with legal and mutually satisfactory operating agreements. But we must distinguish â??conflictâ? from probing for facts, questioning people about issues, or even differing with them.
Sadly, some people equate questions and disagreement with disapproval and disrespectâ??theyâ??re uncomfortable with dialog that raises contrary views, issues, and questions. This may be true in Wojanâ??s case, for example, when she says, â??all I heard for months at Peaine Township meetings were unsubstantiated charges that a respected group is incompetent and doing harmful things behind closed doors.â? We were in the same meetingsâ??and no one ever made unsubstantiated charges of incompetence or willful harm. That was her discomfort with probing questions, a search for facts and reasons, and the disagreement that occurs in democratic meetings.
More such â??tense discussionsâ? will likely take place in the coming months as the Townships work to reach agreement on budgets for our jointly-funded, jointly-operated units. The Townships have agreed to support these jointly-funded activities on a 50-50 basis, and under current practice the St. James Board sets its millage rates without consulting Peaine. Since Peaine must match 50-50 without consultation or agreement, St. James controls Peaineâ??s tax assessments for the units. This is being changed and the St. James Supervisor has now agreed to exchange budget information by February 15th, 2010â??a step in the right direction. But it wonâ??t end all of our differences.
I ran for office on a platform of open government, public involvement, and fiscal responsibility. I encourage open discussion at all meetings and weâ??ve had, in fact, a number of contentious ones, â??such as the one on All-terrain Vehicles. But weâ??ve maintained a healthy level of disagreement at Peaine meetings. I continue to encourage broad public participation, discussion, and dissent. Important and interesting views have been presentedâ??often dissenting views. The public has included a large group from St. James, including Board members and officers of the Board. They have been very expressive in their comments and questions, but rarely in agreement with my views. I believe, in fact, that theyâ??ve spoken more often and longer than Peaine residents at many of our meetings but theyâ??ve not been stifled, demeaned, or denied the right to speak.
I have not spoken disrespectfully to any participantsâ??nor have I allowed others to do so. I work to be informed about township finances, and its rights and responsibilities under Michigan law. This often requires a search for the facts and pertinent background information. It may make some uncomfortable, but I must perform the fiduciary and legal responsibilities my position requires. Real democracies encourage different views, listen to them, discuss them, examine new data, and reconcile varied perspectives. Our nation was born in conflict and debate over critical issues, and dialog will forever remain a cornerstone of our national, state and local governments. (Just watch the recently acclaimed series on John Adams). Even on little Beaver Island, â??liberty and justice for allâ? must be in our deeds as well as our wordsâ??and it requires comfort with different views, beliefs, questions and perspectives.
Note: This report is posted on the Township Website and any comments or questions can be e-mailed to me at johngallagher@tds.net or mailed to P.O. Box 255, or faxed to 231-448-2692 or call me at 448-2389 or 2441.
