Two life-long Manchester residents explain why they support DeRossett in his candidacy for township supervisor:
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/07/26/opinion/doc50118e71d6b61805206750.txt
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Balancing Act
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
The answer: it doesn't.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Lesson in Futility: The Manchester Joint Planning Commission
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Manchester - Washtenaw County's New Banquet Hall Capital?
They're at it again.
The Manchester Planning Commission has requested a proposal from contracted planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, to change the wording in Manchester Township's A/R zoning ordinance, section 5.03 (Follow this link and go to section 5.03 to read it as it exists today beginning on page 43.), which would expressly allow banquet halls as a conditional use within the zoning ordinance. This move comes on the heels of the Planning Commission's March 1st vote to allow a banquet hall under the undefined use of "country club house" in the ordinance, despite opposition from over 60 residents, as advised by Carlisle/Wortman planning consultant Andrea Bibby. That decision resulted in a large group of residents filing a lawsuit against the planning commission and the township over the mishandling, misconduct, ordinance violations, and Open Meeting Act violations associated with the acceptance and erroneous approval of the conditional use permit application submitted by Dan and Carol Huntsbarger for a banquet hall facility at 13291 Tracey Road. The applicants for the permit have since requested that it be revoked, and stated publicly that they will not be seeking approval to use the property in question as a banquet hall. However, construction and facility improvements continue on the property and appear to be in accordance with the planning commission's latest move. Area residents have speculated that this has been part of the plan for the project since the March 1st meeting, and have long questioned the incentive behind planning commission chairperson, Les Kopka's, motivation to push an approval through despite such strong opposition by township residents.
The new proposal from Carlisle/Wortman offers several options to the planning commission, the first of which would simply change the wording in the A/R zoning ordinance, section 5.03 item H, from "country club house" to "banquet hall". This would allow anyone within the A/R zoning districts to apply for a conditional use permit for banquet hall purposes, opening up everyone in the township owning property in an A/R district the potential to operate, or be forced to live with the operations of, a banquet hall in an area historically used for agricultural and rural purposes. Curiously, this is offered as the first, and presumably, most favored of the options presented by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, who previously dubbed the Huntsbarger project a "country club house", "special event facility", and now, a banquet hall. Other options presented on the list include striking this allowance from the zoning all together, which seems incredibly unlikely given the determination shown by Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, planning commissioner and township board trustee candidate Pete Stumpo, and planning commission chair and township supervisor candidate, Les Kopka, to see that the Huntsbarger project gains approval at any cost. While no dollar amount has been released for the total expenditures by the township for this particular conditional use permit application, approval process, and subsequent proposals and changes from Carlisle/Wortman, it is certain that the township has wasted a significant amount of time, resources, and township tax dollars pursuing the approval and changes required to allow the Huntsbarger's private venture.
It remains unclear why such a project, which will benefit only the applicants, and will severely disturb the quality of life for area residents, is being treated as a priority by our appointed and contracted representatives in the face of strong, consistent opposition by Manchester residents. While the initial protest of 60+ people was comprised primarily of residents in the direct area of impact for the Huntsbarger project, the new proposal affects a much greater number of Manchester residents and is likely to produce a far greater demonstration of disapproval. This is a very odd move by commissioner Stumpo and chairperson Kopka, who are both seeking election in other offices outside of the planning commission.
Below are links to the Planning Commission's March 1st meeting minutes, and the audio from July's planning commission meeting where these changes were discussed - it's a must listen for everyone within the township.
Find the Manchester Township Planning Commission meeting minutes here (NOTE: meeting minute availability is limited due to township personnel constraints)
Listen to the full July 12, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting here - how your planning commission and advisers plan to allow banquet hall facilities in your neighborhood.
Related links:
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/03/02/manchester_enterprise/news/doc4f50fa306e638277268641.txt
http://www.wireenterprise.blogspot.com/2012/03/strange-vote-at-manchester-township.html
Friday, July 20, 2012
Concerned Residents Question Township Supervisor Candidates
Despite the sweltering heat, over 50 Manchester residents attended the Candidate's Forum in Carr Park on Tuesday, July 17. All of the candidates for Manchester Township's elected offices were invited to attend. Those present included Gene DeRossett and Leslie Kopka, both running for township supervisor, and several candidates for township trustee positions: Jim Schiel, John Seefeld, and Pete Stumpo. The current township clerk, Ann Becktel, township treasurer, Judith Huber, and trustee Carl Macomber declined to attend for unspecified reasons. Current trustee, Lyle Widmeyer was unable to attend due to health reasons.
The biggest draw of the evening was the question and answer period for the township supervisor candidates. Mr. Kopka cited his biggest qualifying strength for this position as his experience on Manchester's Planning Commission, a recently tumultuous appointment that has resulted in local residents filing litigation against the township as a direct result of Mr. Kopka's conduct on that commission. In contrast, Gene DeRossett presents his vast history of public service, experience in all three branches of government, and extensive network of contacts from serving in and around the Manchester area as a solid background for taking the township into new and positive directions.
Though none of the specifics regarding the challenges of Mr. Kopka's present term on the planning commission were raised as a part of the forum, Kopka referred to them in several of his responses, highlighting the contentious nature that he has fostered between himself and the public at the monthly Planning Commission meetings.
Q: How would you handle conflict resolution on issues that arise, and minimize personal bias as supervisor?
Kopka: "Well, I'm sure that is referring to the Dan Huntsbarger property project. Uh, that is something that has been ongoing for...since November. Uh, that is...that really does not go through the township...uh, supervisor's office. It's handled by the planning commission, and uh, what we have in our zoning ordinances...some of the ordinances are extremely outdated and need to be updated, and that's something that we've been talking about in the planning commission. Um, the issue is, do you do spot updates, or do a major re-do, re-make of the ordinance, and then are you back to the cost, and it'll take a lot of time to do that, and it'll take a lot of money to do that. And, uh, with as tight as things are, it's a problem. We're basically fixing the leaks as they appear. I mean, that's about all we can do right now."
DeRossett approached the question in a completely different manner, "The question was how do you resolve conflict? I think the most important thing is that you listen, you gather all the information, and then if you are undecided you do nothing and gather additional information, and you make sure that everyone is heard, and all issues are vented, and that you're able to make good, informed decisions. It's about listening, and it's about bringing people together to resolve conflicts that you might have."
This set the tone for the remainder of the event, with Kopka stating numerous times, "It's a problem", but presenting no clear-cut platform for addressing issues which were raised, and DeRossett giving examples of how he plans on approaching the issues, will encourage residents to re-claim an active role in township government, and will use his previous public service experience to benefit the community. For an informal event with a casual debate, one would expect that the candidates would be in tune with the issues that concern residents the most. Kopka left residents wondering exactly which meetings he's been present at, let alone acted as chair on, while DeRossett seemed determined to insure that he understands the concerns and where they stem from.
The biggest draw of the evening was the question and answer period for the township supervisor candidates. Mr. Kopka cited his biggest qualifying strength for this position as his experience on Manchester's Planning Commission, a recently tumultuous appointment that has resulted in local residents filing litigation against the township as a direct result of Mr. Kopka's conduct on that commission. In contrast, Gene DeRossett presents his vast history of public service, experience in all three branches of government, and extensive network of contacts from serving in and around the Manchester area as a solid background for taking the township into new and positive directions.
Though none of the specifics regarding the challenges of Mr. Kopka's present term on the planning commission were raised as a part of the forum, Kopka referred to them in several of his responses, highlighting the contentious nature that he has fostered between himself and the public at the monthly Planning Commission meetings.
Q: How would you handle conflict resolution on issues that arise, and minimize personal bias as supervisor?
Kopka: "Well, I'm sure that is referring to the Dan Huntsbarger property project. Uh, that is something that has been ongoing for...since November. Uh, that is...that really does not go through the township...uh, supervisor's office. It's handled by the planning commission, and uh, what we have in our zoning ordinances...some of the ordinances are extremely outdated and need to be updated, and that's something that we've been talking about in the planning commission. Um, the issue is, do you do spot updates, or do a major re-do, re-make of the ordinance, and then are you back to the cost, and it'll take a lot of time to do that, and it'll take a lot of money to do that. And, uh, with as tight as things are, it's a problem. We're basically fixing the leaks as they appear. I mean, that's about all we can do right now."
DeRossett approached the question in a completely different manner, "The question was how do you resolve conflict? I think the most important thing is that you listen, you gather all the information, and then if you are undecided you do nothing and gather additional information, and you make sure that everyone is heard, and all issues are vented, and that you're able to make good, informed decisions. It's about listening, and it's about bringing people together to resolve conflicts that you might have."
This set the tone for the remainder of the event, with Kopka stating numerous times, "It's a problem", but presenting no clear-cut platform for addressing issues which were raised, and DeRossett giving examples of how he plans on approaching the issues, will encourage residents to re-claim an active role in township government, and will use his previous public service experience to benefit the community. For an informal event with a casual debate, one would expect that the candidates would be in tune with the issues that concern residents the most. Kopka left residents wondering exactly which meetings he's been present at, let alone acted as chair on, while DeRossett seemed determined to insure that he understands the concerns and where they stem from.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Candidates Forum - Mark Your Calendars!
A Candidates Forum that has been scheduled
for Tuesday, July 17th at Carr Park at 7:00 PM. All of the candidates
for our township elected offices have been invited for a meet and greet
and a question and answer session. This is a terrific opportunity to
become acquainted with the individuals who are interested in
representing your interests and the future of our township.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)